Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

You have no idea how happy that makes me!

-Bri

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

His real brain appears much larger than your e-one. Why in the world would you have "hopes" about his penis size? What a snotty child you are.

 

[articulett]

Wait, "she"?

Hell, if I knew she was a girl, I would've treated her more gently. Woman are just fragile things.





Don't hurt me.

Neil thinks it's a he... but I know girls named Bri--

Yes, we are fragile things. But on line, I grow cyber balls.

 

[-Fran-]

Wait, "she"?

Hell, if I knew she was a girl, I would've treated her more gently. Woman are just fragile things.

Don't hurt me.

She/he seems anything but fragile, Lonewulf, I am sure it's all right

I stopped posting in this thread on the actual subject. But I am still reading with great interest. Just wanted to say that I am really appreciating your posts from the latest pages in this thread, skeptigirl, articulett, Mobyseven, Belz, and Lonewulf (also Big Les earlier in the thread) (and I hope I didn't forget anyone ) I wish I could express my views as well as you, but I have learned tons from your posts, and I admire your patience in explaining the same things over and over again. Myself I was just 'agh, to hell with it' a few pages back

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Couldn't Bri be short for Brian? Bri, if you care to tell us are you male or female? Just curious.

 

[-Fran-]

But on line, I grow cyber balls.

I kinda see that in front of me now (I do like your cyber balls, though )

 

[articulett]

I've no idea what all of this is about. As I said, I brought up the point for the sole purpose of addressing articulett's question, or more to the point so that articulett could answer his own question (I even put the question I was responding to in bold in my response).

-Bri

Yes... and I believe the point was "God is magic! You can't prove otherwise!"

 

[articulett]

Bri give me a definition of skepticism which allows for a belief in god but not "God's name is Sandy". Or do you leave the door open for that belief too--since you can't disprove it?

Is it skeptical to believe God's name is Sandy per your definition of skepticism. If not--what definition of skepticism are you using? If so, you've got a useless definition that includes everyone with all kinds of beliefs.

Claus, can a skeptic believe God's name is Sandy? Can a skeptic believe in demons? Can a skeptic believe in reincarnation? Don't avoid the question. Just yes or no.

 

[CFLarsen]

100% of adults have been exposed to god beliefs at some time in their life unless they are mentally incapacitated.

That has nothing to do with what they believe.

100% of adults who believe in gods had in their lifetime, experiences and exposures to evidence which they interpreted as validating the existence of gods.

How do you know that?? You completely dismiss the idea of Deism?

I do not accept the premise any god beliefs are exempt from the natural world.

Not even the ones that are non-evidential, and therefore falls outside the scope of science?

I don't accept "faith vs science" as a legitimate excuse for exempting god beliefs from the realm of scientific inquiry.

In Hal's case, this isn't an issue. He isn't using a "faith vs science" excuse.

The evidence is overwhelming that all god beliefs are equally woo. It is also rather obvious to me that god believers are not applying skepticism to that belief. And using the experience I have with human nature (30 years in the field of nursing and medicine) and the evidence I have evaluated over many years on human nature, I have come to the conclusion the cognitive dissonance of growing up believing in gods and discovering skepticism and science somewhere along the way leaves the brain with a couple options. One can let go of the god beliefs, or one can rationalize why it is OK to exempt the god beliefs from science and skepticism.

Some skeptics allow the god believer skeptic to exempt the god beliefs from science and skepticism. I find the special category afforded these god beliefs to be artificial. They are not real categories, they are rationalizations.

Here I'm not talking about calling this person a non-skeptic. I'm talking about saying faith is not exempt from science. The person is still a skeptic. But the god beliefs are not special. They are not exempt. The beliefs are woo. Have them and still be a skeptic. But don't expect me to play along with the artificial solution to one's cognitive dissonance.

This doesn't answer the questions. This is just more of why you believe what you believe.

Try again, this time answering each question separately:

If you don't know Hal, how can you presume to speak on behalf of all Deists (minus Hal)?

How can you know how all Deists have come to their Deism?

We have to start here or the rest of the discussion is useless.

The entire premise of denial is the individual is not aware of something.

An alcoholic denies he has a drinking problem. It isn't just lying to people, some alcoholics really don't recognize their problem. And they are certain they drink less than they actually do.

In this case we are talking about denial that one's god beliefs are, as you put it, unskeptical. Rather than actually looking at the unskeptical belief, the skeptic/god believer invents special categories. Faith then is segregated from science, not just belief without evidence, but rather belief not requiring evidence. Fine, but that does not, as you seem to think, exempt such a belief from the philosophy of skepticism. It exempts the belief in that individual's mind only because the individual is in denial that the god belief is no different from any other woo belief.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The believer in a non-evidential god does not invent special categories. He simply acknowledges that there is no evidence of his beliefs, and therefore, it falls outside the scope of science.

Can you please explain how this:

How do you know he isn't in denial? You are simply stating that because he doesn't claim to be using evidence he must not be using evidence. A person in denial wouldn't be expected to say anything different. A person's own statements are not evidence they are not in denial, they wouldn't recognize the denial.

is falsifiable? How can you ever be wrong?

Can you please explain what the link to Pubmed has to do with your claim that denial means you are not aware of what you are in denial of? Quote from the link, please.

Hals a great guy and a great skeptic... but I don't believe his belief in god is rational-- I think it's like all other belief in invisible entities and supernatural things. I have never been given a logical reason to presume otherwise. I mean, I can understand why people believe... but I also am smart enough to understand why that is not evidence of anything except the ease at which people can be fooled in certain areas--especially people who have been seeped in the notion that "faith is good".

Do you believe in something non-evidential?

Hal rejects naturalistic explanations to posit a god explanation--he believes that consciousness can exist without a living brain. That is as logical as believing people can be possessed.

This is just your explanations, once again. Please show me where Hal:

• rejects naturalistic explanations to posit a god explanation.
  
  
• believes that consciousness can exist without a living brain.

When I say "show me", I don't mean show me your explanations. I mean show me where he said that.

I'm sorry for wordiness, but you have a way of asking really dumb questions that are off topic. I don't want to discuss Hal. I am making the point that the best explanation by far for Hal's belief has nothing to do with actual gods and everything to do with a faith based meme.

He doesn't claim otherwise.

That's why you are wrong when you say that Hal used illogical reasons - because his conclusion doesn't assume fact.

Faith is not a logical means of arriving at a conclusion. Skeptics who believe in god, don't examine their gods with the same scrutiny that they examine other woo with. How else does one justify a belief in a god but not a belief in demons or Satan or psychics?

Because demons, Satan and psychics (what they do) are claimed to be evidential. Look, here's a demon, possessing a person thrashing about. Look, here's Satan, he is spouting fire and brimstone. Look, here's the prediction from a psychic that came true.

Hal doesn't say "Look, here's my god."

That's what you are missing. That's why your criticism is wrong.

You did not answer these:

What gave you the idea that I have no reason to be skeptical of demon possession? Just point to the post of mine and explain briefly your reasons.

Where did I say that a god belief can be derived logically or skeptically?

Don't give me more of your explanations. Show me the actual quotes.

Claus, can a skeptic believe God's name is Sandy?

Yes. That's just a moniker, a label. I personally believe that God's name is God, Yahwe, Thor, Odin, Shiva and Xango.

Can a skeptic believe in demons?

Not if they are claimed to be evidential.

Can a skeptic believe in reincarnation?

Not if reincarnation is claimed to be evidential.

Don't avoid the question. Just yes or no.

I'm glad to see you are not above asking questions - which I answered. In the future, please answer my questions when I put them to you.

 

[NeilC]

This debate has descended into a pretty sorry state. My own aim in participating is to find out what I really think about this question, by asking questions. I'm not completely decided. I'm not trying to quarry anyone into a corner. When I ask for a definition I'm asking what people actually mean by the words they use. I think this is important in coming to an understanding, especially when one of the words "skeptic" is key the the subject.

From a purely logical standpoint it is clearly impossible to be absolutely certain gods don't exist. When man made them up (or so I believe) they gave them such properties as to make them unfalsifiable and therefore holding that view with completely certainty is a matter of belief. It might not be a blind leap into faith but it is a belief nontheless. So one cannot define a skeptic as one who only deals in hard facts still admit atheists.

We can't just say that skeptics think rationally and since we believe there are no gods, those that do must be irrational and therefore not skeptics. If one were born into a society with 100% assumption that god exists it is not irrational to believe in god. It doesn't make it correct but it's not irrational. Many incorrect scientific views have been held thoughout history for very good but incorrect reasons. Being wrong doesn't necessarily make you irrational. I think it's also worth considering the spectrum of theist belief. At one end you have the common belief in "something godlike" but ill defined. Most people I know are like this. At the other end you get your Islamic/Christian/etc fundamentalists who eschew all reason to prop up their dogmatic beliefs. The latter camp are clearly not skeptics. But are the former? Knowing some and hearing their views on all sorts of matters, I think they can be personally. I don't think it makes sense to exlude vast swathes of intelligent, rational people for one belief that is counter to my own belief, especially when my belief cannot be proven to be true. I believe they are wrong and will argue to that effect. If they ask me whether I am 100& certain there are no gods I would have to answer that I'm only 99& sure.

 

[Belz...]

You have a vastly different idea of what 100% means than I do.

Really ? You never round off numbers ? Damn, taxes must be a real bitch for you !

Again, "pretty good" isn't 100%.

YOU'RE the one who brought up the "pretty good" bit, not me.

And "ALL earth-based lifeform consciousness" does not include any other form of consciousness that we don't currently know about.

You mean like the miniature, invisible flying pink elephant that MAY BE hiding under my be RIGHT NOW ?

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?

You are AGAIN asking me to prove a negative.

No, I'm asking you to provide evidence of your claim that it "is an absolute fact that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain"

"...until proven otherwise". Sheesh.

by proving that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain.

...or similar construct.

But hey, I'll bite. How do you define "consciousness" ?

Do you admit that you can't?

Nope.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry, but it is not certain, nor is it absolute fact.

I'm certain that my car will start this afternoon.

See ?

I do go out of my way not to read [articulett's] posts, mainly because [her] posts are excessively wordy.

Funny, people tend to not go out of their way to read mine, because they're not wordy enough.

 

[Lonewulf]

is real brain appears much larger than your e-one. Why in the world would you have "hopes" about his penis size? What a snotty child you are.

If it's a he, I'd suggest he's jealous. If it's a she, I'd suggest it's what she secretly wants.

Oh man, if I said that in the workplace, I'd so get sued for sexual harrassment.

Neil thinks it's a he... but I know girls named Bri--

Yes, we are fragile things. But on line, I grow cyber balls.

Hmm.

As long as I can handle 'em, I don't mind.

 

[-Fran-]

As long as I can handle 'em, I don't mind.

OK... now I can't get that vision out of my mind

 

[Bri]

No Bri, you don't see.

An example of the non-evidence claimed as evidence is Beth's confusing a person's conclusions about evidence with the evidence itself. The sensation is the evidence, the conclusion the sensation is god is not the evidence.

You mean that the belief is the result of some amount of speculation based on scarce and subjective evidence? Such as the calculation of the probability of the existence of intelligent aliens based on very little knowledge of the conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge?

You can't seem to grasp two things in your example. One, there is some evidence. It isn't a lot of evidence, but it is evidence.

Oh, I thought you said empirical evidence. Looking back, you did say empirical evidence! See, you can't have it both ways. Sure, there is some evidence of both beliefs, but no empirical evidence. So by what criteria are you including some non-empirical evidence and excluding other non-empirical evidence?

And two, even if there weren't any evidence, it is still a knowable thing. You continually tried to use it as an analogy to an unknowable thing.

I've never said either belief is unknowable. I said that the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system is unfalsifiable, just like the existence of gods (that is, we can likely never prove that they don't exist, even if they don't). Both are knowable. We might someday discover an alien or a god (specifically, if an omnipotent god wanted us to know of its existence, it could make itself known to us).

(emphasis mine) I don't think anyone here is telling anyone else what they "should" or should not believe in.

Several people in this thread have indicated that a skeptic should not believe in a god (that belief in a god isn't "skeptical"):

Alright then, lets try this again:

Should a skeptic, by definition, be an atheist?

No, because being a skeptic merely requires the application of skepticism. There are no other prerequisites to being a skeptic.

Should a skeptic be an atheist?

This is a different question, and the answer is yes.

You even implied a similar sentiment here:

Yes - it really is that simple. For one to be a skeptic, they need to practise skepticism.

I completely concur.

The skeptic who has a blind spot for their own woo beliefs is still a skeptic. But those beliefs are not consistent with practicing skepticism.

So, what do you mean by "not consistent with practicing skepticism?"

"Should" a skeptic be defined as an atheist, perhaps wasn't the best way to word the question. But it's been clarified several times. You really are now just ignoring what people have said. We are replying to your same issues over and over.

Let's quit playing games. It is clear that you find some beliefs inconsistent with skepticism and others consistent with skepticism. Please post the definition of "skepticism" by which we can determine what beliefs are consistent with skepticism and what beliefs are inconsistent.

At this point, I am hoping that you will post some sort of definition of criteria by which we can make such a determination, or else admit that you have come to the opinion that belief in a god isn't "skeptical" in some more subjective way (which, ironically, according to your previous posts would seem to indicate your opinion to be a non-skeptical belief).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

That doesn't stop one from using the scientific process to draw the best conclusions based on the evidence. Can a scientist say with at least some degree of confidence Pele isn't responsible for eruptions on the HI Islands? Can a scientist conclude the evidence is overwhelming Zeus and Thor are not controlling lightning?

Not unless you have defined "Pele" or "Zeus" or "Thor" to be falsifiable. Otherwise, science doesn't say much about them at all.

Can you answer then, why a scientist should not use all the available empirical evidence and conclude, the evidence is overwhelming that gods do not exist?

Sure, because there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist. There may be empirical evidence that certain gods don't exist (depending on the definition of those gods, some gods might be falsifiable), but there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist.

Why declare one god belief a myth then claim an exception for another god belief? How many god beliefs need you determine are myths before concluding the evidence indicates a pattern here?

Which unfalsifiable god beliefs have been determined by science to be myths?

Why are we even having this discussion? It isn't because we disagree one cannot prove the negative. It isn't because we disagree one cannot use the scientific process to test things outside of the natural Universe. We are having this discussion because the common human intellect has yet to outgrow its belief in mythical gods. So scientists and skeptics tiptoe around the god belief elephants in the room by defining them as somehow beyond the realm of science.

We are having this discussion for one simple reason. You and others have implied that certain beliefs are incompatible with "skepticism." Myself and others have simply challenged that claim and have asked for the definition you're using to make that determination for a given belief. In other words, provide some evidence that there is an objective way to determine which beliefs are "skeptical" and which are not.

Am I to believe the same skeptics who claim their belief in god is exempt from skepticism also would equally defend the premise we can't prove Pele isn't the cause of volcanic eruptions?

I don't know any people who believe in Pele, so I can't speak precisely about individual beliefs. But assuming that belief in Pele involves Pele being the ultimate cause of the eruption of volcanoes, I'm guessing that the claim is unfalsifiable. We can perhaps say that Pele probably isn't required to explain the eruption of volcanoes, but then again we can't fully explain the eruption of volcanoes (it's currently an inexact science to predict the eruption of volcanoes) so even that is based on some degree of speculation that we will someday be able to fully explain the eruption of volcanoes.

The Bible is as full of proven myths as any historical religion. To dismiss so much as myth then exempt that last apron string by redefining god as outside of the natural Universe therefore not subject to having its mythical status determined is no more than denial, rationalization, and exempting one's own woo beliefs.

Not everyone who believes in God (even the Christian God) is a Bible literalist. Even among Bible literalists, there is plenty of wiggle-room in the way of translation and interpretation that allow for explanations of nearly anything you can find in the Bible that seems to contradict reality. If you don't believe me, just do a search on the internet.

You keep bringing up this subject of "redefining God" to be outside of the natural universe. I don't see why this would be necessary (as per the example of Pele above and others that I've given previously). It is possible that a god intersects with the natural universe and can interact with it, but chooses to do so in such a way that it isn't detected.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Let's quit playing games. It is clear that you find some beliefs inconsistent with skepticism and others consistent with skepticism. Please post the definition of "skepticism" by which we can determine what beliefs are consistent with skepticism and what beliefs are inconsistent.

Belief is not skepticism.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, because there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist. There may be empirical evidence that certain gods don't exist

Argument from ignorance, coming up.

but there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist.

Yep, that's what I thought.

 

[Bri]

Bri give me a definition of skepticism which allows for a belief in god but not "God's name is Sandy". Or do you leave the door open for that belief too--since you can't disprove it?

That looks like an unfalsifiable claim to me, so of course "the door is open" that it's true. If someone is of the opinion that God's name is Sandy (for whatever reason -- perhaps God spoke to them personally and told them that) then I can't think of a definition that would allow me to claim that they're not being skeptical.

I don't think there is a definition for "skepticism" that would allow you to hold certain opinions but not others in matters where there is no significant evidence either way. If you wish to claim otherwise, please post your definition.

-Bri

 

[Georg]

Thanks for pointing this post out. I had missed it earlier.It comes down to you and I simply interpreting the evidence differently for the initial god beliefs which developed in humans.

Not completely right since I do not dismiss your interpretation. I just say there other ones as well that are equally valid.

I would think we agree that the human brain looks for explanations and correlations, that's how it is structured to organize data.

Yes.

Where we seem to disagree is how god beliefs came to be inserted as having a causal relationship to some of the organized information.

Yes. Partly, as explained below.

If I understand you correctly, you think "god (or magic) did it" merely filled in the blanks because human nature didn't tolerate the absence of an explanation.

Correct for some believers.

I think the evidence suggests humans observed chance events and looked for causes

Yes. But humans also looked at non-chance events and looked for causes, couldn´t find any (which means at that time just didn´t know the rational explanation) and invented god(s) to fill the gaps. Those gaps are getting very small, they are reduced to the "first cause" or whatever you want to call it and since there is no explanation for that (yet), this is where god(s) still fit in for the deists.

human nature includes ritualistic and superstitious characteristics

Not sure about that one. I´d agree if you said human behaviour includes .........It depends how you define "nature". If by nature you mean genes, I just do not know if there is enough evidence for "god genes".....

some rituals or similar behavior/thoughts or observations seemed to cause chance events

Yes.

that evolved from believing other humans had power to dead ancestors had power to gods with powers existed.

Tricky. That´s one explanation, but that, and that´s where we differ, doesn´t automatically have to be the only one.

In your case, belief occurred without evidence. In my case belief occurred because evidence was misinterpreted.

As I said above, the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. I say both of us are right. Not to avoid confrontation, that´s what I really think.

As far as not being able to tolerate not knowing, you must be miserable. We'll never know everything at least not anytime soon.

Luckily I don´t have to think about it all the time, but I have to admit, as I did before, that I´m not very happy with it. And my hope that science will clear that all up during my lifetime is not 100 %. I´m sure a deist has it easier but I just can´t get myself to believe....

You can look at my replies to Claus regarding Deists and exempting themselves from evidence of gods they believe exist. They did not come to those beliefs in a vacuum. They came to those beliefs after religious indoctrination usually in childhood. You have to ignore that in order to believe the skeptic Deists really came to their conclusions about gods with no evidence. You'd have to show that they never in their lives evaluated the usual evidence for god beliefs. Skeptic Deists can claim they first believed because of the evidence they were indoctrinated with (Mother's word, peer influence, whatever) and then discarded that evidence but maintained the belief. I don't buy it.

Some or maybe most of them have been indoctrinated, yes. But that does not automatically mean that this is the only reason or a reason at all for their belief. Correlation is not the same as causation. And I would not rule out that there are deists that grew up in atheist households (mother´s word), with atheist peers as well. If you accept that, how would you explain their belief?

As far as Deists being in a different camp than the usual theists, they aren't likely to proselytize, they don't need to prove to anyone else any rationale for their beliefs. But god beliefs are unsupportable beliefs none the same. The fact you admit that doesn't make your belief any more skeptical than someone who says I believe because I have faith and also admits to having no empirical evidence.

I agree, but the ones that say they have evidence despite having been shown wrong gazillion times are the ones I have a problem with. The others? Not so much. Are they skeptics? I propose for the third time the term skeptic light™.

 

[Bri]

Belief is not skepticism.

I agree. In fact, that's what I've been arguing although I suspect you don't mean it as you said it. I don't think belief has anything to do with skepticism. Skepticism has to do with understanding the nature of all of the evidence, not necessarily with the belief that you arrive at based on that evidence. Particularly in cases where the evidence is not definitive (i.e. where the belief is an opinion) a belief is not "unskeptical" by any definition I can think of.

Sure, because there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist. There may be empirical evidence that certain gods don't exist

Argument from ignorance, coming up.

but there is no empirical evidence that no gods exist.

Yep, that's what I thought.

I posted the definition of argument from ignorance and the article I got it from the last time you made this accusation. I suggest you read up. Specifically, pointing out that there is no empirical evidence to support a proposition (in this case, the proposition "no gods exist") is not considered an argument from ignorance.

Had I claimed that the lack of evidence that no gods exist is proof that gods exist, that would be an argument from ignorance. But I have never once claimed that there is proof that gods exist (nor have I even claimed that I believe that gods exist).

Please forgive me if the tone of my post is less than civil, but it is exasperating to point out and reference where your accusations are unfounded only to have you continue to make them over and over again.

-Bri