Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

No Claus, a leap of faith is belief without or despite evidence. When you believe in something... even the possibility of something that has no basis in any known physical properties of our world--you have a faith based position. Whether it's a belief in demons, fairies, past lives, astrology, or any other supernatural force or entity. You have a belief in something that lies outside everything we know about our world, physics, etc. You have a believe that consciousness can exist outside a brain-- that planet rotation can predict human affairs that there is something that IS outside the natural world.

That's not skeptical. The skeptical position is that those things do not exist. Until some evidence can prove that they can exist--they are the same as delusions and imaginary beings. They are incompatible with everything we know about reality. Supernatural claims have never been shown to be true. There is NO evidence that they even can be. On the contrary, we have evidence that people are easy to fool. Lots and lots of such evidence. We have evidence that they'll play semantic games to continue believing in such things and indulge in all kinds of confirmation bias.

If you expect skeptics to be a-demonists... you ought to expect them to be atheists for the same reason. If demon belief without claims of evidence are not rational, then neither are god beliefs or past life beliefs or afterlife beliefs. It's logically inconsistent to say otherwise. It's logically inconsistent to "believe in" one and not the others. There is no method of distinguishing one from the other and also no method to distinguish such beliefs from the known way people fool themselves or misperceive their world.

 

[CFLarsen]

No Claus, a leap of faith is belief without or despite evidence. When you believe in something... even the possibility of something that has no basis in any known physical properties of our world--you have a faith based position.
...
That's not skeptical.

But do you claim to have an evidenced-based faith?

Maybe that is your problem with this? That you can't distinguish between faith and evidence?

 

[Mobyseven]

Claus: If someone is a believer based purely on faith, entirely in the absence of evidence, then that position is not skeptical. It's pretty much the opposite.

 

[danielk]

To the OP: No.

Yours,
an atheist

 

[articulett]

But do you claim to have an evidenced-based faith?

Maybe that is your problem with this? That you can't distinguish between faith and evidence?

I can. You seem to think that there's something in between that drives belief.

So let me understand what you are saying.

So long as no claims of evidence are made a belief in god and a belief in demons are equally valid to you--equally likely to have a basis in truth. A belief in ESP and past lives are valid, as are beliefs in the chupacabra or that "everything happens for a 'higher' reason" or that we are in a matrix. You hold these things as possible because there is no evidence to examine to dismiss the notion.

At least that's internally consistent.

What we're saying is that most skeptics find all such beliefs unworthy of consideration for the same reason we that we don't take seriously the beliefs of schizophrenics who are getting messages from aliens via radio signals that we can't detect. There are so many leaps over what we know to be true, that to consider the possibility of it alone takes an enormous leap of faith. There are so many other bits and pieces of reality that would need to be confirmed (like invisible undetectable powers and forms of consiciousness) before most skeptics would begin to posit such a notion--before it would even leave the %99.99 certainty point that we have that it's woo--and we might attach it "could" be true to the possibility.

Belief in the divine is the same as belief in "evil" to me. It's a based in human thought--not in the actual physical world. It appears that most skeptics seem to make similar conclusions over time. The most parsimonious explanation for all such beliefs is that humans are very prone to some types of misperceptions and delusions via their interpretation of primal instincts and cultural indoctrination. Our brains don't just perceive--they interpret... and a lot can go awry in the process as even the simplest optical illusions reveal.

 

[articulett]

To the OP: No.

Yours,
an atheist

Should atheists, by definition, be a-demonists (lack a belief in demons)?

I'm trying to find out if people are being logically consistent in what they are skeptical of or if they are giving "god beliefs" special leeway.

 

[articulett]

Claus, if someone says, "the devil made me do it", do you consider the possibility that it could be true (that there's a devil that made them do something)? What is the most likely explanation of that statement? What do you think most skeptics would take that statement to mean. I would say the person doesn't know what made them act as they did, but I sure as hell wouldn't imagine a devil was involved. I see no more basis for a belief in them then a belief in god.

 

[danielk]

Should atheists, by definition, be a-demonists (lack a belief in demons)?

Atheists? No. Atheists can basically believe in anything but a god.

I'm trying to find out if people are being logically consistent in what they are skeptical of or if they are giving "god beliefs" special leeway.

In a way, yes, "god beliefs" are special. Sophisticated believers usually define god in a way which evades scientific reasoning. To me it appears to be mostly sophistry, but obviously I don't know all the answers either so I'll usually leave it at that. Some people would argue agnosticism is the true skeptical position. At this point I usually think "Whatever."

Anyway, even if a belief in god is unanimously judged unskeptical (by whom?), I still think it's silly to exclude people from being skeptics by definition, just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort. I'm pretty sure I'm not a 100% skeptic either. If you define "skeptic" to explicitly exclude this and that unsubstantiated belief, one by one, I fear you're going to end up with the empty set.

I'd say a skeptic is something one aspires to be.

 

[schlitt]

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?

As i said, i am 100% certain of some things. And as an example i said i am 100% certain that i exist.

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.

No, it cannot be traced because there is no historical records from 20,000 years ago, and if there is, my belief will change to a time when there was none. Since i do not require or claim any evidence it is my prerogative to do so.

Lets say it was three trillion years ago in another galaxy...

As part of the whole statement, the verifying of someone called Mildred who existed during the time of the claim would be evidence, sure. but i specifically chose a period of time before historical recording. It is therefore not verifiable, just as this non evidential god is not verifiable.

The point is, a belief in a god is the same as any other conceivable idea that has no evidence, or way of verifying.
So why should one idea be considered more plausible than another if there is no indicating factors?

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.

You are missing the point.

There are infinite things i could choose to believe. a non evidential god is just one among the infinite. Why would a belief in a non evidential god be considered something formed from skeptical methodology? It could not possibly.

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

The availability is key in this matter. If something exists, it is therefore self evident, it is accessibility which is the problem.

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

The fact they do not claim evidence does not negate the fact that a skeptical methodology requires evidence.

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

So just what is the claim or belief then?

You lost me there. Please clarify.

I mean that in sense; belief in nothing is the same as no belief. Believing there is a god who does not exist is the same as believing there is no god.

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

I do not want them to claim anything. I am simply stating you cannot claim to have used skeptical methodology when accepting something which does not have evidence as truth.

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?

Yes, you certainly can. I could choose to believe pink unicorns, FSM, you name it, but in doing so i would need to accept them on faith, due to the fact there is no evidence. whether i want to claim i have evidence for them or not is irrelevant.

 

[articulett]

Atheists? No. Atheists can basically believe in anything but a god.

I'd say a skeptic is something one aspires to be.

I agree, and I asked the question wrong. What I meant to ask was do you think skeptics should be a-demonists... they should lack a belief in demons? Do you think a belief in god deserves special consideration or less dismissal than beliefs in demons? Do you think gods are more likely than demons however you might define or conceptualize such things.

It seems that some people who would consider it logical to be "on the fence" in regards to gods-- are not really on the fence when it comes to demons? And I'm trying to see if there is any logical reason for the difference. I can think of plenty of reasons for the difference--mostly based in the cultural notion that "faith is good" or "salvation worthy"--but I cannot see a logical reason-- that is, gods, seem no more likely to me than demons... I am equally skeptical of both and I imagine most skeptics with internally consistent world view would be. Are you? Do you think this is a reasonable expectation?

 

[danielk]

Do you think gods are more likely than demons however you might define or conceptualize such things.

It depends very much on the definition of god. Very often, god is defined more like an abstract concept than a being, especially by more sophisticated theists. As I said, you can define god in a way that evades scientific reasoning.

that is, gods, seem no more likely to me than demons...

I would agree if we're talking about crude, personal gods, for example like the Greek once had.

I am equally skeptical of both and I imagine most skeptics with internally consistent world view would be. Are you? Do you think this is a reasonable expectation?

Well as I said I'm an atheist. I just don't like the idea of excluding people from skepticism because of theistic beliefs, as long as those beliefs are confined to the realm of philosophy and no testable claims are made and found to be false.

 

[articulett]

I'm with you, Schlitt. I find Claus maddeningly evasive and impossible to pin down... He seems to give god belief more credence than demon belief or past life belief and other woo beliefs and he's pretending it has to do with whether evidence is asserted.

I understand why it's important to be inclusive. But I don't think it's logically consistent to infer that a god belief is more skeptical than a demon belief no matter how those terms are defined and by whom or whether evidence is claimed or not. To me, they are cut from the same woo cloth. So are beliefs in ESP and divine truths. There is no such evidence that such things CAN exist; thus no-one can have access to any evidence that correctly leads to such faith based notions. We understand that many people have false beliefs about such things. We have no basis for positing that any of them might be real. Consciousness outside of a brain would have to be proven first... or "supernatural forces" undetectable to humans except via subjective experiences. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[articulett]

It depends very much on the definition of god. Very often, god is defined more like an abstract concept than a being, especially by more sophisticated theists. As I said, you can define god in a way that evades scientific reasoning.


I would agree if we're talking about crude, personal gods, for example like the Greek once had.


Well as I said I'm an atheist. I just don't like the idea of excluding people from skepticism because of theistic beliefs, as long as those beliefs are confined to the realm of philosophy and no testable claims are made and found to be false.

I agree about not excluding people-- but I'm curious as to whether you find the belief in god (however defined) more respect worthy than a belief in "evil" (however conceptualized.) Do you think it's reasonable for someone to posit the notion of "evil" as being outside of the human mind... a force or whatever? Evil is "outside" science too, right? It's conceptual. To me, god and evil are identical sorts of concepts--they are invented by humans and invoke human descriptions of perceptions about the outside world-- but they cannot exist absent human belief or definition of them the way actual reality can and does. So would you expect a skeptic to believe in "evil"? Would you agree that it would be internally consistent for a skeptic to have the same view about "evil" as they would about "god"-- since they are both based on similar immeasurable nebulous concepts? I would expect this, but I notice it's not the case-- so I am convinced that god notions get a special pass for some reason... although most skeptics aren't aware that they are necessarily doing so and will play semantic games to pretend that they are not.

Should a skeptic treat god belief as demon belief? Is there a reason to treat one differently then the other? Is it logical to do so? When skeptics do so, are they giving certain kinds of woo a pass that they don't give to other woo-- whatever it is they are skeptical about.

Am I wrong when I notice that god belief is protected from woo scrutiny even by other nonbelievers? We are discouraged from discussing a belief in god when we would be discouraged from discussing a belief in demons from others--even other skeptics.

We've already agreed that anyone is free to label themselves a skeptic and anyone is free to judge how skeptical they think another person is-- that's the same with Christianity or atheism. But I'm trying to find out why it is that god belief gets special treatment... or at least it seems that way--even from other skeptics.

If you expect a skeptic to lack a belief in demons, then you ought to expect them to lack a belief in gods for the exact same reasons.

 

[danielk]

If you expect a skeptic to lack a belief in demons, then you ought to expect them to lack a belief in gods for the exact same reasons.

No, and I think you are evading now, since I already laid down my criteria. A belief in "evil" as an abstract concept would pass, even though it might not mean much at all to me. In fact, if it would mean something it probably wouldn't pass.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

As Big Les said. Claus, we are just trying to figure out what you are talking about. You brought up the invisible friend, so clarify what you mean. Your discussion over this is really unclear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus: If someone is a believer based purely on faith, entirely in the absence of evidence, then that position is not skeptical. It's pretty much the opposite.

Exactly.

Of course we know the difference. That's the whole focus of the discussion. From my point of view, you can be a skeptic, but you can't excuse what isn't in keeping with skepticism by simply labeling it "outside" of the realm of evidence. What's to stop any woo believer from claiming the same? In fact, I believe more than a few of them actually do use that rationale.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Anyway, even if a belief in god is unanimously judged unskeptical (by whom?),

Just to clarify, it isn't the conclusion that is the problem, it's that the conclusion is not based on evidence.

I still think it's silly to exclude people from being skeptics by definition, just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort. ....

No one here is saying this, thus you are arguing a straw man.

 

[danielk]

No one here is saying this, thus you are arguing a straw man.

Huh? I'm certainly not arguing a straw man, as can be easily verified by looking at the title of your browser window.

 

[articulett]

Obviously we can't test anything where no claim is made.

The question is about belief. Do you think god belief deserves more credence or respect than demon belief?

Do you expect a skeptic to lack a belief in demons? If so, why? And if so, why shouldn't that belief extend to gods. Is there something about god belief that makes it more likely to be true than demon belief? Or is it just that it consoles people so we shouldn't hurt their feelings or make them defensive by asserting that it's a belief based in feelings, faith, cultural indoctrination, and irrational presumptions. People appear to believe in gods for the same kinds of reasons they believe in demons or "evil"-- and both seem equally "valid" beliefs when it comes to reality. I have yet to hear a good argument as to how they are different, and yet belief in god gets a pass in ways that belief in demons would not. Maybe people just feel it's less harmless or that people are more vulnerable to such beliefs. But does anyone who calls themselves a skeptic think that "god" is more more likely to exist in the real world than "evil"--that god is less of a mental construct than "evil" or "divine truths" or "ESP" or ghosts or other woo/supernatural beliefs? If so, how is this justified? It seems that every argument used to support a god belief could be used to support all woo beliefs and thus they are based on confirmation bias and misperception no matter what is said out loud, what evidence is claimed, how good it makes one feel, how many people believe in it. I think it's clear that god belief can only be propped up so long as the tools of skepticism are kept away from it-- because gods are no more likely than other woo.

When someone says that they believe something exists because no one can prove that it doesn't, then that is an excellent reason to conclude that it doesn't and that you've stumbled on a mental construct humans use to fool themselves... you've stumbled upon woo. I'd say, the more defensive the believers are, the less likely it is that their beliefs are true but the more they have invested in keeping that belief alive.

I care about what is true more than I care about what people believe. I care about what is true for everybody no matter what anyone believes, and I care about the way people misperceive the world in the stories they tell themselves. So, what I'm asking is this-- Does anyone have a reason that god belief should be treated differently than demon belief (or insert any other "woo"). I'm not talking about what skeptics say... I'm talking about understanding reality. Should god belief be treated differently than demon belief when one is trying to understand the truth that is the same for everybody? It is true that humans believe in invisible entities of all sorts that do not exist except in the imagination-- is there any logical reason to presume any such beliefs (including god beliefs) have a basis in objective reality? Is there any logical evidence to suggest that even souls can be real? Any? I know all about hope and such--but this all seems like wishful thinking to me... and semantics used to keep others and oneself from realizing such.

I'm all for inclusiveness--but I don't defer to faith based notions-- I don't think faith IS a good way to know anything... I think it's a dangerous illusion making you feel like you know something while being unaware of your ignorance.

My perception is that god belief is treated like "The Emperor's New Clothes"--even among some other "skeptics" and atheists. I think the logical thing is to consider it all woo. It's the best way to learn the truth.

 

[articulett]

No, and I think you are evading now, since I already laid down my criteria. A belief in "evil" as an abstract concept would pass, even though it might not mean much at all to me. In fact, if it would mean something it probably wouldn't pass.

I'm evading what? I'm asking if you consider god belief an "abstract concept" outside of scientific scrutiny like "evil". Do you consider beliefs about god on par with beliefs about "evil"? Would skeptics who believe in god be on par with skeptics who believe in "evil"--however you define those terms. To me, they would be. I consider both terms equally useless in regards to understand the facts that are the same for everybody. I'm surprise when people don't treat the two beliefs equally.

Are you under 21? Is English your first language?