Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[CFLarsen]

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

Can you give an example of a "logical reason", and one that is not?

What gave you the idea that I wouldn't be skeptical of the idea that demons had possessed your students?

When people don't claim evidence of their beliefs, what are you going to test?

 

[Bri]

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".

I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply saying that your point would be better made if you could present a coherent definition for "skepticism" that would exclude theism but would include other opinions that you seem to be OK with.

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.

Of course evidence cannot be provided. You cannot prove the non-existence of something, particularly when that something might be omnipotent and might not want to be found. That was pretty much my point.

You are pretending that failure to disprove god is an argument for the existence of god...

Sorry, but please argue against something that I've actually said rather than something that you wished I had said. I've never said 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...

Only insofar as both are opinions which cannot be proven one way or the other.

you are all over the place, dishonest, and fail to make any points while coming across as pedantic.

Clearly ad hom attacks don't advance your argument as much as a good definition of "skepticism" would.

Clearly you have a belief you are trying desperately to prop up.

I really don't. Sorry to disappoint you!

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.

Once more, if you can provide a definition for "skepticism" which would exclude the belief in god but wouldn't exclude other opinions that you seem to be OK with, please post it.

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

I imagine that would depend on your definition of "skeptical," but I'm not sure you can come up with a valid definition that would require having opinions on subjects about which there is no conclusive evidence.

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

I'm not sure that there are any skeptics according to whatever definition you're using. But I'll wait until you post it before making a final judgment.

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.

Which definition is that? Can you please post it?

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Rubbish. I have never said otherwise.

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

Reasons based on evidence that correspond with what we know about reality are reasonable... that's why scientists and skeptics increasingly reach the same understanding of the facts available. We live in a predictable world where things that actually exist have a measurable impact and can be tested for. We also live in a world where people readily have faith in things because they've been told faith is a way of knowing thing. Often faith based notions involve invisible forms of consciousness. Many such beliefs have been proven wrong or a misinterpretation of the facts or, as Gregoir, notes-- an explanation. But skeptics and scientists do no use the supernatural as an explanation when interpreting what is real and true and knowable about the world. Any belief in an invisible form of consciousness automatically posits that an invisible form of consciousness can exist... that it's reasonable or makes sense to presume such things can exist. But that is not reasonable. Everything we know about that which exists has measurable qualities. Everything we know about characteristics attributed to god are better explained with natural explanations. All beliefs in invisible entities are readily and easily explained with the same explanations we use to say one or another religion can't be true... we can use the same logic to say that demons are untrue. We can explain why and how people believe in god with the same tools we use to explain why people believe in woo. We have no tools from distinguishing god beliefs from demon beliefs or woo belies on the basis of any measurable claim.

It is logical to assume all beliefs in god are based on confirmation bias and misinterpretation of the evidence and the like. The alternative is to believe that somewhere somebody might actually be in touch with an invisible form of consciousness who has relayed knowledge of themselves via purely subjective means. That is NOT a logical presumption. It is not logical for same reason it's not logical to presume that maybe some people really are possessed by demons.

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

No need to test whether something exists or is true when that something is indistinguishable from the imaginary. All evidence says it's fine and parsimonious to treat the existence of such things as imaginary until or unless evidence show otherwise. All evidence indicates a very high probability that believers are as mistaken as those who believe that someone can be possessed by demons... and for the same reason. I cannot fathom someone using the tools of skepticism to correctly conclude that demons exist... and the same goes for god.

Explain how you can tell that Hal lies.

Nobody says Hal lies. Hal believes in deity of the deism variety...whatever that means. He admits it might be irrational. He does not claim to believe for rational reasons. There is not a rational reason for believing in consciousness outside a living brain--invisible entities. There is no mechanism for such an entity to be known. Nobody can no of such entities. All beliefs about such entities are faith based beliefs-- or beliefs based on poor interpretation of the evidence. If that isn't the case, then we are back to positing a world where there some invisible forms of consciousness that are real that reveal themselves to humans who have been indoctrinated to believe them via entirely subjective mechanisms. That defies Occams razor. Not defining your god or placing him outside science is the rationalization believers use not to apply Occam to their god. What other option is there. That there are aspects of reality and the truth that is the same for everyone that is detectable only to those who believe in a god?

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

No Claus... that's you. You are the one who called her seriously mistaken and accused me of not understanding what skepticism is. You are the one accusing me of calling people mentally ill or of skeptic girl calling Hal a liar. You are the one being dishonest and pointing fingers. You are the one not saying anything and pretending to be logical and ration just like Beth and Bri. You are the one using loaded questions to infer a conclusion.

Hal isn't the one saying his beliefs are rational or that he used skepticism to derive those beliefs. He saying he has such beliefs. The rest of us are saying that if he applied Occams razor to his beliefs... there is not a logical basis or him concluding that his beliefs are anything more that a comfort or feeling or subjective experience--not something that exists independently outside of his brain.

Since when did your opinion constitute skepticism?

Interesting quote for a guy who pretends to be the JREF/skepticism vigilante telling everyone else why they aren't skeptics and pretending to be the keeper of the definition. JFEF and skepticism doesn't exclude believers. However, those who apply the tools of science and skepticism to their god beliefs, generally don't believe in gods for obvious reasons. Those who continue to believe seem to take special care to keep their gods free from scrutiny by making them indistinguishable from the imaginary or known delusions. Consequently, most skeptics treat such beliefs as if they were imaginary--part of the known ways people fool themselves. That is the most parsimonious, likely, and simple explanation. Just as Randi can't prove that Uri Geller isn't psychic-- he CAN show a much better explanation for what we observe. We have very good explanations as to why people believe in invisible entities-- we don't have any logical reason to posit that they actually exist.

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.

And we're saying that when people say they don't have evidence it makes logical sense to conclude that they believe in something irrational--unlikely to exist or be true. We're saying it makes sense to conclude they haven't applied skepticism to that belief the way they apply it to demon beliefs or psychic beliefs or whatever it is that makes them call themselves skeptical.

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

Acceptable standards of evidence must involve things known to exist. Acceptable standards of evidence must be tools we use to distinguish real things from known human imaginary beings and forces.

What evidence is being claimed?

The same sort of evidence that allows one to conclude that belief in demon possession is not evidence of demons. The same sort of evidence that allows skeptics to conclude that people who believe in demons are mistaken, misperceiving, or confabulating. The same sort of evidence that allows us to say that a belief in demons is not logical or skeptical. The same sort of evidence that allows us to say that psychics are frauds.

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

No, your argument falls flat.... because you never really say anything. You ask for evidence for silly things you don't want evidence for. It's a strawman. If there is no evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that those who believe such things do exist are fooling themselves. That's logical. That's skeptical. That's what most skeptics would say about demons. And that's what most skeptics should say about gods if they applied their skepticism in an unbiased manner.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply saying that your point would be better made if you could present a coherent definition for "skepticism" that would exclude theism but would include other opinions that you seem to be OK with.

I think the problem is that you've stretched the definition of "opinion" past the breaking point. Theism doesn't fall under any useful definition of "opinion" any more than opinions fall under any useful definitions of "faith".

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Number of gods for which there is evidence: 0

Number of intelligent species for which there is evidence: 1

Reasons to believe we live in a special part of the universe at a special time: 0

Pointing out to someone that their analogy is flawed: Priceless

 

[articulett]

A belief in god automatically assumes a belief that consciousness of some sort can exist absent a living corporeal brain. That assumes facts not in evidence. That is a violation of occam's razor and non skeptical. You can still be a skeptic and believe in god that does not mean you derived your beliefs about god logically or skeptically nor that there is a valid reason for someone other than you to posit that your god or any god exists.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Argument from unpopularity ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Actually, the fact that there IS life in our solar system, and the fact that other such systems exist, in vast numbers, is evidence that it is at least very probable.

 

[Dancing David]

Do the people in the latter group claim evidence of their god beliefs?

If they don't, then your juxtaposition of the two groups is unfair, misleading, and utterly wrong.

many make such claims everyday. The same woo in a prom dress is still woo.

 

[Bri]

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.

It was certainly not my intention to be rude. I thought I'd been extremely polite during this discussion despite the ad hom attacks against me.

My point is that I've not seen a valid definition of "skepticism" that would exclude theism but would include other opinions that you seem to be OK with. So far, references to definitions posted earlier in the thread seem to point to definitions such as "a skeptic is someone who practices the process of skepticism" but don't define the process. If you have a definition please post it (or if one has been posted, please repost it).

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.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.

Two points here. 1) I know of no religion that believes that God must grant prayers (in the affirmative) during studies. 2) Disproving a religion that believes that God must grant prayers during studies wouldn't disprove the existence of all gods.

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.

Many (probably most) Christians don't believe that the creation story in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Even if it was to be taken literally (and granted, some Christians believe that it was), you'd be hard-pressed to find some passage that couldn't be interpreted in such a way that it might have occurred. Even if you could, it wouldn't disprove the Christian God (it would only prove that the Christian God didn't write the Bible). Finally, even if you could disprove the Christian God, it wouldn't disprove all gods. In other words, there is no evidence that all gods are impossible or don't exist.

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.

Even if I were to agree with you that none of these gods can possibly exist based on conclusive evidence as you suggest, none is evidence against the existence of all conceivable gods.

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.

I'm not sure which god requires that hurricanes hit gay populations more frequently than would be expected by random chance, but I'll take your word for it that such a study has actually been done and is absolutely conclusive, and I'll therefore agree with you that such a god doesn't exist.

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?

There are plenty of stories of alien encounters, and there are explanations for nearly all of them. It would probably be possible to provide evidence against that guy Yahweh who claims to be able to summon aliens. Even if we could disprove every single claim of encounters with intelligent beings from outside of our solar system, I'm not sure it would count as evidence against the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system. The only evidence that there is no intelligent life outside of the solar system would be definitive proof that intelligent life outside the solar system either cannot or does not exist, and I'm not sure how you would go about proving something like that.

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.

What sort of a test do you propose to disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being who interacts with the world but doesn't want us to know of its existence?

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.

But of course I've never claimed to know of any god who must perform some testable action under examination, nor do I know of anybody who believes in such a god. But if they did, I'd grant you that the god could be proven not to exist. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be evidence that no gods can or do exist.

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?

Of course I never suggested that I knew of a god that I didn't think was a myth.

Hindu god statues are supposed to drink milk. Think that cannot be disproved?

If a Hindu believes that a god must ensure that a statue must drink milk while being observed, I would grant you that such a god can be tested and disproved.

The Biblical god is supposed to answer prayers.

If someone believes that a Biblical god must answer prayers (in the affirmative) while being observed, I would grant you that such a god can be tested and disproved.

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?

Few religions that I know of make testable claims of the supposed actions of their gods.

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.

As far as I know, those sciences provide evidence of things which can be tested.

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.

You must have missed what I said. Evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe is not evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. The fact that intelligent life is possible elsewhere is not evidence that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere.

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'.

Again, please argue against something that I actually said rather than something you wish I had said. I never said that life on Earth as evidence of life in the universe. I said that life on Earth isn't evidence of life elsewhere in the universe.

The fact that there is no reason to think that it is impossible for life to exist elsewhere is not evidence that life actually does exist elsewhere.

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?

You seem to think that any being that interacts with the world is testable, and that the only untestable beings would be those that don't interact with the world at all. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Most theists don't make testable claims about the gods they believe in.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Actually, the fact that there IS life in our solar system, and the fact that other such systems exist, in vast numbers, is evidence that it is at least very probable.

We don't know the exact conditions necessary for the emergence and sustenance of life (much less intelligent life), and even if we did we don't know how many other solar systems have the conditions necessary. Therefore, we really don't know how probable or improbable it is.

If you claim that a skeptic must base beliefs only on evidence rather than speculation, then a skeptic couldn't believe that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system (nor could a skeptic hold any opinion for which there is no definitive evidence).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Number of gods for which there is evidence: 0

Number of intelligent species for which there is evidence: 1

Reasons to believe we live in a special part of the universe at a special time: 0

Pointing out to someone that their analogy is flawed: Priceless

It might be priceless had I suggested that my analogy was exactly the same as the thing I was comparing it to, but of course that would defeat the purpose of an analogy.

What I wrote (and you quoted it in your post) was: "Likewise, there is no evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. None."

My analogy provides a counter-example against a particular criteria proposed for determining whether a skeptic can believe in a god (namely that there is no evidence for the existence of a god). The analogy isn't flawed unless you have evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. If one cannot have an opinion about the existence of something due to the fact that there is no evidence of its existence, then the same would be true of the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system.

Had I claimed that the analogy would hold for all criteria you might conceive of for for determining whether a skeptic can believe in a god, then you would be correct. But I didn't, nor is that the point of an analogy.

If you have another criteria you'd like to suggest, I'll do my best to provide an appropriate analogy for that one too.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I think the problem is that you've stretched the definition of "opinion" past the breaking point. Theism doesn't fall under any useful definition of "opinion" any more than opinions fall under any useful definitions of "faith".

The following definitions from Webster are fairly close to mine:

belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

opinion: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.​

I know many theists whose belief that a god exists is less strong than positive knowledge. Faith and opinion are both belief despite a lack of proof (and therefore a lack of positive knowledge). One could argue about how "firm" one's belief must be in order to call it "faith" if one wanted, but the point I was making is that when a theist claims that their belief is based on faith, they are admitting that they have no proof.

One might frame a definition of skepticism in terms of how strong the belief is, whether one claims to have more evidence than one actually has, how hard one tries to question or disprove one's own belief, or how willing one would be to change one's mind if contrary evidence could be presented. But such a definition wouldn't preclude a theist from being a skeptic.

-Bri

 

[CFLarsen]

Reasons based on evidence that correspond with what we know about reality are reasonable... that's why scientists and skeptics increasingly reach the same understanding of the facts available. We live in a predictable world where things that actually exist have a measurable impact and can be tested for. We also live in a world where people readily have faith in things because they've been told faith is a way of knowing thing. Often faith based notions involve invisible forms of consciousness. Many such beliefs have been proven wrong or a misinterpretation of the facts or, as Gregoir, notes-- an explanation. But skeptics and scientists do no use the supernatural as an explanation when interpreting what is real and true and knowable about the world. Any belief in an invisible form of consciousness automatically posits that an invisible form of consciousness can exist... that it's reasonable or makes sense to presume such things can exist. But that is not reasonable. Everything we know about that which exists has measurable qualities. Everything we know about characteristics attributed to god are better explained with natural explanations. All beliefs in invisible entities are readily and easily explained with the same explanations we use to say one or another religion can't be true... we can use the same logic to say that demons are untrue. We can explain why and how people believe in god with the same tools we use to explain why people believe in woo. We have no tools from distinguishing god beliefs from demon beliefs or woo belies on the basis of any measurable claim.

It is logical to assume all beliefs in god are based on confirmation bias and misinterpretation of the evidence and the like. The alternative is to believe that somewhere somebody might actually be in touch with an invisible form of consciousness who has relayed knowledge of themselves via purely subjective means. That is NOT a logical presumption. It is not logical for same reason it's not logical to presume that maybe some people really are possessed by demons.


No need to test whether something exists or is true when that something is indistinguishable from the imaginary. All evidence says it's fine and parsimonious to treat the existence of such things as imaginary until or unless evidence show otherwise. All evidence indicates a very high probability that believers are as mistaken as those who believe that someone can be possessed by demons... and for the same reason. I cannot fathom someone using the tools of skepticism to correctly conclude that demons exist... and the same goes for god.



Nobody says Hal lies. Hal believes in deity of the deism variety...whatever that means. He admits it might be irrational. He does not claim to believe for rational reasons. There is not a rational reason for believing in consciousness outside a living brain--invisible entities. There is no mechanism for such an entity to be known. Nobody can no of such entities. All beliefs about such entities are faith based beliefs-- or beliefs based on poor interpretation of the evidence. If that isn't the case, then we are back to positing a world where there some invisible forms of consciousness that are real that reveal themselves to humans who have been indoctrinated to believe them via entirely subjective mechanisms. That defies Occams razor. Not defining your god or placing him outside science is the rationalization believers use not to apply Occam to their god. What other option is there. That there are aspects of reality and the truth that is the same for everyone that is detectable only to those who believe in a god?



No Claus... that's you. You are the one who called her seriously mistaken and accused me of not understanding what skepticism is. You are the one accusing me of calling people mentally ill or of skeptic girl calling Hal a liar. You are the one being dishonest and pointing fingers. You are the one not saying anything and pretending to be logical and ration just like Beth and Bri. You are the one using loaded questions to infer a conclusion.

Hal isn't the one saying his beliefs are rational or that he used skepticism to derive those beliefs. He saying he has such beliefs. The rest of us are saying that if he applied Occams razor to his beliefs... there is not a logical basis or him concluding that his beliefs are anything more that a comfort or feeling or subjective experience--not something that exists independently outside of his brain.


Interesting quote for a guy who pretends to be the JREF/skepticism vigilante telling everyone else why they aren't skeptics and pretending to be the keeper of the definition. JFEF and skepticism doesn't exclude believers. However, those who apply the tools of science and skepticism to their god beliefs, generally don't believe in gods for obvious reasons. Those who continue to believe seem to take special care to keep their gods free from scrutiny by making them indistinguishable from the imaginary or known delusions. Consequently, most skeptics treat such beliefs as if they were imaginary--part of the known ways people fool themselves. That is the most parsimonious, likely, and simple explanation. Just as Randi can't prove that Uri Geller isn't psychic-- he CAN show a much better explanation for what we observe. We have very good explanations as to why people believe in invisible entities-- we don't have any logical reason to posit that they actually exist.

And we're saying that when people say they don't have evidence it makes logical sense to conclude that they believe in something irrational--unlikely to exist or be true. We're saying it makes sense to conclude they haven't applied skepticism to that belief the way they apply it to demon beliefs or psychic beliefs or whatever it is that makes them call themselves skeptical.



Acceptable standards of evidence must involve things known to exist. Acceptable standards of evidence must be tools we use to distinguish real things from known human imaginary beings and forces.



The same sort of evidence that allows one to conclude that belief in demon possession is not evidence of demons. The same sort of evidence that allows skeptics to conclude that people who believe in demons are mistaken, misperceiving, or confabulating. The same sort of evidence that allows us to say that a belief in demons is not logical or skeptical. The same sort of evidence that allows us to say that psychics are frauds.



No, your argument falls flat.... because you never really say anything. You ask for evidence for silly things you don't want evidence for. It's a strawman. If there is no evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that those who believe such things do exist are fooling themselves. That's logical. That's skeptical. That's what most skeptics would say about demons. And that's what most skeptics should say about gods if they applied their skepticism in an unbiased manner.

Just give an example of a logical reason, and one that is not.

Just tell me what the evidence is.

Do you understand? Examples. Evidence.

No need to write an avalanche of words. No need to post snide remarks. No need for games.

And, for the third time: What gave you the idea that I wouldn't be skeptical of the idea that demons had possessed your students?

 

[Belz...]

We don't know the exact conditions necessary for the emergence and sustenance of life (much less intelligent life), and even if we did we don't know how many other solar systems have the conditions necessary. Therefore, we really don't know how probable or improbable it is.

If you claim that a skeptic must base beliefs only on evidence rather than speculation, then a skeptic couldn't believe that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system (nor could a skeptic hold any opinion for which there is no definitive evidence).

-Bri

That makes no sense, whatsoever. That's like saying that there is no evidence that the stars that are too far away for us to properly analyse work on the same principles as those we CAN analyse.

The fact that at least one planet we know of can sustain life is good evidence that there are others, similar or not. "How" improbable is irrelevant to the point we're discussing.

 

[Bri]

That's like saying that there is no evidence that the stars that are too far away for us to properly analyse work on the same principles as those we CAN analyse.

No, actually it's not like that at all. There are many stars that are close enough to analyze, and therefore based on many examples and how they are similar and how they differ, we might assume that other stars would likely share similarities with the stars that we can analyze. But we have only a single example of a planet that supports intelligent life from which to extrapolate.

The fact that at least one planet we know of can sustain life is good evidence that there are others, similar or not. "How" improbable is irrelevant to the point we're discussing.

Since we don't know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we don't know how similar conditions must be elsewhere to those here on Earth. And even if we somehow knew that conditions elsewhere are right for life to emerge, that doesn't necessarily mean that life has emerged elsewhere.

See this Wikipedia article:

Because Astrobiology relies mostly on scientific extrapolations, over solid, factual evidence, the authenticity of astrobiology as a science can be questioned. Astrobiology is more theoretical than scientific. While other branches of science remain heavily theoretical, there is a greater degree of mathematical, pragmatic and/or observational evidence supporting the theories. For example, while science cannot prove string theory, there is a great deal of mathematical computation which implies the existence of strings of energy. Such evidence does not exist with Astrobiology, save for an asteroid segment which is believed to have fossilized Martian microbes.

The fact that there is intelligent life on this planet in no way indicates that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

-Bri

 

[JoeEllison]

The following definitions from Webster are fairly close to mine:

belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

opinion: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.​

I know many theists whose belief that a god exists is less strong than positive knowledge. Faith and opinion are both belief despite a lack of proof (and therefore a lack of positive knowledge). One could argue about how "firm" one's belief must be in order to call it "faith" if one wanted, but the point I was making is that when a theist claims that their belief is based on faith, they are admitting that they have no proof.

One might frame a definition of skepticism in terms of how strong the belief is, whether one claims to have more evidence than one actually has, how hard one tries to question or disprove one's own belief, or how willing one would be to change one's mind if contrary evidence could be presented. But such a definition wouldn't preclude a theist from being a skeptic.

-Bri

It is awfully precious of you to post dictionary definitions. It doesn't change the fact that you are using the terms interchangeably, which means that you are using them incorrectly. "Opinion" and "faith" are NOT the same thing, and the claim otherwise is, intentionally or not, an incorrect way of framing the discussion. Once you've made the terms meaningless, you can make any claim you want, can't you?

Are you religious, BTW? Do you have a religious faith? If so, why are you so eager to trivialize it in order to score a dubious rhetorical point?

 

[NeilC]

It is awfully precious of you to post dictionary definitions. It doesn't change the fact that you are using the terms interchangeably, which means that you are using them incorrectly. "Opinion" and "faith" are NOT the same thing, and the claim otherwise is, intentionally or not, an incorrect way of framing the discussion. Once you've made the terms meaningless, you can make any claim you want, can't you?

Are you religious, BTW? Do you have a religious faith? If so, why are you so eager to trivialize it in order to score a dubious rhetorical point?

If you have different definitions then post them and relate them to your argument so we can see if they stand. For starters in which way, precisely and relevantly to this discussion, are they not the same thing.

BTW. what difference does it make if Bri is religious or not?

 

[Belz...]

No, actually it's not like that at all. There are many stars that are close enough to analyze, and therefore based on many examples and how they are similar and how they differ, we might assume that other stars would likely share similarities with the stars that we can analyze. But we have only a single example of a planet that supports intelligent life from which to extrapolate.

But how can you be sure those stars work by nuclear fusion ? Huh ?

Since we don't know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we don't know how similar conditions must be elsewhere to those here on Earth.

No, but we know that a planet with a similar composition might do.

The fact that there is intelligent life on this planet in no way indicates that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

Actually, it does.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you have different definitions then post them and relate them to your argument so we can see if they stand. For starters in which way, precisely and relevantly to this discussion, are they not the same thing.

Do you do your reasoning with a dictionary? I'm really curious.

BTW. what difference does it make if Bri is religious or not?

I'm curious about that, too. If someone IS religious, has faith that they take seriously, then I consider the entire "faith and opinion are the same thing" to be at best incredibly weak, and at most blatantly dishonest.