Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Egg]

This argument has been advanced several times in this thread, and I'm still not convinced. Of course none of us are perfect, and all of us sitting here as of right now will each hold some irrational and/or unsceptical beliefs. The difference is that most of us seek to correct these errors (for this is what they are). To believe in god is to leave arguably the most profound of these irrational beliefs untouched by one's own scepticism and rationality.

In other words, I thought the whole point was to try not to hold firm opinions on anything unless it had been shown to be objectively proven (to some extent at least).

Good point, Les. I suppose one could come up with a definition which says that skeptics need to always be striving towards the absolute skeptical position. It does imply a belief that such a position is ultimately desirable, which I'm not convinced is an objectively proven belief in itself, but there's certainly a potentially interesting discussion to be had there.

There's also the whole question of whether one chooses to believe something (for which there's a thread in progress) and how much one can and should trust one's own senses, experiences, memories and interpretations as evidence for one's own beliefs, even if they can't be verified by others.

 

[Belz...]

Belz,

So, unless you have proof that it's absolutely impossible, it seems that you hold a belief without evidence. Very unskeptical of you, Belz. Let's see the evidence.

-Bri

By your command:

1) When your heart ceases to function and the oxygen flow to your brain stops, your consciousness shuts down as well until you're revived. The time in between simply doesn't exist for you.

QED.

 

[Bri]

By your command:

1) When your heart ceases to function and the oxygen flow to your brain stops, your consciousness shuts down as well until you're revived. The time in between simply doesn't exist for you.

QED.

You're saying that's absolute proof that there is no unknown form of consciousness that can exist without a brain?

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

There would be no way for you to know whether or not you were destroying my consciousness if you destroyed my brain since it is possible that my brain only controls my physical body, but that my consciousness is immaterial and continues to exist even after my brain is destroyed.

Yeah, except that's not what happens when the brain is shut down temporarily. You fail.

But even if my consciousness exists materially in my brain, it does not follow that all consciousness must necessarily exist materially in a brain.

Brain or similar construct, that is. Free-floating consciousnesses ? What are those made of, Bri ?

There may be some unknown form of consciousness that doesn't require a brain.

Argument from ignorance.

Ad hom attacks don't seem to advance your argument.

That wasn't an ad hom. Can any of you folks understand what an ad hom is ?

 

[Belz...]

IOW, cry me a river. I'll play the world's smallest violin for ya.

What movie was that, already ?

 

[Belz...]

You were wrong when you defended Belz's claim that it's an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain.

Nothing's an absolute fact, then, and the word "absolute" becomes useless.

Colour me close-minded, but 99.9999% is close enough to 100% for me.

 

[Bri]

There may be some unknown form of consciousness that doesn't require a brain.

Argument from ignorance.

From Wikipedia:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

...

The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.​

You made a claim. Specifically, you claimed that it "is an absolute fact that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain."

There are only two choices here: it is either possible or impossible. If something can't be proven impossible, then it is not an absolute fact that it is impossible.

So please provide absolute proof that there is no unknown form of consciousness that can exist without a brain.

-Bri

 

[Lonewulf]

You were wrong when you defended Belz's claim that it's an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain.

I did?

Please tell me where I supported the claim that consciousness is an "absolute fact", please. I stated that there was a plethora of evidence that consciousness is based on the brain. I never once said it was "absolute".

Either show me where I specifically said that, or withdraw your dishonest claim.

Nothing's an absolute fact, then, and the word "absolute" becomes useless.

Colour me close-minded, but 99.9999% is close enough to 100% for me.

I pretty much agree.

I never claim that anything is an "absolute" fact. Being a skeptic, I always support that there is always the possibility of something being wrong.

However, argument from ignorance is pretty much a useless argument. And saying, "Well, there's a .00000000000001% chance you're WRONG!" is pretty silly.

There's a .0000000001% that Bri doesn't exist, so I might as well not talk with him. Just in case.

 

[Bri]

Nothing's an absolute fact, then, and the word "absolute" becomes useless.

Colour me close-minded, but 99.9999% is close enough to 100% for me.

Correct, there are few absolute facts. Thank you for conceding my point.

Now, can you present evidence of this 99.9999% probability you claim? How did you arrive at that number?

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

So please provide absolute proof that there is no unknown form of consciousness that can exist without a brain.

Yeah, that's what I said. Argument from ignorance.

Plus, how do you expect me to prove your negative ?

Every piece of evidence we have not only shows that consciousness requires a brain to operate, but that it simply CANNOT exist without it.

 

[Belz...]

Now, can you present evidence of this 99.9999% probability you claim? How did you arrive at that number?

-Bri

I wanted to be nice to you. Actually it's 100%.

As I told you before, and you apparently ignored, your consciousness ceases to function entirely if your brain is inactive, and ceases to function for precisely the same amount of time. Every time.

 

[Bri]

You were wrong when you defended Belz's claim that it's an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain.

I did?

Please tell me where I supported the claim that consciousness is an "absolute fact", please. I stated that there was a plethora of evidence that consciousness is based on the brain. I never once said it was "absolute".

Either show me where I specifically said that, or withdraw your dishonest claim.

What I said was that you defended Belz's claim that it's an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain. When I responded to Belz that he had no evidence that it's an absolute fact, you claimed otherwise:

It is an absolute fact that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain.

So, unless you have proof that it's absolutely impossible, it seems that you hold a belief without evidence. Very unskeptical of you, Belz. Let's see the evidence.

No evidence? Are you really that ignorant?

Belz has no evidence that it is an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain. Yet you claimed otherwise.

-Bri

 

[Lonewulf]

Belz has no evidence that it is an absolute fact that consciousness cannot exist outside of the brain. Yet you claimed otherwise.

-Bri

Wrong. If you read my follow-up posts, you would have understood... unless you are deliberate lying.

I am sorry, but I do not converse with those who are deliberately dishonest.

 

[Bri]

I wanted to be nice to you. Actually it's 100%.

Can you present evidence that it's 100%?

As I told you before, and you apparently ignored, your consciousness ceases to function entirely if your brain is inactive, and ceases to function for precisely the same amount of time. Every time.

Well, that's some pretty good evidence that my consciousness cannot exist outside of my brain. But of course that evidence isn't absolutely conclusive, nor does it answer the question.

You stated that it "is an absolute fact that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain." Can you prove that there is no other form of consciousness that can exist outside of a brain?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Wrong. If you read my follow-up posts, you would have understood... unless you are deliberate lying.

I am sorry, but I do not converse with those who are deliberately dishonest.

Your eventually corrected yourself after I pointed out your mistake. I'm sorry, but you were wrong. You even admitted it here:

Absolutely! You then would not be claiming it to be absolute fact, but rather you admit that consciousness might exist outside of a brain.

Okay. Then it's so small a chance as to be so miniscule, that everyone might as well act as if it's not true.

So just suck it up rather than making unfounded accusations that I'm being deliberately dishonest.

-Bri

 

[Lonewulf]

Your eventually corrected yourself after I pointed out your mistake. I'm sorry, but you were wrong. You even admitted it here:

So just suck it up rather than making unfounded accusations that I'm being deliberately dishonest.

Sorry, but I have better things to do than to demonstrate the size of my e-penis. I know what I meant, I'm sorry that you do not understand it.

You're now on my ignore list. Suck that.

 

[Bri]

You have no idea how happy that makes me!

-Bri

PS: Let's just hope your real one is larger than your e-one.

 

[voidx]

This is going back several pages. Work and life in general keep me from always posting regularily.

I don't mind anyone's definition being changed and revised. That's kind of the point. If we can come up with a reasonable definition that would exclude theists, then the answer to the topic of the thread is "yes." If there is no such definition, then the answer is "no." Since it would be impossible to prove that no such definition is possible, I suspect that it is up to those who wish to exclude theists to provide a reasonable definition that would do so.

I'd like to first reiterate that the topic of this thread is an exercise in futility in my opinion. No one will be able to come to any consensus on any given definition of skeptic that will "reasonably" define who are skeptics and who are not. I think 27-28 pages of posts bears out my point.

Call my cynical, but all I see is people circling the wagons, tweaking defintions of an arbitrary category "skeptic" to continue holding the opinion they came in with. While others call out for reasonable definitions of said category, at least subconsciously knowing that no such definition would ever suffice.

Then it seems that by your definition a skeptic doesn't have to be an atheist. Is that your position?

I don't know how to make it more clear. This is precisely the question I think is so inherently flawed in the first place. Its entire purpose is to force me into some arbitrary definition of some artificial category of people called skeptics. Its a bear trap dressed in debaters clothing.

My position is that anyone being openly and honestly skeptical about their own beliefs and the justifications used to hold them, in taking into account personal bias', the knowledge we have about the understanding of our human perception and consciousness, should end up in a position of doubt regarding any and all non-corpreal, metaphyical, paranormal claims. Opinions don't factor here. Whatever your opinion of what you'd LIKE to believe in aside, to me there is clearly enough doubt about the nature of our experiences and the existence of Gods or deities to rule out logically blind faith. That should in turn echo doubt into ones justification for continuing to hold onto the idea/concept of God for those that do not take it on blind faith. Which in turn should put it on equal footing with a huge list of other ideas and concepts which we may have opinions about, but no foolproof justifications for believing. Thus, and I think justly, erasing this special status that Theism in its various forms seems to enjoy with so many people. That it is somehow a logically valid idea that requires serious falsifying.

 

[voidx]

I'll also clarify my idea of what I take atheism to be. Knowing full well that the standard definition as one who actively disbelieves in the concept of God can be applied to many people here.

Atheism isn't the negation of Theism. Its merely the lack of Theism. Its not the "No Gods" to a theists "Gods". To be honest, I don't take it as a complete world view even. To me, its simply a way of identifying oneself as NOT a THEIST.

I think atheists fall into different categories of worldviews from naturalists to behaviourlists and so on down the line.

I think all worldviews, to have any explanatory power, should be rooted in the observable and quantifiable. Any additional properties or concepts or assumptions are just that, additions, and should be justified.

Theism adds just such a property/conception/assumption to that base worldview. It posits a type of causal agency over and above that which we observe and can quantify. It is then in need of justification. Anyone else not being a theist, atheists, do not posit this property/conception/assumption, and so really have nothing to justify, because their not positing anything extra.

That's how I see it. Anyone coming out to state strictly "No Gods" is fighting an impossible battle. Trying to argue for the negation of a property/conception/assumption that has not, and cannot be quantified.

This is alway why I find it disingenious for Theists to regularily try and turn the tables around on Atheists, and I'll admit, many fall into the trap and get bogged down in threads like this. This idea that both concepts hold equal and valid footing on opposite sides of the fence of neutrality.

There is no fence, just a base worldview rooted in the observable and quantifiable, and all the assumptions and ideas and conceptions tacked onto that with various justifications. Some more valid than others.

ETA: So the point being, quit using the unfalsifiability of theism as a strength and something which non-theists must defeat and tear down and simply show how we can objectively justify this additional propery of the universe which theists posit.

 

[Belz...]

Can you present evidence that it's 100%?

I just did.

Well, that's some pretty good evidence that my consciousness cannot exist outside of my brain.

Actually, it's pretty good evidence that ALL earth-based lifeform consciousness cannot exist outside of a brain.

You stated that it "is an absolute fact that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain." Can you prove that there is no other form of consciousness that can exist outside of a brain?

Are you STILL asking me to prove a negative ?