Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Lonewulf]

I'd say that, if you go with MOST religious claims, the evidence is that their claims don't work. For instance...

Let's say someone makes this claim:

I can predict the future. There's no evidence as to whether they can or they can't, so you can't question that, right? Except that you can. Your evidence? They never successfully predict the future.

Okay, let's take religious claims. Let's take Christianity. If there is no evidence that Jesus existed, there's a HUGE Christian claim right there right out the window. Catholicism... all you'd have to do is show that certain people that are supposed to be "divinely inspired" continually make the same mistakes again and again, that further goes against the religious doctrine they are alleged to hold. You'd also have to demonstrate that alleged "miracles" are not miracles at all -- which is not that hard to do.

In short, the evidence is that these Gods are said to have certain abilities and certain desires, but do not act on them. Which means one of two things: Change the doctrine to allow for this, or withdraw the claim as to God. But neither is done, and it's respected as (blind) "faith".

 

[-Fran-]

People change their beliefs all the time.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing

You believe in something because you don't have any real facts for your conclusion, hence you need faith to believe in it at all. In any such given thing you can either believe in it, or not believe in it. If your belief then change, then it must be non-belief that it changes into, as in you no longer believe in it.

So changing a belief would then mean that you stop believing in one thing and start to believe something completely else?

 

[Bri]

For starters you could read what has already been posted. Because I most certainly have addressed the last statement consistently throughout this thread.

If you've proposed a scientific test of the existence of God, then I must have missed it.

Following the evidence, the best explanation for gods is that such beliefs were made up by people. There is no evidence suggesting god beliefs are the result of actual gods.

I agree that it is certainly possible that no god exists and that the concept was entirely made up by people. Of course, there is no actual evidence that that is actually the case for all gods. My question is what scientific test did you use to determine that it is more likely that there are no gods rather than that there is at least one god?

In purely scientific terms you can describe a god which is not testable. That would be a god who either covered its tracks or never interacted with the Universe once setting things in motion.

Such a defined god is not the god of any religion except perhaps those wishing to keep their god beliefs despite overwhelming evidence such beliefs are myths. Rather than evaluate the actual evidence, some people conveniently changed the definition of god.

Actually, the former describes the gods of nearly all modern religions. I wouldn't have any idea of the reasons that all believers have for holding such a belief, but "wishing to keep their god beliefs despite overwhelming evidence such beliefs are myths" is probably not particularly prevalent. Particularly since I doubt that you can find overwhelming evidence that such beliefs are all myths.

Your naive denial that the best one can say is we don't know might suit your dogmatic beliefs. It doesn't however, fit with what the evidence is.

You are apparently privy to some overwhelming evidence that I'm not aware of.

Science has a lot to say about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. If you don't know that you need to read a bit more current astronomy.

I think you overestimate what science has to say about it. Specifically, the probability is somewhere between 0% and 100% depending on which scientist you ask. That's because beliefs concerning the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are opinion rather than fact given that there is no evidence whatsoever that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere.

Determining whether GWB is a terrible president using science, all you need to do is decide which criteria you wish to use to measure good and bad by.

But of course the criteria you use and the values assigned is entirely subjective.

Science can't choose the values but science can investigate the process of how cultures and/or individuals determine their values. Science cannot determine inherent good and evil, but given the same criteria the individual or group determines it by, science can measure what needs to be measured using those criteria. An individual does the very same thing when one makes a value judgment. One has criteria by which one measures even if one doesn't verbalize those criteria as the determination is made.

So which opinion must a skeptic have of GWB based on the scientific evidence? Choose any criteria you wish.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Bri... I don't care about your beliefs... but I've made assumptions about them, because I hear the same sort of illogic all the time. You aren't saying anything. You are inferring that it's perfectly skeptical to believe in a god--but most skeptics do not agree-- they find it a faith based belief about an entity which is either a fact or is not. When it comes to the facts the facts indicate that god is as imaginary as Pele, Zeus, demons, Xenu, etc.-- The facts do not lead most skeptics to conclude that any one who believes in any god does so for logical reasons. Most skeptics conclude that a skeptic who believes in god is shielding that belief from skeptical scrutiny. Your argument could be used to support the notion that my students are possessed by demons as evidenced above. I'm sorry, but any definition of skepticism that allows the above to be acceptable is not a definition I find useful or that I align myself with. Skeptics do not have to be atheists.. but most are... and most reason much better than you do. At least that's my experience.

 

[Bri]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing

Apparently so.

You believe in something because you don't have any real facts for your conclusion, hence you need faith to believe in it at all.

You're confusing the word "belief" with the word "opinion" perhaps. An opinion is a type of belief (specifically, one which is not based on conclusive evidence). One definition of "belief" given by Webster is "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."

In any such given thing you can either believe in it, or not believe in it. If your belief then change, then it must be non-belief that it changes into, as in you no longer believe in it.

There are actually three positions one can take: belief for something, belief against it, or non-belief (i.e. no belief for or against it).

So changing a belief would then mean that you stop believing in one thing and start to believe something completely else?

Sure. It would mean that you give up one position for another. If I believe that George Bush is a good president, you may convince me that George Bush is not a good president. If you believe that a skeptic cannot be a theist by definition, I might convince you that a theist cannot be excluded from being a skeptic by any valid definition for "skeptic" that doesn't also exclude at least some belief that you probably feel a skeptic can hold.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Bri-- you are are asking loaded questions designed to infer your own position and self importance-- they are not designed to be answered or for you to understand why most skeptics find your reasoning fallacious and a twisted attempt at making belief in god "rational". You ignore all evidence that shows you why this isn't so and pretend nobody ever gave you the evidence while asking for ridiculous evidence that cannot be provided. You are pretending that failure to disprove god is an argument for the existence of god... you are pretending that an opinion about george bush is on par with a belief in god... you are all over the place, dishonest, and fail to make any points while coming across as pedantic. Clearly you have a belief you are trying desperately to prop up. Great. Knock yourself out. But don't think anyone else doesn't see right through your namby pamby semantics and logical fallacies and goal post moving and insincere questions. It's what all the woo do. Your goal isn't to understand anything-- it's to prove a point-- to prove to yourself that it's perfectly logical and skeptical to believe in a god. Most of us don't agree. Most of us think you are spinning the way all woo does to prop up their beliefs and inferring negative things by those who try to show you what you are doing.

 

[articulett]

Bri, do you think it's skeptical to have no opinion about whether invisible forms of consciousness (entities without bodies) exist??

Does any other skeptic agree with this? Now Gayak's parody becomes even funnier.

 

[articulett]

[FONT=ARIAL,HELVETICA]"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

God exists in some form and some people are getting actual evidence of that god-- or all gods are inventions of humans just like Zeus.

Occams razor says the latter is more likely. Skeptics are big fans of Occam. Not big fans of those who promote faith based notions---like religious leaders and those who claim to speak or know of gods.
[/FONT]

 

[articulett]

A believer in invisible forms of consciousness is not employing skepticism in regards to that belief according to the definition of skepticism the majority seem to hold.

 

[Bri]

You are inferring that it's perfectly skeptical to believe in a god--but most skeptics do not agree-- they find it a faith based belief about an entity which is either a fact or is not.

Sounds like an appeal to authority to me. Oddly, that's the same fallacy that some theists use as "evidence" that God exists.

Your argument could be used to support the notion that my students are possessed by demons as evidenced above.

That is quite absurd. My argument cannot be used to support such a notion, nor can it be used to support the notion that God exists. In fact, my argument has little if anything to do with the question of whether gods or demons exist.

I'm sorry, but any definition of skepticism that allows the above to be acceptable is not a definition I find useful or that I align myself with. Skeptics do not have to be atheists.. but most are... and most reason much better than you do. At least that's my experience.

So you're saying that skeptics don't have to be atheists, but any definition of skepticism that allows theism is unacceptable?

Since most skeptics reason much better than I do, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic?

-Bri

 

[fishkr]

To put it another way, a Skeptic would find it silly to believe the least likely explaination for a given phenomenon.

There is also ample evidence that the need for faith is an important component of irrational human systems. This fact alone is another really big reason to be skeptical of faith.

 

[articulett]

Sounds like an appeal to authority to me. Oddly, that's the same fallacy that some theists use as "evidence" that God exists.

No goofy-- it's in response to your supposed query... your question has been answered repeatedly... you just are only able to hear what you want while inferring snideness like the above. You are supposedly interested in what skepticism is and whether theists can be skeptics. Everyone has pretty much said that anyone can call themselves a skeptic just like anyone can call themselves a Christian-- and anyone can also say that another person is not a skeptic or is a woo. These are opinion words... they are labels people give themselves and others. It's not evidence... it's an explanation... Your query is about an opinion-- you keep confusing them with facts.

That is quite absurd. My argument cannot be used to support such a notion, nor can it be used to support the notion that God exists. In fact, my argument has little if anything to do with the question of whether gods or demons exist.

If your definition of a skeptic or skepticism includes faith or a belief in god then who can't claim they are a skeptic or what can't be claimed as a skeptic belief. I could certainly say that I am using the same definition of skepticism that Bri uses to conclude that theism is a "skeptical" belief or a belief that one can derive via the skeptical method. Per your vague definition people who believe that others are possessed with demons can be skeptics. That's a pretty useless definition from where I stand.

This is not how most skeptics see the method-- because occams razor excludes the supernatural as an explanation for anything... occams razor does not posit the existence of invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness. Most gods fit that category... so most skeptics... and those using skepticism as a method for reaching conclusions--conclude that all god beliefs are based in human imagination--human culture... they are human inventions-- they do not exist outside of the human mind. That IS the most logical explanation for demons and gods. That is why most skeptics eventually become atheists. They are not interested in the things you need to believe in to be true-- they are interested in how people fool themselves and the truth that is the same for everybody. This happens to lead the majority (from what I can tell by this thread and known noted skeptics) to conclude that god beliefs are irrational--they are human inventions--not based on anything physical or real or measurable or useful or knowable... That's the only conclusion warranted by the evidence. Should there ever be evidence that consciousness can exist absent a human brain, then most skeptics would reconsider. Science is great a figuring at understanding reality. But imaginary things generate no understanding... just semantics and snideness like yours... a sense of self importance without saying anything.

So you're saying that skeptics don't have to be atheists, but any definition of skepticism that allows theism is unacceptable?

No. As many have explained-- most skeptics do not believe that skepticism is a method that leads to god belief. Clearly, those people who call themselves skeptics, but believe in some sort of god-- put their god out of their realm of skeptical inquiry. Occams razor shows us that supernatural explanations have never been the correct conclusion in all our years of testing such things... and yet it's a conclusion humans readily believe in. We know that many invisible forms of consciousness are invented by humans. There is no logical reason to presume than any such beliefs are based on anything more than that-- there is no logical reason to assume that gods or an invisible entities can exist absent a living brain--

Since most skeptics reason much better than I do, do you consider yourself to be a skeptic?

-Bri

Yes indeed. And I consider most of the responses on this thread very good and I am amazed at what you ignore. To me it's obvious that you pretend to want to understand something... but you don't... you want to convince yourself and others that it's perfectly logical and skeptical to believe in a god. Most skeptics don't seem to agree... most skeptics use occams razor and determine that god is a common way people fool themselves. We even know why and how such beliefs spawn... and feed upon themselves... we can generate them in the brain... but they will always be based on what stories your culture teaches about faith and the supposed invisible entities that interact with the world.

I think you aren't saying anything at all. I think it's obvious that you are offended that skeptics would find belief in a god to be illogical or not a conclusion that one using the skeptical method would come to.
You want skeptics to tell you that it's perfectly logical to believe in god.

I think a very logical skeptical conclusion is that there are no such things as invisible forms of consciousness--no gods, souls, demons, fairies, angels, ghosts, sprites, or anything else. I think it's a very sound conclusion to treat all of these entities as products of the human imagination equal to Zeus and Xenu... until or unless there's actual evidence to show otherwise. I don't think it's skeptical to sit on the fence in regards to such things because, despite eons of belief-- there's not an iota of evidence in support of such beliefs and tons of evidence showing why people believe things that are clearly wrong. ... we even know a lot about why and how and how to manipulate such beliefs and how to stimulate the brain to affect such beliefs. They are all culturally dependent... they are all used to explain that which is hard to understand. That's why skeptics tend to use occam's razor-- and that cuts all gods, demons, and similar immeasurable entities out of the picture as an explanation for anything.

There are definitely scientists who believe in god. They do not use the scientific method to support their belief in god. Belief in god or explanations involving anything supernatural are not a part of science. For this reason, fewer scientists believe in god than in the general population. The same is true of skeptics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, let me say, I shouldn't bother with this. You bring up not one single thing not already addressed in this thread. And your attitude that we haven't addressed your points is rather rude. But because I would prefer any other lurkers late to the thread not be left with the false impression we haven't addressed your misguided concerns, I will address them.

If you've proposed a scientific test of the existence of God, then I must have missed it.

You ignored my post. This is a straw man argument. But since you won't name a god, allow me.

Studies show prayer doesn't do anything other than perhaps have some placebo effect.
Evidence doesn't support Bible Creation stories, there was no worldwide flood, and the Earth is not 6,000 years old. The Bible gets the Moon wrong, evolution wrong, the germ theory wrong, the existence of 90% of the world's populations wrong and that's only in the first couple chapters.

I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that Coyote didn't steal fire from heaven, Pele isn't the reason for the Hawaiian Island formation, and it isn't turtles all the way down. The evidence is overwhelming Zeus and Thor are not in charge of lightning bolts. There's no evidence hurricanes hit gay populations any more frequently than would be expected by random chance. One could go on with this silliness on countless page after page.

Skeptigirl:
Following the evidence, the best explanation for gods is that such beliefs were made up by people. There is no evidence suggesting god beliefs are the result of actual gods.

I agree that it is certainly possible that no god exists and that the concept was entirely made up by people. Of course, there is no actual evidence that that is actually the case for all gods. My question is what scientific test did you use to determine that it is more likely that there are no gods rather than that there is at least one god?

Once it's clear all the god beliefs you examine are made up beliefs, how many more do you need before you say the evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs are figments of human imagination? The only god you can claim cannot be disproved is one that does nothing. If you claim a god does something, that something can be tested. If you have one of those tests that will show a god is actually doing what people believe gods do, then I suggest you go for Randi's million dollar challenge.

Skeptigirl:
In purely scientific terms you can describe a god which is not testable. That would be a god who either covered its tracks or never interacted with the Universe once setting things in motion.

Such a defined god is not the god of any religion except perhaps those wishing to keep their god beliefs despite overwhelming evidence such beliefs are myths. Rather than evaluate the actual evidence, some people conveniently changed the definition of god.

Actually, the former describes the gods of nearly all modern religions. I wouldn't have any idea of the reasons that all believers have for holding such a belief, but "wishing to keep their god beliefs despite overwhelming evidence such beliefs are myths" is probably not particularly prevalent. Particularly since I doubt that you can find overwhelming evidence that such beliefs are all myths.

I told you, name one that you think isn't a myth. Put up or shut up. All modern religions? What planet are you on?

Hindu god statues are supposed to drink milk. Think that cannot be disproved? The Biblical god is supposed to answer prayers. It doesn't happen. The creation stories are myths. Just which religion are you referring to that makes no claims of the supposed actions of their gods?

Skeptigirl:
Your naive denial that the best one can say is we don't know might suit your dogmatic beliefs. It doesn't however, fit with what the evidence is.

You are apparently privy to some overwhelming evidence that I'm not aware of.

Well if you know nothing about history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, biology, and physics, then I guess that would be where the missing evidence is you are not privy to.

Skeptigirl:
Science has a lot to say about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. If you don't know that you need to read a bit more current astronomy.

I think you overestimate what science has to say about it. Specifically, the probability is somewhere between 0% and 100% depending on which scientist you ask. That's because beliefs concerning the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are opinion rather than fact given that there is no evidence whatsoever that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere.

You must have missed what I said. The fact we are here is irrefutable evidence intelligent life exists in the Universe. There is no evidence suggesting the Earth is unique in all the Universe. There is evidence once life takes hold, it rapidly evolves. Enough time has occurred for life to evolve on other planets.

That's a wee bit more evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe than the evidence against it. I can't help it if you don't recognize life on Earth as evidence of life in the Universe. But I suggest you look to more modern thinking. We evolved, there is no reason to think we are 'special' and there is no reason to think the Earth is 'special'.

Skeptigirl:
Determining whether GWB is a terrible president using science, all you need to do is decide which criteria you wish to use to measure good and bad by.

But of course the criteria you use and the values assigned is entirely subjective.

Last I checked, subjective evidence was not excluded from the scientific process. But even if it were, you missed my point entirely and I'm not sure repeating it will make a bit of difference. Re-read my comments on this matter. They were sufficient to explain what I meant.

Skeptigirl:
Science can't choose the values but science can investigate the process of how cultures and/or individuals determine their values. Science cannot determine inherent good and evil, but given the same criteria the individual or group determines it by, science can measure what needs to be measured using those criteria. An individual does the very same thing when one makes a value judgment. One has criteria by which one measures even if one doesn't verbalize those criteria as the determination is made.

So which opinion must a skeptic have of GWB based on the scientific evidence? Choose any criteria you wish.

-Bri

More straw. Try actually carrying on a discussion with people instead of one with yourself.

You have completely ignored the whole discussion here. If you have something to say about why we should define gods as outside of the natural world when the entire history of belief in gods has been that of people believing gods which affect their lives in good and bad ways, then by all means join the discussion. All you've done is brought up the old tired claims that gods are outside of the realm of science. The only gods outside of the realm of science are the ones scientists defined as untestable. No religion in history ever defined their god as having initiated the Big Bang then sat back to watch it unfold. That definition only came about when humans who couldn't let go of god beliefs started to adopt the skeptical/scientific philosophy about understanding the Universe. How about you address why it was necessary and why it is justifiable that scientists defined gods differently than historical definitions?

 

[Mobyseven]

With the exception of witches (which was not on your original list and which do exist, whether or not they have any supernatural powers is another issue), those are not widely held beliefs in the present day.

Semantic games are cute when a three year old plays them, not so much when you're talking to an adult.

When I mentioned witches, and especially given the context of this discussion, which of the following did you think I was talking about?

• Wiccans
• Lefteye Flounder
• Megrim
• Torbay Sole
• An American doom metal band

Or do you think it's more likely that I was pointing out that many sane people believe that there are people who practise witchcraft? Note - I mean the supernatural witchcraft, and not the Swedish band.

So, Beth, is it reasonable to believe in witches?

Also, since when does a belief have to be held in the present day for it to be considered and evaluated? Is the twenty-first century a prerequisite for sanity?

And who says that people don't believe in vampires in the present day?

...residents have been taking the law into their own hands, killing one man thought to be a human vampire and badly injuring three others.

What about other 'vampiric' creatures? Is it reasonable to believe in the Chupacabra?

This part of the list was for things that make specific claims which can be, and have been, tested. Does it prove definitely for all time and in all places that such things are not real? No. But we do have objective evidence that they don't work when tested. You can, by the way, support the non-existance of certain specific gods with similar evidence. But we have been discussing skeptics who believe in gods that are untestable. So I think it is reasonable to separate out these types of claims.

And so we end up at the old fallback - sure, you can say that some things don't exist. But so long as the belief is untestable, well, you have no way of knowing for sure, do you? Well, no, I can't know for sure, no more than I can know anything for sure. But if there is no way to know, how does one arrive at the belief in the first place? And more importantly - what does untestable actually mean? Specifically, what does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?

I know the answer to this one, and I bet a number of other people here do too, but I want you to be the one to say this because it's important. To repeat: What does an untestable claim tell us about a world in which the claim is true, and a world in which the claim is false?

Oh dear. My apologies. I was thought that because you were addressing my posts, you were talking to me. Personally, I think anyone who writes for lurkers is delusional. What objective proof do you have for their existance? Isn't your position that the skeptic must take as the null hypothesis the non-existance of entities that are not perceivable to us in any fashion? Sure, lurkers might exist, but why believe in something who's existance makes no noticable difference whether it exists or not?

orly?

Online Users: 371
101 members and 270 guests

pwnd

This doesn't indicate that testimonial evidence is never better than a blind guess, though it's a long article and I did not read it thoroughly. Certainly, there are situations where it is no better, but I don't think nor does your link prove that testimonial evidence is never better than blind chance.

That's not what that evidence was for though - that evidence was in regards to the unreliability of witness testimony. Not only that, but I didn't say that it was never better than blind chance - that is only applicable when we are discussing the existence of an object.

Ah, so we agree that testimonial evidence can be better than blind chance in some situations?

Yes - and your posts are going to be twice as long if you repeat everything I write. To state this again so that there's no confusion as to what we are agreeing on: Anecdotal evidence is better than chance if we are discussing the properties of a known object. It is not better than chance if we are discussing the existence of an object. Regardless of whether or not it is better than chance when we are discussing the properties of an object, anecdotal evidence is still incredibly unreliable, to the point of being useless in most situations. The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality.

This should hardly need to be said, but when we are discussing the existence of god, we are discussing the existence of an object, and anecdotal evidence is entirely useless in drawing a conclusion.

Now you are making a subjective assessment of the value of anecdotal evidence in discussing the perception of the existance of non-material things. Certainly, you have a valid point. My point is that since your assessment is subjective it's reasonable to expect that other people will assess such evidence differently and come to different conclusions.

Except it's not a subjective assessment. Anecdotal evidence is known to be unreliable - this has been demonstrated time and time again, and modern science has evolved a system for screening out subjective assessments precisely because of this. If you want to claim that a class of objects is for some reason exempt from this anecdotal unreliability, it is up to you to provide justification for the exemption. Otherwise you're just engaging in the same run-of-the-mill special pleading as homeopaths and other quack practitioners.

This is what I mean by arrogance. I'm not saying your assessment is wrong, only that it is subjective and other people can hold different opinions about it.

Except I'm not making a subjective assessment. The reliability of anecdotal evidence has been objectively shown to be unreliable. This isn't about my feelings, it's about the evidence - if you're going to dispute the evidence, you're going to have to justify your opinion.

Oh, they are data. They aren't very good data for analysis purposes and they certainly aren't proof. I agree that anecdotes are weak evidence. But even such weak evidence for those things is still better that the evidence for the IPU.

Anecdotes are data? How exactly does one measure or observe an anecdote?

It may be that you don't know what data means in a scientific context, and so are equivocating with the 'data' used in general language, which is considered a synonym for 'information'. To see what is considered a broad definition of data, take a look at page eight of this report:

“Using data in the classroom is any learning process that uses observations defined in the most general sense as a fundamental component to the learning enterprise in a way that a) supports student inquiry and participation in the scientific method, b) supports effective evaluation of data uncertainties and applicability, and c) improves students’ quantitative and critical thinking skills.
The observations involved could be raw or derivative data streams that have been collected by students or professionals or simulated data derived from models.”

Remember that this is a broad definition of data that aims to include what would be considered data in many different fields of science - from astronomy to zoology and all that lies between - and even with a broad definition anecdotes still do not classify as data.

I don't agree that a skeptic is required use non-existance as the null hypothesis. I think all a skeptic is required to do is acknowledge that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, that does not imply that it is true.

If you set the null hypothesis to be that no gods exist and you fail to reject the null, that does not imply that no gods exist. If you set the null hypothesis to be that god exists and fail to reject it, that doesn't imply god exists.

I disagree - a skeptic should apply Occam's razor. Given that interventionist gods can be tested for (and have failed miserably when tests have been run), that leaves us with an untestable, unfalsifiable god who does nothing and resides nowhere in the universe. Application of Occam's razor tells us that non-belief in god (not multiplying entities beyond necessity) is the preferred hypothesis.

Allowing the belief of entities or phenomenon to be called reasonable only on the basis that they have no explanatory power (and therefore cannot be tested for) is ludicrous and unparsimonious - it means that we may safely believe in unicorn riding goblins, so long as we posit that they are invisible, that they live in a biosphere on Jupiter hidden from our view, or some other rationalisation that places them outside of the possibility of scientific testing (at least for our current ability to test).

That isn't arrogance. It's the claim that your position is the only reasonable one that is arrogant. See above.

It is the only reasonable one for a skeptic to hold because it is the only position that can be reached through proper application of skepticism. That's not arrogance, that's fact, and you have yet to show otherwise - your entire argument up to this point stands as a shining example of why this is so, unless you redefine skepticism so that anecdotes, special pleading and appeals to authority are considered good arguments and evidence.

I'm not suggesting that one should take the middle ground, I'm only suggesting that it exists.

Well, in that case I don't really care. Proving that a human opinion exists is as easy as holding that opinion, or providing someone who does. If that is really all you've been arguing, then you haven't been doing a very good job at it, because most of your arguments are irrelevant. They are, however, quite relevant if you are arguing for that one should hold either the middle ground or the theistic position - which makes me suspect that perhaps this new argument is a fallback position in the absence of a counter-argument.

Also, if that isn't your position, what position are you arguing for?

Really? That's interesting, because I think that a fairly accurate description of your reaction to my examples of the usefulness of anecdotal data.

Oh really? Mind giving us the link to these 'examples of the usefulness of anecdotal data'? I'm assuming of course that your examples discuss all the discoveries that have been made through evaluation and analysis of anecdotal evidence? And that they address the issues raised about the unreliability of witness testimony addressed in the studies I linked you to? How about showing me all the handwaving I engaged in?

You'll notice that the above are a series of rhetorical questions. I did that so that you'd be able to find some examples of me using rhetoric - unfortunately the examples still can't be classified as 'meaningless'.

Isn't that the one about making the answer you are defending an assumption in your response? You know, like assuming god doesn't exist and then assuming people who talk to god and get answers are delusional because god does not exist and therefore, their testimony regarding the existance of god is invalid because they are delusional? But perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong fallacy. Is that the one you meant?

Nice strawman argument. Does it come in pink?

First, for the purposes of the argument you are discussing, I didn't assume that god doesn't exist. In fact, that was the very question we were trying to answer.

Second, as I didn't assume that god doesn't exist, I also didn't assume that people who claim to have talked to and get answers from god are delusional. If you think I'm lying, kindly provide evidence that I did assume that these people are delusional.

You seem to need things spelled out for you, and it's really starting to get on my nerves. I'm inclined to believe that you know that what you're saying is incorrect and not reflective of reality, but that you're hoping that I'll just get sick of arguing with you and let the strawman version stand.

I won't.

To spell it out, the question we were trying to answer was, "Does god exist?"

The evidence you produced was anecdotal testimony by people who claim to have experienced god.

If god doesn't exist, these people have trouble separating fantasy from reality.

If god does exist, it doesn't speak to the actual experiences these people had or claim to have had - while it means that it is possible that they experienced god, it is also possible that they are delusional, or that they have misinterpreted the experience, or even (shock!) that they are lying.

Because of this, the anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Now, you claim that the people who claim to have these experiences are honest, not mistaken in their conclusions, and not delusional and that we should therefore accept their testimony.

This assumes the answer to the very question we started out investigating - that god exists!

That is why you are begging the question here, not me.

Do you understand now?

 

[CFLarsen]

Science does not invoke the supernatural as an explanation... science only uses facts in evidence to reach conclusions. Skepticism employs the same method-- with added attention to the known ways humans are readily fooled.

Or at least that's what I thought.

But now Claus and Beth have shown me the nebulous light.

Rubbish. I have never said otherwise.

Give an example of a "logical reason", and one that is not.

My students are possessed by demons. The evidence is the way they act. I'm not making any claims about the evidence--you guys aren't around to see the way they act anyhow-- I'm just using my own skeptical analysis to conclude the obvious.

Claus has no reason to be skeptical of it, that's for sure.

Whatever gave you that idea??

Right Claus?

We understand your position on the subject correctly now?

Not my position, no.

Because to the rest of us... any beliefs about any god or any invisible form of unconsciousness are, by definition, "unskeptical"... or at least indistinguishable from unskeptical beliefs (woo). Sure, they lie outside of scientific scrutiny-- just as all things that are indistinguishable from the imaginary do-- oh, and the imaginary too. In order to be scrutinized there needs to be some evidence that there is something existing to be scrutinized in the first place. You don't get a "get out of reality" free card by making your imaginary friend immeasurable and undetectable in any way. You can hang onto your "I'm a skeptic" label if you want-- but don't expect other skeptics to treat your beliefs with any more respect than you treat other woo.

Skeptics deal with the testable. What are you going to test?

Re#1) Interesting that you would lack insight into this skill. It's hardly a controversial issue.

First, I can certainly draw a conclusion based on evidence that a person is less than truthful. There may be all sorts of evidence in addition to what the person claims.

Second, denial is a very common human defense mechanism. It isn't just alcoholics underestimating their drinking pattern, but denial in drug addiction is the classic example and it is a very well documented phenomenon.

So a person who is not truthful may also not be aware of their lack of truthfulness. It doesn't have to be conscious or willful lying.

Explain how you can tell that Hal lies.

In this case we are looking at a logic problem. You are claiming a person can believe something without evidence. I view the same problem as a person believing something without any reason. Further refining the matter we have Georg who came up with an example you were either unwilling or unable to. He proposed a reason for believing not dependent upon evidence.

I responded withI await his reply. He has a point and I am waiting to see how he addresses my view of his point.

You don't need to wait for Georg's reply. I'm not asking Georg. I'm asking you. Answer the question.

This still all boils down to my opinion the skeptic god believer rationalizes and invents definitions for gods that allow his/her cognitive dissonance and your opinion those invented god definitions are legitimate.

You admit that this is your opinion, yet you point your fingers at others and call them unskeptical?

Since when did your opinion constitute skepticism?

Re#2) The skeptic deist in your scenario claims not to be using evidence, I don't believe that is the case. I believe the evidence they are using doesn't meet their skeptical standards so rather than actually face up to that, they invent a definition of god that requires no evidence. Would that same skeptic accept someone saying, "I believe I have a parallel self in another universe and science cannot test that belief"?

Would the skeptic not ask, "What evidence do you have for that belief?"

And then would the skeptic accept the claim of, "I don't need any evidence, science cannot test anything outside of the Universe."

But that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about when people don't need evidence. We are talking about when they say they don't have evidence.

If you don't believe that they meet the skeptical standards of evidence, you have to point to what the evidence is.

You may wish to leave such a person unchallenged since they did not "claim any evidence". That's just an arbitrary choice to allow the blind spot which isn't bothering anyone. You have compartmentalized "irrational" as separate from skeptical as if the two did not conflict with each other. It's the same as claiming faith and science can exist in separate compartments giving the skeptic god believer a way around that cognitive dissonance. It's the same as allowing god to be re-defined as an OK belief without evidence.

All that is well and good but it is still a blind spot, an exception for certain woo god beliefs but not for others. It is still rationalizing in order to live with cognitive dissonance. And it still doesn't contradict what I said earlier, "Those of us not making the exception for god beliefs can see such beliefs are supported with evidence of the same quality as woo beliefs are supported. Those making the exception for god beliefs are going to great lengths to describe god in ways that supposedly make their specific god beliefs an exception to woo beliefs."

You are avoiding this like the plague:

What evidence is being claimed?

You have to answer this question, otherwise your criticism falls flat.

 

[Georg]

Getting to your last points first....

I think you may mean "curious" rather than "nosy". Nosy refers to wanting to know people's business, curious refers to wanting to know about everything.

Thanks for correcting me without mocking me, I appreciate that. You are absolutely right. Curious it is.

When you say you are not happy with the "we don't know yet", do you think simply adding "magic did it" really changes that?

Maybe I should have added “Devil´s Advocate tags”, but I thought

but that is all there is to say at the moment.

would make it clear. It´s not what I think, I´m just trying to find an explanation why others believe in deities. I don´t.

As far as gods being invented by all cultures separately, that goes back to the alternative explanation better explains that fact than the existence of real gods explains it. I can see your interpretation and what you are saying. You are saying such a conclusion is logical in the absence of evidence. But the fact all cultures came up with god beliefs is actually evidence I hypothesize some of the skeptical believers (Deists) are actually using when they claim they believe without evidence.

Noooo…… I´m not saying that this conclusion is logical. If I´d see it as logical, I´d have to accept it for me as well, which I don´t. It´s more the amateur psychologist thing of trying to find out what the reasons for other people are to believe in deities. Just something like a mental exercise. Since you describe your take on it with "I hypothesize" I guess that´s how you see it as well. Neither you nor I can prove our assertions, or can you?

I would also challenge your assumptions.

You are more than welcome to do so.

You are assuming god is inserted to explain "no evidence".

Yep. Exactly. At least by some believers.

ETA:O.K., that could be misunderstood. God is not inserted to explain why there is no evidence, god is invented to fill the gap in human knowledge.

I would conclude god is inserted only after falsely interpreting events as having a causal relationship.

I do not understand the bolded part so I can´t comment. Sorry. What events and what causal relationship? I´m lost......

In other words you are saying god gets inserted when we run out of ideas.

Yep. Exactly. At least by some believers.

I say god is inserted when we misinterpret evidence.

That´s where we maybe talk past each other. Which evidence is misinterpreted? That´s quite the core of my argument: As long as there is no evidence regarding the mechanism of how everything started, people start (or better: don´t stop) to make up stuff (gods, deities, powers, whatever) to fill the gaps. If there would be evidence, and the believers would misinterprete it, one could tear their "gods conclusion" apart. Without evidence, one can´t prove them wrong, and that, at least for me, puts deists in a different camp than the followers of religions which make testable claims that always failed when actually put to test. It´s still not the camp where I belong to, but I can somehow understand that people think that way.
They just can´t live with the dissatisfying nosiness curiosity.

 

[Belz...]

I think faith makes people feel proud of their ignorance and afraid to find out they might be wrong. As Mark Twain said, it's the permission people give themselves to believe what they know isn't so.

Don't you just love that guy ?

 

[Bri]

So-- faith based claims are the opposite of fact based claims... the best we can say is NOT that we don't know for certain-- the best we can say is that there is NO evidence for any kind of consciousness that exists absent a living material brain-- none-- not for gods, souls, demons, thetans, hobgoblins, Satan, Incubi or any such things. None.

Likewise, there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. None.

But faith based beliefs are not part of the skeptical approach. Therefore, I think we can all conclude that those who have such beliefs are not applying skepticism to those beliefs-- they are protecting those beliefs from the skeptical scrutiny they might give similar claims regarding other gods or demons or thetans. Believers might consider themselves skeptics... and most skeptics might consider them skeptics... but I suspect that most skeptics and theists would agree that they are putting their beliefs outside the scrutiny of skepticism for some reason--

I'll await a description of that "skeptical approach" which disallows belief in gods, but allows other opinions of which there is little or no compelling evidence for or against.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Nonsense, utter nonsense! By this conclusion you would have to say there is no evidence pointing to Pele or Zeus existing one way or the other. That's ludicrous!

I'd have to talk with someone who believes in Pele or Zeus to find out if there is any evidence one way or another for their belief.

Of course not. There is evidence of life in the Universe.

Sure, but I wasn't discussing life in the universe. I was discussing life outside of our solar system. Is there evidence of life outside of our solar system?

It's all over the Earth. The Universe is staggeringly large. To think life elsewhere wasn't possible, including intelligent life, would be counter to the evidence.

Of course it's possible. The existence of gods is also possible. Is there any evidence of either one?

Traditional Biblical egocentrism is the thing which gets in people's way thinking about the fact life on Earth is evidence. That may be why you are looking at the nature of the evidence differently than I am.

I'm not sure you know how I'm looking at the evidence.

Really, no evidence? Pick a god, let's just see.

I didn't say that there wasn't evidence against certain gods. I said that there was no evidence that there are no gods. If you have some evidence that gods are (1) impossible or (2) don't exist, I'd love to see it.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Don't you just love that guy ?

Yes. And that Darwin guy too--especially his cheeky observation about ignorance begetting confidence.