Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've answered this several times. That you don't find testimonial evidence and personal experience to be convincing evidence does not mean it isn't evidence. I'm sorry, but I"m not going to answer this question from you again.

You can discuss how it isn't convincing evidence all you want. It's still evidence. When you make the claim that the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for Santa Claus and the IPU, it isn't a convincing argument because it isn't true.

While this post was in answer to Lonewulf, I have an important comment.

You are correct that what you are describing is evidence. Anything by which we use to determine the 'truth' (or what we believe to be the truth) is evidence, some types more reliable than others.

In using those rules of evidence simply believing something through an inexplicable means is not evidence. If that 'testimonial evidence, personal experience' describes something the person observed, we call that anecdotal evidence. And despite the fact some skeptics are not clear, anecdotal evidence is valid. It may not be as reliable as other evidence but it is valid.

But what isn't evidence is the conclusion part of the anecdote. And that is where you are mistaking what is and what isn't evidence.

That the person experiences something is evidence. That the person believes the experience is evidence of God is not evidence.

And I see Dancing Dave made the same observation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you know similar numbers of people who will provide similar testimony that they "feel" the presence of Santa? If so, then the evidence for the two is equal. Otherwise, you have testimonial evidence for God, which you can choose to reject as insufficient (that's fine) but no similar testimonial evidence for Santa. Other people can choose to reject the notion that Santa exists but not the notion that God exists based on the fact that the evidence for the two is not the same.

When a skeptic claims that the evidence for the IPU or Santa is equal to the evidence for god, they are making a false claim and the argument is quite rightly rejected by those who believe in god.

It is hard to see the difference in the experience and the conclusion, but it is a very important difference.

The only reason those people you speak of interpret their "feeling" as evidence of god is because of their religious beliefs. If they had no religious beliefs, would such an experience be interpreted the same way? No. Their conclusion is strictly the result of pre-conditioning. It is not the result of some innate sensory mechanism.

If you didn't know what a tree was that you observed, you could still describe what you saw to some extent and a listener could say, that sounds like a tree. If you didn't know what this supposed feeling of god was, you could not describe it in any way that another person would say, "that's a god perception".

 

[CFLarsen]

You aren't acquainted with any sane adults who will give personal testimony to the existance of any god?

Why would that be of more value than personal testimony to the existence of Santa?

Well, you are looking at similiar evidence for Santa and god then. I'm not.

Why not?

 

[hammegk]

It is hard to see the difference in the experience and the conclusion, but it is a very important difference.

The only reason those people you speak of interpret their "feeling" as evidence of god is because of their religious beliefs. If they had no religious beliefs, would such an experience be interpreted the same way? No. Their conclusion is strictly the result of pre-conditioning. It is not the result of some innate sensory mechanism.

True, sfaik, yet, all cultures I've heard of settled on "their-god-concept" word as the best way to express some experiences. Many people, including me, have had some type of experience that best fits under the term "god" or "spiritual".

IMO organized religions attempt to add dogma to the experience, omnipotence, what have you, that my experience at least failed to justify for me.

If you didn't know what a tree was that you observed, you could still describe what you saw to some extent and a listener could say, that sounds like a tree. If you didn't know what this supposed feeling of god was, you could not describe it in any way that another person would say, "that's a god perception".

Yet the word itself is provided and I suspect to the great majority of humans.

Santas, IPUs. and FSMs lack, sfaik, similar individual experiences.

 

[schlitt]

Again, that would depend highly on what timeframe you had your eye on. If you look at today, you might find that the Moonlight Sonata will register high on that scale. On the other hand, very few people today would swoon hearing a recercar by Spinacino.

You can also evoke emotion in many ways: It can be the tune, or it can be the mood of the music. A Gregorian chant isn't much of a tune, but it can certainly create a mood.

Yes, so as i said, it all comes down to the parameters which define "best".

Since you clearly don't understand how evidence is pivotal in skepticism, I strongly suggest that you pick up some books on skepticism. Start with these three:

Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World

Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things

James Randi: Flim Flam!

This comment is so condascending and ironic i had to do a double take to see that you had in fact written what i thought you had.

I am simply stating "A skeptic will not believe something if there is no evidence for it", you have been disagreeing with me this entire time, and now you write this... I am amazed.

I will not be continuing any further discussion with you.

Good day.

 

[CFLarsen]

Santas, IPUs. and FSMs lack, sfaik, similar individual experiences.

It would be impossible to count all the sightings of Santa. The IPU and the FSM only manifestated themselves a short while back, so it is unfair to compare the number of sightings of those to sightings of myths that are thousands of years old.

If the higher number of reports indicates a higher probability of existence, do you similarly believe that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, so as i said, it all comes down to the parameters which define "best".

That is a personal judgment - not evidence.

This comment is so condascending and ironic i had to do a double take to see that you had in fact written what i thought you had.

I am simply stating "A skeptic will not believe something if there is no evidence for it", you have been disagreeing with me this entire time, and now you write this... I am amazed.

I will not be continuing any further discussion with you.

Good day.

Do yourself a favor and read those books.

 

[Beth]

While this post was in answer to Lonewulf, I have an important comment.

You are correct that what you are describing is evidence. Anything by which we use to determine the 'truth' (or what we believe to be the truth) is evidence, some types more reliable than others.

Thank you for that gracious acknowledgement of my main point.

In using those rules of evidence simply believing something through an inexplicable means is not evidence. If that 'testimonial evidence, personal experience' describes something the person observed, we call that anecdotal evidence. And despite the fact some skeptics are not clear, anecdotal evidence is valid. It may not be as reliable as other evidence but it is valid.

But what isn't evidence is the conclusion part of the anecdote. And that is where you are mistaking what is and what isn't evidence.

That the person experiences something is evidence. That the person believes the experience is evidence of God is not evidence.

Skeptigirl, if someone says the observed that the sky was blue today, are they likewise conflating the experience (perceiving the color of the sky) and the conclusion (assigning a label to that color)?

The probabilty of being mistaken in the conclusions one draws from perceptions varies tremendously. This leads to different judgements regarding the reliability of the conclusion. I think that's what you are getting at and if so, we are not in disagreement on that point. If someone tells me the sky is blue, I'll likely accept that. If they say it's green, I won't. I'll go look for myself. When testimonial evidence is presented, it is up to each of us to decide how much credibility we want to grant the speaker regarding a) the accuracy of their perception and b) the probability their conclusion is correct.

It is hard to see the difference in the experience and the conclusion, but it is a very important difference.

The only reason those people you speak of interpret their "feeling" as evidence of god is because of their religious beliefs. If they had no religious beliefs, would such an experience be interpreted the same way? No. Their conclusion is strictly the result of pre-conditioning. It is not the result of some innate sensory mechanism.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Do you have any evidence that such interpretations are the result of pre-conditioning? Athiests and agnostics have had such experiencess and attribute them to god, which provides a counter-example to your claim. If you insist that everyone has been pre-conditioned as a result of having been raised in a culture that includes belief in god, then it isn't a falsifiable hypothesis.

If you didn't know what a tree was that you observed, you could still describe what you saw to some extent and a listener could say, that sounds like a tree. If you didn't know what this supposed feeling of god was, you could not describe it in any way that another person would say, "that's a god perception".

I don't agree that if you didn't know what you observed, that if it was a tree you'd be able to describe it so that a listener could identify it but if it's a feeling of the presence of god that you could not. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

One of the reasons that I tend to take such anecdotal evidence more seriously than most posters here is what I perceive to be a consistency of descriptions of such experiences across different cultures and religions. Now, I don't claim that is proof of the existance of god, but it does make it harder for me to dismiss all such reports of those experiences as being mistaken conclusions when so many different people arrive at the same conclusions regarding the cause despite having different religious backgrounds.

 

[-Fran-]

It would be impossible to count all the sightings of Santa.

Indeed it would.

In Sweden the mythical character who gives kids the presents on Christmas is called Tomten. He is, since a while back, mixed up with the American Santa, but he is not based on a legend of a saint but are based on a sort of leprechaun type of being, protecting the farms in older times. There are many people who claim to have seen him. My foster brother's wife for example swears on her life she has seen him several times, and she's not a stupid or ignorant woman. She works in a lab with medical research. So if you go to Sweden and ask for personal experiences regarding "Santa", chances are you will get a few, from sane people.

 

[Beth]

Why would that be of more value than personal testimony to the existence of Santa?

It isn't.

Why not?

Because I don't know any adults (sane or not) who are willing to give personal testimony claiming they have experienced being in the presence of the true Santa Claus. Thus I have evidence in the form of personal testimony from people I know and respect for the existance of god, but not for Santa.

 

[Beth]

Indeed it would.

In Sweden the mythical character who gives kids the presents on Christmas is called Tomten. He is, since a while back, mixed up with the American Santa, but he is not based on a legend of a saint but are based on a sort of leprechaun type of being, protecting the farms in older times. There are many people who claim to have seen him. My foster brother's wife for example swears on her life she has seen him several times, and she's not a stupid or ignorant woman. She works in a lab with medical research. So if you go to Sweden and ask for personal experiences regarding "Santa", chances are you will get a few, from sane people.

Well then, Tomten scores a few evidence points doesn't he.

 

[hammegk]

It would be impossible to count all the sightings of Santa. The IPU and the FSM only manifestated themselves a short while back, so it is unfair to compare the number of sightings of those to sightings of myths that are thousands of years old.

Someone, maybe you, should become a televangelist basing your dogma and requests for funds on one or more of them, then.

Aren't you surprised no one has yet done so? The business by most appearances is lucrative.

If the higher number of reports indicates a higher probability of existence, do you similarly believe that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens?

I state I haven't been. As to others who claim to have been, unknown.

What is the basis for your claim of Millions?

 

[-Fran-]

Well then, Tomten scores a few evidence points doesn't he.

So Leprechauns = God

But not

Santa = God?

 

[CFLarsen]

It isn't. Because I don't know any adults (sane or not) who are willing to give personal testimony claiming they have experienced being in the presence of the true Santa Claus. Thus I have evidence in the form of personal testimony from people I know and respect for the existance of god, but not for Santa.

Why adults?

A lot of Christians believe a lot of accounts from children. E.g., Our Lady of Fatima.

Do you dismiss this account because they were children?

 

[Beth]

So Leprechauns = God

But not

Santa = God?

Huh????? Where did leprechauns come from?

 

[-Fran-]

Why adults?

A lot of Christians believe a lot of accounts from children. E.g., Our Lady of Fatima.

Do you dismiss this account because they were children?

Good point! In history, as well as in modern times, there are countless situations described where children's stories have been taken very seriously. People have lost their lives over childrens' stories... All the children today who have experiences with what they believe is a real Santa, should therefore be taken into consideration here, I guess.

 

[CFLarsen]

Huh????? Where did leprechauns come from?

Did they come from difference places than God?

 

[-Fran-]

Huh????? Where did leprechauns come from?

Sorry, it was me above saying that our "Santa" was based on a Leprechaun type of being.

I am trying to understand here, which mythical figures are to be placed in the same category as god, that is to say possibly more believable than others, and which are not to. It seems to me to be a rather arbitrary selection method to use people's (sufficiently sane people) personal experiences. I guess which ever mythical figure you chose, you can find a few people, who are in fact not mentally ill, who believe in them. The god believers are just in the majority, but some group has to be.

 

[Beth]

Why adults?

A lot of Christians believe a lot of accounts from children. E.g., Our Lady of Fatima.

Do you dismiss this account because they were children?

I place considerably less weight on children's accounts of their experiences and the conclusions they draw regarding their experiences. Do you dismiss this account because they were children?

 

[Beth]

Sorry, it was me above saying that our "Santa" was based on a Leprechaun type of being.

I am trying to understand here, which mythical figures are to be placed in the same chategory as god, that is to say possibly more believable than others, and which are not to. It seems to me to be a rather arbitrary selection method to use people's (sufficiently sane people) personal experiences. I guess which ever mythical figure you chose, you can find a few people, who are in fact not mentally ill, who believe in them. The god believers are just in the majority, but some group has to be.

I haven't been discussing 'believable' but rather, how reasonable is it for someone to hold a belief. It's far more reasonable for your brother's wife to believe in Tomten, because she feels she has had a direct experience with him, than it would be for me since I never heard of him prior to your post. It's more reasonable for me to consider that God may exist because I know many people who claim direct personal experience with god than it is for me to consider that Santa may exist because I don't know any adults willing to provide such testimonial evidence of his existance.