Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Big Les]

It's very simple: Does someone claiming an imaginary friend claim that the friend exists?

Of course. Because it's called an "imaginary friend" by adults who recognise that they are pretending. To them, even if deep down they know they are only playing, it's not "imaginary". They do claim either to be able to see it, communicate with it, or that it otherwise exists. If they are conscious of its imaginary status, as many children probably are, they are simply playing at make-believe.

This is interesting, as I totally agree that an untestable god equates to an imaginary friend for adults. This seems inappropriate to me, for reasons that I have already explained. Imagining a friend, or the existence of fairies, santa etc, are exercises of arguable value for a young child still learning how to think about the world, provided that they later learn to distinguish and admit imagination from reality (i.e. "grow up").

I would be concerned for any grown man or woman who claimed to have friends that only they can see/hear/talk to etc. Wouldn't you?

 

[schlitt]

You said:



You said it would be a mistake to do so, if there wasn't any evidence.

What about when there was? Do you think that evolution is a 100% certainty?

I stand by my statement that accepting as a certainty a belief with no evidence whatsoever, is illogical.

As a personal acceptance, i believe the evidence for evolution affords me 99% certainty until it is shown there is an otherwise better explanation. Of course as a skeptic however i am always open to new evidence. Often beliefs accepted on faith alone are 100% certain in the believers mind, and faith is what is required for your no claimed evidence scenario.

But you just did claim evidence: We can check to see if there were such a serial killer with that name.

No, this was before crime records were kept... My belief is fluid and un-testable. I do not claim any evidence for it, it is simply my belief that I as a skeptic hold.
It does not make sense does it, I have no evidence and therefore no reason to consider this belief as accurate. Without any evidence there is nothing to separate the probability of this belief from a belief in god, pink unicorns, FSM, or anything conceivable.

Ehh...no. Talk about the need for brushing up on your reading skills.

I do not persist with the notion that a skeptic does not require evidence. A skeptic does require evidence - but if no evidence is claimed, a skeptic can't force the claimant to say the claimant has evidence.

That would be equivalent to Randi insisting that applicants are really using X, even though they may say they are using Y.

I agree, the claimant should not be forced to profess anything. That is not the point. If skepticism cannot be applied to a belief, then you cannot claim to be a skeptic when it comes to that particular belief.

So with a claim that has no evidence, is un-testable, and the believer does not claim evidence you are left with the following position;

The claim has no evidence - This means a skeptic will not accept it as a certainty.

The claim is un-testable - This means skeptical scientific method cannot be applied. Therefore accepting the claim would need to be done on non skeptical grounds.

Again we come back to what the majority of people have been saying:
"A person can be selective in applying skepticism. If a belief in god is formed with no evidence, then that belief cannot be claimed to have formed through skepticism."

How can you apply skepticism if no evidence was claimed? Be careful not to think that your own perception of reason is the same as scientific skepticism.

Simple. No evidence. No verification of truth. No acceptance as fact.

 

[Belz...]

They don't claim imaginary friends, Claus. They claim friends that happen to be imaginary. They don't THINK they are imaginary, else they wouldn't believe in them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When they claim imaginary friends.

If you daydream about an imaginary friend, you are going to claim they exist. You are going to fantasize they exist. You wouldn't then believe they really exist.

 

[Mobyseven]

Specifically, I didn't see a "yes" or a "no" so I wanted to make sure that I understood your position as to whether in this case both P and ~P are skeptical opinions according to your definition. Other valid responses would have been "it would only be skeptical not to have an opinion" or "P is the skeptical opinion because..." or "~P is the skeptical opinion because..."

The reason you didn't see a 'yes' or 'no' is because things generally aren't that simple. The answer is in my post - indeed, I can't state it much more blatantly than I already have.

Although you seemed to imply that yes, P and ~P are both skeptical opinions, you continued with some additional comments, so I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding.

Do't go on what you think I said, go on what I actually said. Did I say that both P and ~P were skeptical opinions? No - I didn't because the answer is far more intricate than that, and relies on what type of claim P is, as well as what evidence we have available.

ETA: The other reason for my post was to offer a specific example because it seemed that you might have misunderstood and thought that I was suggesting that P and ~P were two different theories that fit the known evidence. I wasn't. In this case P would refer to the proposition that a particular theory is true (and ~P would refer to the proposition that the theory is not true).

I don't know where you got that idea from, as I very specifically addressed this in my post, blatantly signposting as I went through.

Do you have any specific issues with what I actually said? There is little I can say unless you raise an actual issue with what I said.

 

[articulett]

I think being a skeptic is much easier then waiting for someone to provide evidence. If someone believes I had a past life-- it doesn't matter if they give me evidence of a name or not- it's not a belief worth investigating because I do not believe that I exist absent my material brain--or that anyone does. It's easy to flick away that knowledge. But if you believe it's a possibility, you can be impressed that someone has access to some divine source and take it seriously. Isn't that sort of what astrologers do? When has that naivete brought any verifiable knowledge?

I believe that consciousness requires a brain because there is no evidence to show otherwise. It's just like walking requires legs. It's ridiculous to imagine walking without legs. That's the world I live in. I feel like theists are asking me to prove that walking requires legs. How can I prove that? Whenever anyone believes in consciousness without a brain going in and out of different bodies, that conflicts with what I know about the world--the evidence --the facts. It does not conflict with my knowledge that people are prone to believe in such things despite this evidence because of cultural memes and our storytelling brains. We confabulate reasons readily as split brain studies show without being aware of it. It's the whole reason magic is so impressive. It's why Randi is so impressive--he can show us how readily anyone can be fooled.

To me, god belief is the same as people who earnestly believe rain dances will bring rain--how can you dismiss one as woo without dismissing the other? If you don't believe rain dances bring rain then how do you explain all those who do? Do you leave the possibility open? And if not, aren't you doing what the rest of us are doing in regards to peoples' god beliefs? I can see why people would believe that--and I can see why it's contrary to what we know about weather phenomenon. There's nothing to differentiate between the evidence for rain dancing and the evidence for god.

I think that most skeptics just presume there are no psychics, divining powers, past lives, angels, demons, gods, or real magic-- because we know that scientists would be chomping at the bit to learn more if just a bit of it was true... and someone would win the MDC, and the world would be different than it is. What can we make of a god who only makes himself nebulously known to people of faith-- and in a way indistinguishable from those who believed in a god that caused them to do crazy things... like fly into buildings or kill themselves? If a some magic is real, then the Heavens Gate crowd might really be flying in a spaceship... or the hitchikers might really be up in heaven... or Claus might have really been a woman and/or a serial killer in his last life. We could be in a matrix or part of god's dream. Some rain dances might really magically bring rain. If we create our own reality, then kids who are abused and neglected caused it for themselves. Maybe sometimes homeopathy does cure people! Once you start going down the alley where anything could be true-- then you have a world of possibilities. How do you find the useful stuff or do you just sit on the fence forever?

Certainly no person is leaving the door open for every claim. Why god claims and not demon claims?

If you close the door on all the things not supported by evidence, then you have a world that you can increasingly understand without fooling yourself. You can learn real and useful knowledge instead of being manipulated by conjecture or fear or belief. Certainly those positing that it can be skeptical to believe in a god-- don't believe in everything. Some things they consider woo without having to hear a claim being made--or to test the claim. If someone wanted you to learn a rain dance to prove to yourself it works, you probably wouldn't waste your time, and you'd know that even if it did rain shortly afterwards that it doesn't mean anything--because "correlation is not causation". So how do the agnostic/deistic/theistic/ on the fence skeptics determine such things were woo? How do they justify concluding the chupacabra is woo and not gods? Are they not "skeptical" of such claims? What definition of skepticism are they using to be skeptical of those concepts and not equally skeptical of gods?

I think it's because they want god to be true--some kind of god-- so they find reasons to not look at the concept critically. Or they need the comfort or "training wheels" because they've feel safer that way. I don't find the reasons asserted to be logical (no evidence proving conclusively that there is no god and/or no claims of evidence and/or not really saying that they believe god "exists".) None of those arguments would work for demon claims or rain dance claims--so why are they trotted out for gods. Or are those saying such platitudes really agnostic about demons and the powers of rain dancing? andHow about the possibility of past lives? and astrology? If not, how do they justify a belief in god over a belief in demons? Is god more likely to be true than demons? Is the evidence better? Can skeptics believe in demons or should they all be a-demonists? How can you expect that they'd all be a-demonists (lack a belief in demons) and not atheistic?

I think most skeptics find all such beliefs woo. You presume things don't exist until there is measurable evidence that they do. Otherwise--there is a myriad of possibilities--deist gods, Allah, pantheism, reincarnation, Scientology, Buddhism,-- how do you decide? It just seems bizarre to, not only imagine divine truths, but to imagine some mortal being bestowed with them. Why that person and not another? And how do you trust one prophet over conflicting prophets with different revelations? Where'd believers get their notions of their gods?

Gods have no basis in measurable reality and humans are very susceptible to such beliefs... Sure, many skeptics are believers in some nebulous god concept (or maybe they say as much out of fear and to keep the atheist haters at bay)-- but they make that god outside of skeptical scrutiny and prop it up with evidence that is subjective and based in blatant confirmation bias. If there is no evidence that something exists absent someone's belief in it-- chances are it only exists in the thoughts of humans.

How much lack of evidence did you need before you figured out Santa wasn't real? I mean have you looked everywhere? Have you been to the North Pole. Are you certain that no man every went down chimney's delivering presents to good little girls and boys? Have you checked all the Reindeers in the world to see if any could fly? Can millions of kids really be that wrong?

To pretend there can ever be enough evidence to disprove god to people who believe for non logical reasons (as they all do) is ridiculous. Smart people are very good at hiding their gods behind nebulous terms and placing him outside the natural world (whatever that means). Anything outside the natural world is inside a humans head as far as I'm concerned. It's imaginary. And I'm glad most skeptics feel similarly.

How could Bri miss Moby's point? If you hold the door open for every belief that you can't prove wrong--you hold it open for everything. If you close the door on all things not shown to exist, you get a much clearer and more skeptical view of the world. God belief is no more logical than demon belief or past life belief or belief in astrology. And so most skeptics treat such beliefs as woo per occam's razor. The belief itself is woo-- whether evidence is claimed or not.

 

[articulett]

So Claus, do you expect all skeptics to be "a-demonists"-- lacking in a belief in demons? If so, via what justification? If not, then doesn't it make it so skeptics can be expected to believe in all kinds of woo--just so long as no claims are made? What justifies being agnostic about gods and not about demons?

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course. Because it's called an "imaginary friend" by adults who recognise that they are pretending. To them, even if deep down they know they are only playing, it's not "imaginary". They do claim either to be able to see it, communicate with it, or that it otherwise exists. If they are conscious of its imaginary status, as many children probably are, they are simply playing at make-believe.

This is interesting, as I totally agree that an untestable god equates to an imaginary friend for adults. This seems inappropriate to me, for reasons that I have already explained. Imagining a friend, or the existence of fairies, santa etc, are exercises of arguable value for a young child still learning how to think about the world, provided that they later learn to distinguish and admit imagination from reality (i.e. "grow up").

I would be concerned for any grown man or woman who claimed to have friends that only they can see/hear/talk to etc. Wouldn't you?

Who said anything about hearing and seeing their imaginary friends? What about an imaginary friend that you could talk to?

Would that be acceptable?

I stand by my statement that accepting as a certainty a belief with no evidence whatsoever, is illogical.

As a personal acceptance, i believe the evidence for evolution affords me 99% certainty until it is shown there is an otherwise better explanation. Of course as a skeptic however i am always open to new evidence. Often beliefs accepted on faith alone are 100% certain in the believers mind, and faith is what is required for your no claimed evidence scenario.

So you would never say "100%"?

No, this was before crime records were kept... My belief is fluid and un-testable. I do not claim any evidence for it, it is simply my belief that I as a skeptic hold.
It does not make sense does it, I have no evidence and therefore no reason to consider this belief as accurate. Without any evidence there is nothing to separate the probability of this belief from a belief in god, pink unicorns, FSM, or anything conceivable.

We have "records" of crime as far back as the written word. And when you put a name to a serial killer, that name is evidence.

I agree, the claimant should not be forced to profess anything. That is not the point. If skepticism cannot be applied to a belief, then you cannot claim to be a skeptic when it comes to that particular belief.

So with a claim that has no evidence, is un-testable, and the believer does not claim evidence you are left with the following position;

The claim has no evidence - This means a skeptic will not accept it as a certainty.

I don't see anyone doing that.

The claim is un-testable - This means skeptical scientific method cannot be applied. Therefore accepting the claim would need to be done on non skeptical grounds.

Wrong. You can't dismiss something as being unskeptical if it falls outside science. You have to take the skeptical "I don't know" position.

Again we come back to what the majority of people have been saying:
"A person can be selective in applying skepticism. If a belief in god is formed with no evidence, then that belief cannot be claimed to have formed through skepticism."

There is no "I don't know" position in skepticism?

Simple. No evidence. No verification of truth. No acceptance as fact.

No claim of evidence either.

They don't claim imaginary friends, Claus. They claim friends that happen to be imaginary. They don't THINK they are imaginary, else they wouldn't believe in them.

If you daydream about an imaginary friend, you are going to claim they exist. You are going to fantasize they exist. You wouldn't then believe they really exist.

Now you are pushing your own interpretation of what they claim onto them.

 

[Big Les]

I'm sorry; who's pushing their interpretations on these hypothetical people?! You're the one setting up the scenario exactly as it suits your argument, hoping for us to hoist ourselves by our own responding petard. In other words, a strawman argument. You are ignoring the fact that children do claim to be able to hear and/or see their imaginary friends, not just talk to them.

And so what if they do only claim some level of communication? How is that at all different to someone who claims to talk to the dead, but claims that the power magically vanishes when the testers arrive?

Once again; imaginary friends are not imaginary as far as the imaginer is concerned. They claim that they exist, making their claim open to scepticism. Just like god.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry; who's pushing their interpretations on these hypothetical people?! You're the one setting up the scenario exactly as it suits your argument, hoping for us to hoist ourselves by our own responding petard. In other words, a strawman argument. You are ignoring the fact that children do claim to be able to hear and/or see their imaginary friends, not just talk to them.

No, I'm not. I am asking you about an imaginary friend that you talk to, but don't claim to be able and/or see.

Would that be acceptable?

And so what if they do only claim some level of communication? How is that at all different to someone who claims to talk to the dead, but claims that the power magically vanishes when the testers arrive?

Once again; imaginary friends are not imaginary as far as the imaginer is concerned. They claim that they exist, making their claim open to scepticism. Just like god.

And that is pushing your interpretation on others. Me, I go with what they claim.

 

[schlitt]

So you would never say "100%"?

I would say 100% for certain things, of which i have ample evidence, others it is a case of applying Occam's razor.

We have "records" of crime as far back as the written word. And when you put a name to a serial killer, that name is evidence.

No, this predated written word.
Regardless, since i do not claim evidence i can mutate this belief into anything i want to answer any questions you have. Anyway, you must see the point of how me believing this with no evidence would be rather silly. The god hypothesis is no less silly, and has no more evidence, so to dismiss one, yet uphold the other would be inconsistent.

I don't see anyone doing that.

So just what are the people in your example doing?

You say they are being skeptical about god.
How are they doing so by believing with uncertainty that there is a god which they have no evidence for and would therefore require faith to accept as reality?

What is it about their position that contains anything remotely like skepticism?

Wrong. You can't dismiss something as being unskeptical if it falls outside science. You have to take the skeptical "I don't know" position.

I am not talking about outright dismissal. There is a difference between a stance of "I do not know, but would require some evidence or reason to believe this as likely" and "I believe this is true with no evidence". Skeptical methodology would not lead to the conclusion of truth for something which has no evidence. It should lead to the conclusion of uncertainty.

There is no "I don't know" position in skepticism?

Of course there is. It is the starting point for every investigation, and the ending point for many.

No claim of evidence either.

Irrelevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would say 100% for certain things, of which i have ample evidence, others it is a case of applying Occam's razor.

Which things would you say 100% to? Evolution?

No, this predated written word. Regardless, since i do not claim evidence i can mutate this belief into anything i want to answer any questions you have. Anyway, you must see the point of how me believing this with no evidence would be rather silly. The god hypothesis is no less silly, and has no more evidence, so to dismiss one, yet uphold the other would be inconsistent.

Wait a minute. When you mention a name, that is evidence. You have to realize this.

So just what are the people in your example doing?

They are having "someone" - nobody real, nobody that exists, a phantom, if you like - to talk to. Having "someone" to talk to can help people immensely - or simply some way of unburdening their hearts. Get it off your chest, simply formulate your problems and worries - and you feel a lot better. Often, it doesn't even matter if nobody really is listening.

That's their "God".

You say they are being skeptical about god.
How are they doing so by believing with uncertainty that there is a god which they have no evidence for and would therefore require faith to accept as reality?

What is it about their position that contains anything remotely like skepticism?

They can call it god, they can call it their imaginary friend - it doesn't matter. What matters is what they claim about the existence.

If no evidence is claimed, what's a skeptic to do? We can't jump to the conclusion that the evidence is against them, because they don't claim evidence.

I am not talking about outright dismissal. There is a difference between a stance of "I do not know, but would require some evidence or reason to believe this as likely" and "I believe this is true with no evidence". Skeptical methodology would not lead to the conclusion of truth for something which has no evidence. It should lead to the conclusion of uncertainty.

Absolutely. What it doesn't lead to is the conclusion that "I believe this is false because there is no evidence either way".

When no evidence exists either way, and no evidence is claimed, then the skeptical position is simply: "Until evidence surfaces, I don't know".

And it's OK to say "I don't know".

Of course there is. It is the starting point for every investigation, and the ending point for many.

The ending point if no evidence is present and no evidence is claimed, yes.

Irrelevant.

No, that's where you go wrong.

 

[Big Les]

No, I'm not. I am asking you about an imaginary friend that you talk to, but don't claim to be able and/or see.

Would that be acceptable?

Acceptable in what way? To me personally? Yes, in that I'm not about to try and insist that they don't do it, but "no" in that I don't personally approve of it. I think it irrational, childish and un-necessary, and though not harmful to others as such, certainly something to grow out of. If an adult admitted to talking to an imaginary friend, they would be thought more than a little odd, possibly even psychologically disturbed. And yet, belief in an imaginary friend with the label "god" is somehow treated with positive respect.

And that is pushing your interpretation on others. Me, I go with what they claim.

And they claim to believe in god. With a passable command of the English language, I take that to mean "I believe there is a god". Which is a claim. And round we go...

 

[CFLarsen]

Acceptable in what way? To me personally? Yes, in that I'm not about to try and insist that they don't do it, but "no" in that I don't personally approve of it. I think it irrational, childish and un-necessary, and though not harmful to others as such, certainly something to grow out of. If an adult admitted to talking to an imaginary friend, they would be thought more than a little odd, possibly even psychologically disturbed. And yet, belief in an imaginary friend with the label "god" is somehow treated with positive respect.

Acceptable, skeptic-wise? Are you a skeptic, if you have such an imaginary friend?

And they claim to believe in god. With a passable command of the English language, I take that to mean "I believe there is a god". Which is a claim. And round we go...

It is your claim.

 

[schlitt]

Which things would you say 100% to? Evolution?

100% for things which there are no alternate explanations is the evidence is irrefutable. All of the research i have done on evolution i would indicate a very high percentage of probability. I would not say 100% though, since it is such a vast subject.

Wait a minute. When you mention a name, that is evidence. You have to realize this.

No, the name is a factor of the belief. It would become evidence if relating information were found. since we know there were no historical records 20,000 years ago. It remains only as a factor, and not evidence. In this instance, your name is no more testable than your existence 20,000 years ago. Neither are provable or disprovable.

They are having "someone" - nobody real, nobody that exists, a phantom, if you like - to talk to. Having "someone" to talk to can help people immensely - or simply some way of unburdening their hearts. Get it off your chest, simply formulate your problems and worries - and you feel a lot better. Often, it doesn't even matter if nobody really is listening.

That's their "God".

Your description does not indicate a belief. It is more of an apathetic out letting.

They can call it god, they can call it their imaginary friend - it doesn't matter. What matters is what they claim about the existence.

I think what is more pertinent is whether they are believing and accepting on faith, or just taking a non commital "well, it might be true".

If no evidence is claimed, what's a skeptic to do? We can't jump to the conclusion that the evidence is against them, because they don't claim evidence.

You're right, we cannot do that. But we also cannot believe something without evidence. So again we come be to a point of uncertainty which would require faith to believe either for or against.

Absolutely. What it doesn't lead to is the conclusion that "I believe this is false because there is no evidence either way".

Agreed.

When no evidence exists either way, and no evidence is claimed, then the skeptical position is simply: "Until evidence surfaces, I don't know".

And it's OK to say "I don't know".

Correct. So you see now how a belief in god is not skeptical, but being open to the possibility is?

The ending point if no evidence is present and no evidence is claimed, yes.

And if scientific method cannot be applied.

No, that's where you go wrong.

No, its not.

If someone wants to say "There may be a god, i don't know, i am going to pray to it anyway".
That is fine, it fits within the realms of skepticism, because it is merely gambling on something which does have a probability.

However, if someone states "There may be a god, i have no evidence but i am going to believe anyway" - they have crossed the line from skepticism to blind faith.

 

[CFLarsen]

100% for things which there are no alternate explanations is the evidence is irrefutable. All of the research i have done on evolution i would indicate a very high percentage of probability. I would not say 100% though, since it is such a vast subject.

OK, not evolution. What, then? Be specific.

No, the name is a factor of the belief. It would become evidence if relating information were found. since we know there were no historical records 20,000 years ago. It remains only as a factor, and not evidence. In this instance, your name is no more testable than your existence 20,000 years ago. Neither are provable or disprovable.

Whoa. You are confusing evidence with availability of evidence. Just because we can't get to the evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

Your description does not indicate a belief. It is more of an apathetic out letting.

Again, you impose your own perception on what other people claim.

I think what is more pertinent is whether they are believing and accepting on faith, or just taking a non commital "well, it might be true".

If you want to discuss their skepticism, you can't avoid the issue of evidence.

You're right, we cannot do that. But we also cannot believe something without evidence. So again we come be to a point of uncertainty which would require faith to believe either for or against.

We cannot believe something claimed to be evidential without evidence, no.

Agreed.

Agreed? I thought you were arguing this?

Correct. So you see now how a belief in god is not skeptical, but being open to the possibility is?

No, no. A belief in an evidential god is not skeptical. You can't avoid the issue of evidence.

And if scientific method cannot be applied.

Indeed.

No, its not.

I told you so. Are you here for the five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

If someone wants to say "There may be a god, i don't know, i am going to pray to it anyway".
That is fine, it fits within the realms of skepticism, because it is merely gambling on something which does have a probability.

However, if someone states "There may be a god, i have no evidence but i am going to believe anyway" - they have crossed the line from skepticism to blind faith.

Why? In either case, they don't claim evidence.

 

[schlitt]

OK, not evolution. What, then? Be specific.

I am 100% certain of my existence.

Whoa. You are confusing evidence with availability of evidence. Just because we can't get to the evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

I am not confusing evidence.

Define evidence.

A description contained within a claim is not evidence.

Again, you impose your own perception on what other people claim.

Not an imposition, a mere translation of perception into text.
If you decribe how you view something it is not an imposition.

If you want to discuss their skepticism, you can't avoid the issue of evidence.

Agreed.
So skeptics require evidence correct?
Then how could a skeptic paradoxically believe something which does not have evidence, and claim the belief was arrived at with skeptical methodology?

We cannot believe something claimed to be evidential without evidence, no.

Right. So therefore a belief in something without evidence has not been formed through skepticism. Therefore, a god belief is not skeptical. This does not mean a god believer is not a skeptic as a whole, it merely shows they are willing to accept some things on faith - which is not consistent with skeptical methodology.

Agreed? I thought you were arguing this?

Nope. I am not advocating blanket denial of something which cannot be disproven. However blind acceptance would be just as bigger fallacy.

No, no. A belief in an evidential god is not skeptical. You can't avoid the issue of evidence.

Both a claimed evidential god, and a non-claimed evidential god suffer the same fate when being considered by a skeptic who requires evidence before acceptance of truth. i.e no evidence, no acceptance of truth.
There is the consideration of possibility, but committing either way would have to be done so on faith.

I told you so. Are you here for the five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

I am at work all day, with nothing better to do

Why? In either case, they don't claim evidence.

It is not the claiming of evidence that is the problem, it is the leap of faith.
Once something is accepted blindly by faith, it inherently ceases to be skeptical.

Belief without evidence is faith.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am 100% certain of my existence.

But should I be?

How about gravity? Magnetism? Light?

What scientific discoveries are you 100% certain of?

I am not confusing evidence.

Define evidence.

A description contained within a claim is not evidence.

Yes, it is, when it is verifiable. When we find something, we can hold it up against your claim of a specific name: Is what we found what you described?

I think I know why you get it wrong: You don't understand what evidence is.

Not an imposition, a mere translation of perception into text. If you decribe how you view something it is not an imposition.

Yes, it is, when it changes the person's claim.

Agreed.
So skeptics require evidence correct?

If we are to say anything about the existence of something, yes.

Then how could a skeptic paradoxically believe something which does not have evidence, and claim the belief was arrived at with skeptical methodology?

Because it isn't claimed to exist.

Right. So therefore a belief in something without evidence has not been formed through skepticism. Therefore, a god belief is not skeptical. This does not mean a god believer is not a skeptic as a whole, it merely shows they are willing to accept some things on faith - which is not consistent with skepticism.

The "something" isn't claimed to exist.

Nope. I am not advocating blanket denial of something which cannot be disproven. However blind acceptance would be just as bigger fallacy.

Of course.

Both a claimed evidential god, and a non-claimed evidential god suffer the same fate when being considered by a skeptic who requires evidence before acceptance of truth. i.e no evidence, no acceptance of truth.
There is the consideration of possibility, but committing either way would have to be done so on faith.

Now you are leaving out the skeptical "I don't know because there is no evidence claimed" position.

It is not the claiming of evidence that is the problem, it is the leap of faith.
Once something is accepted blindly by faith, it inherently ceases to be skeptical.

Belief without evidence is faith.

Can you have a leap of faith if you don't claim evidence? Leap of faith of what? If you don't claim existence of evidence, you can't have a leap of faith in the existence of something.

 

[schlitt]

But should I be?

How about gravity? Magnetism? Light?

What scientific discoveries are you 100% certain of?

I can see what you are getting at, really it is more of a 99.9 reccuring.
But for the sake of simplicity i would state that i am 100% certain that without light, i would not be able to see as a do now.

Yes, it is, when it is verifiable. When we find something, we can hold it up against your claim of a specific name: Is what we found what you described?

No, it can be evidence for the wider statement, but only if it is verifiable.

"You name was Mildred" does not differ at all from, "There is a god". both would need to be verified before considered evidence, and both could never be verified. If they were verified they would not be evidence, they would be truth.

Since you are having trouble with this example, lets take another.

There is another dimension which is comprised completely of lollipops and razorblades. This dimension resides with god, outside of space and time as we know it.

This belief is no more or no less ridiculous than any god belief, unless there were some evidence to show a god belief as reasonable.

I think I know why you get it wrong: You don't understand what evidence is.

I understand perfectly well what evidence is.

Yes, it is, when it changes the person's claim.

How does what i said change the persons claim?

Because it isn't claimed to exist.

What is being claimed then?

If you believe something exists, you cannot also believe it does not.
You either take the stance of "it could exist", "it does not exist" or "it does exist". one of those stances is correct in every instance. In a case where scientific methodology cannot be applied, a stance of "It could exist" should be taken.

The "something" isn't claimed to exist.

Dividing by 0 springs to mind.

See my above answer.

Now you are leaving out the skeptical "I don't know because there is no evidence claimed" position.

No i am not, that is the very position that i am advocating.

Can you have a leap of faith if you don't claim evidence? Leap of faith of what? If you don't claim existence of evidence, you can't have a leap of faith in the existence of something.

Either the something exists, or it does not. with no way to verify the existence, or non existence, a belief either way would be taken on faith alone.

so it boils down to;
does the person believe there is a god?

or

does the person believe there is the possibility of a god?

If the answer to the first question is yes - this goes against skepticism, because this belief is based on faith with no evidence.

If the answer to the second question is yes, this is perfectly in line with skepticism.

 

[CFLarsen]

I can see what you are getting at, really it is more of a 99.9 reccuring.
But for the sake of simplicity i would state that i am 100% certain that without light, i would not be able to see as a do now.

Yes, I think you are seeing what I am getting at.

You can't say that anything is 100% certain. To do so is to be close-minded. And certainly not skeptical.

So, what made you say that you could indeed claim that something is 100% certain?

No, it can be evidence, but only if it is verifiable.

That's what I said.

"You name was Mildred" does not differ at all from, "There is a god". both would need to be verified before considered evidence, and both could never be verified. If they were verified they would not be evidence, they would be truth.

Of course it differs, because "Mildred" is a name which roots can be traced. We can go back to see which cultures in which times used the name. You sure won't find many "Mildred"'s in the Danish Viking age.

Since you are having trouble with this example, lets take another.

I'm not. It's just that your example did not prove you right.

There is another dimension which is comprised completely of lollipops and razorblades. This dimension resides with god, outside of space and time as we know it.

This belief is no more or no less ridiculous than any god belief, unless there were some evidence to show a god belief as reasonable.

If you propose another dimension in which the natural laws and science as we understand it don't apply, then you can't draw similarities from the two.

I understand perfectly well what evidence is.

No, I really don't think you do. You clearly don't understand the difference between X and availability of X.

How does what i said change the persons claim?

You change it to mean that they claim evidence of their belief. They don't.

What is being claimed then?

If you believe something exists, you cannot also believe it does not.
You either take the stance of "it could exist", "it does not exist" or "it does exist". one of those stances is correct in every instance. In a case where scientific methodology cannot be applied, a stance of "It could exist" should be taken.

It is not claimed that it does exist. Go with that.

Dividing by 0 springs to mind.

See my above answer.

You lost me there. Please clarify.

No i am not, that is the very position that i am advocating.

Then I don't understand why you can't go with what people claim, instead of going what you want them to claim.

Either the something exists, or it does not. with no way to verify the existence, or non existence, a belief either way would be taken on faith alone.

That doesn't answer the question: Can you have a leap of faith if you don't claim evidence? If said leap of faith requires you to claim evidence?