Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

To me, a skeptic who believes in a god is like a skeptic who checks their horoscope regularly. No claims need to be made for me to conclude that there appears to be some cognitive dissonance going on.

Sure, one can be a skeptic AND check their horoscope regularly. It doesn't mean they believe in astrology... it doesn't mean they are claiming evidence... but it's not something one would expect of a skeptic... It would seem like they have some sort of belief or compulsion that they didn't understand. If I noticed someone who called themselves a skeptic checking their horoscope regularly, I might ask them about it; or I might infer that they were not the skeptics they imagined themselves to be. I wouldn't conclude that horoscopes have any basis in reality however.

 

[CFLarsen]

Does it ever occur to you that it might well be very representative of those who call themselves skeptics.

Does that make them skeptics?

How am I excluding them? You exclude everyone since no one but you seems to understand and agree with your point.

Only you could derive that interpretation from that. I can't understand how you think. But you are one person. And you are not representative... since it doesn't look like a lot of people understand what you think.

Oh, for crying out loud.... How passive-aggressive can you get?

I disagree. A skeptic goes where the evidence goes. I am perfectly willing to change my mind should evidence ever appear...just as Randi would pay the million dollars should someone prove to have psychic powers or the like.
But don't pretend that he thinks it's likely. That's how I consider all gods... and that's how I suspect most skeptics are... or eventually become.

No, Randi doesn't think it is likely. But he thinks it is possible - enough to even pay the million if something new was found.

All things are possible... but we don't increase our understanding by considering them all equally valid... we go with the evidence that is accumulating.

Here you go again with your blatant dishonesty: Nobody is saying that all things are equally possible.

No more than I insist that my interpretation of ESP, or demons, or "evil" is the right one. I'm willing to use whatever definition anyone wants to use--

No you are not. You insist that your definitions are the only correct ones.

Look in the mirror. It seems the biggest hypocrites are the ones most likely to notice it in others. Shall we go through this thread and see who started the snideness first? Should we take a vote? Or do you just go with CFLarsen's special interpretation of hypocrite?

You keep pointing to the number of people agreeing with you (curiously only in this thread), and you want to take votes - as if popularity determines reality.

Tell you what: Why don't you write an article where you present your views on this, and send it to me? Or Skeptic Magazine? Or offer to present it at TAM? See just how your perception of what skepticism fares?

Whatever that means. Does that mean anything to anyone besides Claus?

Yes, it does: Randi is one. He doesn't insist that claimants for the million bucks really believe in something else than what they claim.

You accept peoples' beliefs in ESP "on their own terms"? Or just their god beliefs? Do you accept peoples beliefs in past lives on their own terms?

Of course! We can't go around changing their claims to something else, just because we don't like what they believe.

Can anyone besides you even say what your point is? What it means? What you are trying to say? We all understand that you think you are the "super skeptic" who accepts people in a super special skeptical way-- but is there anyone else who shares this view of yourself?

Can you point out where my point of view is inconsistent or not?

It don't believe this. I don't understand you. Does anyone else?

Here we go again: You don't believe this, so it can't be true.

Evidence?

I am asking if you think you could be wrong here. Do you?

Does anyone besides you think so?

Again, this appeal to popularity.

Nope. Then you don't understand me. Or most of the others. It's about the truth that is the same for everybody. Either some god exists in some manner and people are detecting it through faith or whatever it is that makes them call themselves believers or they believe in something that has no basis in reality... though they wouldn't be in the position to know that any more than Sylvia Browne's clients are.

When you change what people believe in, it is not about the "truth" that is the same for everybody. Then, it is your "truth" that you want to impose on everyone else.

That's a strawman. I don't think they are anymore dishonest than people who believe that Peter Popoff is talking to God... I believe that those who tell me that they are getting messages from god really believe they are getting messages from god. I just don't believe they are getting messages from god anymore than the hijackers were getting messages from Allah.

It doesn't matter if you believe them or not.

The fact that you seem to be unable to differentiate between misperception and a lie makes me wonder about your intelligence and/or honesty. You did that to skepticgirl too. Do you think that people who believe they've been probed by aliens are liars? How about those who claim to have seen the chupacabra? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra

Now, that is arrogant: To presume to know when people lie and when they really believe.

Actually, you are. You ARE suggesting that beliefs without evidenciary claims are "possible"-- that they aren't something to be skeptical of.

You have completely misunderstood how skepticism works. It doesn't matter if there are claims of evidence for a belief to be possible or not.

Interesting, because you seem to be criticizing atheist skeptics for finding belief in a god to be "non skeptical" by saying we are not being "inclusive".

Do you speak for atheist skeptics?

I'm not stupid Claus. But I really don't understand what you are saying. And since no one else seems to be able to sum up your point, I don't think anyone does. It sounds like a semantic argument defending god belief that has something to do with whether someone claims evidence for that belief or not.

You understand very well what I am saying.

For the same reason belief in bigfoot is... see link above. Or maybe you believe people who believe they've seen a bigfoot.

Explain it, please. What is the reason why Chupacabra is supernatural/paranormal?

Yes, I think it's unskeptical to have a belief in demons.

Because you see demons as bad gods?

No. I see no evidence that devils exist much less that they can make people do things. I think devils are a way people explain actions of theirs they don't understand and wish they didn't do.

"No". Your mind is closed. Not open to the possibility at all.

I'm willing to agree that anyone can call themselves a skeptic. If they believe in god, I will conclude that they haven't applied the tools of skepticism to that belief.

How is that you being inclusive? You just threw them out of skepticism.

This doesn't compute. Anyone can define themselves as a skeptic or an atheist or a Christian and others can decide whether they think these terms fit. Most of the people I know of who call themselves skeptics are also non-theists-- they have no beliefs in any gods... though many believed in a god of some sort-- but the relentless pursuit of truth through skepticism makes god beliefs into just another woo for most.

See above.

I said it's a human construct. But it is also a religious concept. It's on par with god. Many people think of it as something outside themselves--something that exists outside of human belief. In fact god beliefs are often kept to keep away "evil"...

Is Lucifer evil?

It is. But those positing it do not refer to it as such. Who would claim their god is psychosomatic or who would fear the word "evil"?

Now you are going with what people claim - but only when it suits your argument.

I have, but no good deed goes unpunished. I'm sure you won't be pleased or find my response courteous.

And then, you go on with:

Of course you don't want answers. You want to win your imaginary game.
You have an opinion about gods and the possibility of the supernatural that isn't based in logic and you want others to affirm that it's not incompatible with skepticism-- that it's a special inclusive kind of skepticism like Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. But I think you are speaking mostly for yourself-- and maybe an apologist or two. But you don't speak for the majority... and you don't really speak for any believer or "on the fence" skeptic either.

I don't know what you call woo-- but I don't know how you keep god belief from being included in the category except through semantics about whether evidence is claimed. It seems like a muddled conclusion. It seems like your definition of skepticism means that everyone is skeptic if they think that they are.

You are right: I don't find your responses courteous. I find your responses rude, condescending and snide.

Er, yes they are. A statement to the effect of, "I believe in x," is a statement that, "I believe that x exists." Implicit in the statement, "I believe that x exists," is the claim, "x exists."

Unless you have some marvellous philosophical insight by which you have either discovered a way that people can believe in x without believing x exists, or by which people can believe that x exists without making the claim that x exists, I'm going to suggest you concede the point.

Can you point me to the existence of a philosophical idea?

Can you point me to the existence of someone's belief that The Monkees is the greatest band ever?

If they have reached their belief in a way that is not rational, then they have reached their belief in a way that is also not skeptical. You can't have it both ways: A person who applies skepticism to a belief while engaging in irrational reasoning is a contradiction in terms - it can't happen. A person who claims belief but who refuses to apply skepticism is also not being skeptical, by definition.

The question of evidence that you raise is a pointless question. You wouldn't accept a judge finding a man guilty in the absence of any evidence (or in conflict to the evidence) so long as the judge admitted that he wasn't considering evidence in his decision. It would be irrational, a decision made without reason by a person who is supposed to hold reason in the highest regard. So too a skeptic should hold reason in the highest regard - and belief in god is most definitely a decision made without reason.

You are treading on thin ice, when you completely disregard evidence when talking about skepticism.

Very thin ice.

I see what you're doing there - trying to create a new class of claim that can be exempt from the normal rules. That, Claus, is called special pleading, and by gosh does there seem to be a lot of it floating around this thread. I'm starting to think it's contagious.

You call it a 'non-evidential claim'. I say that it is a claim that has no evidence to justify it. Homeopathy is also a claim that has no evidence to justify it - should we therefore say that it is reasonable to believe in homeopathy? How about astrology? It would also fall under the heading of 'non-evidential claims' because lets face it - there's no evidence for it either. Chelation therapy in the treatment of autism? No evidence, and therefore (by your logic) a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

The problem is, if you start saying that anything for which there is no evidence is a reasonable belief to hold, you run into a doozy of a problem. See, if something doesn't exist then there is no evidence for it. Never will be. Non-existant objects are, in fact, the bulk of what can be claimed in your 'non-evidential claims'. It is, therefore, by your very own reasoning, perfectly reasonable to believe in anything that does not actually exist.

Any system of reasoning that states that it is reasonable to believe in non-existant objects is a flawed system of reasoning, because it does not allow us to build up an accurate model of the universe.

That's the problem with special pleading, Claus. If you let one in, you've got to let them all in.

It is definitely not special pleading, because it is vital that we look at the evidence.

I know you don't see evidence as pivotal in skepticism. You're wrong.

A vampiric flying demon that travels by night, sucking the blood out of cows, for which there is absolutely no evidence...by gosh you're right! I can't see anything supernatural or paranormal about that belief at all.

I'd better get started classifying it - remind me again what the phylum for 'demon' is?

Swap "demon" with "bat". See the problem?

You are not saying that bats are supernatural/paranormal, are you?

 

[Big Les]

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

Not about your imaginary friend, no. I really don't know why you're persisting with this one - I already equate god with an imaginary friend, and think that belief in either is certainly irrational and probably unsceptical too.

It is your claim.

No it isn't. Isn't the commonly accepted definition. To "believe" is to "have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something".

 

[CFLarsen]

Not about your imaginary friend, no. I really don't know why you're persisting with this one - I already equate god with an imaginary friend, and think that belief in either is certainly irrational and probably unsceptical too.

So you also are saying that evidence is irrelevant - we can rely on reason alone, if we are to say if someone is skeptical or not?

No it isn't. Isn't the commonly accepted definition. To "believe" is to "have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something".

"believe" is to "have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something".

You are doing it again: You are imposing your interpretation of what they believe on them.

 

[Big Les]

No, I'm not saying that. Their choice of belief in the face of total absence of evidence is highly relevant, and the criteria by which I assess that choice.

You are doing it again: You are imposing your interpretation of what they believe on them.

I am not imposing my interpretation alone, when I demonstrate to you that "believe in" means the same thing as "believe exists"? Whether you like it or not, going by commonly accepted definition, this constitutes an implied claim of the existence of god. Meaning that all bets are off, and scepticism is free to be applied by both third parties and the believer themselves.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I'm not saying that. Their choice of belief in the face of total absence of evidence is highly relevant, and the criteria by which I assess that choice.

Is it your position then that their non-evidential belief falls outside the scope of skepticism?

I am not imposing my interpretation alone, when I demonstrate to you that "believe in" means the same thing as "believe exists"? Whether you like it or not, going by commonly accepted definition, this constitutes an implied claim of the existence of god. Meaning that all bets are off, and scepticism is free to be applied by both third parties and the believer themselves.

You can't do that. You have to ask each person what his belief in god means.

Can you find two people who have the exact same perception of what "God" means?

 

[Big Les]

Is it your position then that their non-evidential belief falls outside the scope of skepticism?

Nope. Because I see it as a claim, scepticism applies. The fact that on examination, there proves to be no evidence at all for that claim, does not mean that it is exempt from scepticism. Otherwise countless other flavours of woo would be able to hide in the gaps just as effortlessly.

You can't do that. You have to ask each person what his belief in god means.

No I don't. A hypothetical claim of "I believe in god" is perfectly adequate for the purposes of this thread, thank you. Otherwise, if we had to ask everybody in the world, or even just get a significant sample, you would be equally unable to comment on the subject. I can see why you would like this to be the case however, as your argument would be unquestionable.

Can you find two people who have the exact same perception of what "God" means?

We aren't asking what their exact perception is. We're examining belief in god or the lack of it, amongst sceptics. Please don't move the goalposts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nope. Because I see it as a claim, scepticism applies. The fact that on examination, there proves to be no evidence at all for that claim, does not mean that it is exempt from scepticism. Otherwise countless other flavours of woo would be able to hide in the gaps just as effortlessly.

You can't hijack skepticism to be a vehicle for your personal criticism of something.

No I don't. A hypothetical claim of "I believe in god" is perfectly adequate for the purposes of this thread, thank you. Otherwise, if we had to ask everybody in the world, or even just get a significant sample, you would be equally unable to comment on the subject. I can see why you would like this to be the case however, as your argument would be unquestionable.

We aren't asking what their exact perception is. We're examining belief in god or the lack of it, amongst sceptics. Please don't move the goalposts.

That's precisely what we are doing: By asking them what they believe in, we are asking them what their exact perception is.

Let's say you think elves are just fairies dressed in green.

If someone came to you and said: "I believe in elves. I don't believe in fairies", would you say: "No, you believe in fairies. Elves are just fairies dressed in green"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have been reading your posts, very astute. The stick in my craw is the statement that " scientist using one definition for god". If one is a scientist, then there should be no qualms about the conclusions, or definitions of a god. There is no god. There has been no evidence of one. To even begin to try and determine whether there is some kind of omniscient form requires a great leap in logic, and the very definition of a "god" can vary from person to person. How can you pin it down?

Then I must ask... EVIDENCE??? How can you know thre is a god in the first place??? If it is beyond our universe, and beyond our understanding... how can you say that it IS ??


And once you start having to "rationalize" things beyond what the evidence shows, you are treading in woo territory..

Alternatively... you may want to delve into archeology, sociology, and history to discover why humans hold these lingering beliefs..

Personally, I have no issues with the claim there are no gods. I also take the approach that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are entirely a man made construct. I see no reason to disprove something for which there was no evidence for in the first place.

And it bothers me that so many skeptics and scientists claim to equate evidence for gods with the evidence for invisible pink unicorns, but then weasel out of taking a stand against all god beliefs by constructing the definition of an untestable god and saying, therefore we don't have to tell our colleagues they believe in woo. We can call it a belief of faith, not requiring evidence and therefore outside of the realm of science.

I view this approach as an attempt by some seeking political correctness knowing how many scientists and skeptics haven't let go of god beliefs. And in other cases, it's simply a way of not creating an exclusion for scientists/skeptics who have not let go of god. In other words, some skeptics accept the "faith and science are separate" argument and some just go along with it as a way of not alienating people. Then of course, there are the god believing skeptics themselves who are just resolving their own cognitive dissonance by creating god definitions which appear to be outside of science, therefore consistent with skepticism.

But as to "the god that can't be tested" definition itself, I certainly didn't make it up, and I don't agree with it, but the reality is many scientists and skeptics do. And there are some other things science accepts one cannot use the scientific process to investigate. It is an accepted scientific principle that we cannot go beyond the Big Bang in our investigations regardless of how good our scientific instruments become. By the same token, it is likely we can never detect anything outside of the universe. The god that can't be tested definition came about from the argument, a true god could make itself undetectable. As such, science would have no way of testing for the existence of such a god.

The problem with that god construct is it ignores all the beliefs in prayers and pleas for gods to intervene and all the beliefs that gods do intervene in the natural world. And it ignores the fact scientists and skeptics readily dismiss all god beliefs except their own.

 

[articulett]

All right... it's my turn to be driven to madness via Claus' tangential and omnipresent wormhole.

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620


I know it will piss him off...but what else can you do but warn others when someone is one of those people. They cannot recognize themselves and assume that it's their stunning logic that drives others people away.


Claus is making points in a game/argument that only he understands. When you give up, he assumes it's because he's "won" (whatever that means). He accuses others of offenses that seem much more applicable to him. He pretends that he's interested in clarification and dialogue, but he asks irrelevant questions and answers attempts at clarifying obliquely. He is having an entirely different conversation then every one else. Every one else appears to be delineating whether a god belief can be compatible with skepticism. Is it ever a "rational" belief? How do people manage to keep their gods shielded from skeptical scrutiny when they are aware of how readily people are mislead on such topics? And why defend belief over "the truth"--or the most likely of explanation? Why the presumption that god belief and faith is something worth protecting and shielding and defending? What other conclusion is a skeptic to make when they see someone dismissing other gods and faith based notions as being vastly improbable, but not their own? Believers must be concluding that they have some sort of access to divine truth while there is no evidence of there being such thing as divine truths. No matter how you slice it, belief in a god is a leap of faith and, therefore, the opposite of skeptical. I think it's logical to dismiss beliefs as woo whether people claim evidence for their beliefs or not.


I think the majority have agreed to the notion that anyone can call themselves a skeptic--but most people who apply the tools of skepticism to god belief conclude that god belief is like any other woo belief-- not based on any real god or real supernatural entities or forces. The evidence indicates that gods are one of the many ways people fool themselves. None of us think the MDC is at risk, which means that we all conclude that it's safe to think of unknowable entities and forces as non-existent entities or forces-- if scientists can't know about them, then It's unlikely that believers really "know" anything in regards to the truth that is the same for everyone either... and if we want to understand the truth, then we aim to understand why people believe in such things without positing that such things are based on some real undiscovered power or entity.


Some people, including Claus seem to think that god belief can be perfectly rational or in line with skepticisms... but they don't give a good argument as to why it should be treated differently than other types of woo. It seems like it's all semantics to make god belief less prone to scrutiny--more compatible with skepticism--to make non- believers defensive and believers and those on the fence about such things sound as logical as the nonbelievers. Sure, believers can call themselves skeptics... just as believers can call themselves scientists. But to believe in something supernatural (outside of nature) which is most likely very natural (a misperception of the human brain) is not a skeptical position.


Everything supernatural is nonexistent until shown to be otherwise. As Moby said, it doesn't make sense to allow for some as possibly true in some unknowable way and not all non-evidentiary beliefs. It makes much more skeptical and logical sense to conclude that it's all garden variety woo-- and the semantics are all about people not willing to admit this to themselves. Claus' verbal distractions is like the diviner explaining why their powers didn't work when tested. There is no logical reason to believe in god, and though I don't say this out loud in the presence of the omnipresent believer, I feel like this forum should be a place where one can treat god like all other woo without having the skeptic vigilantes jump down our throats. We don't wait until evidence is claimed to dismiss Intelligent Design as woo or anything else. God is as woo as any woo. There is no reason for believing that gods exist anywhere but in the minds of humans. If we cannot prove that Zeus never existed, we cannot prove that any god ever did--and it makes sense to put them ALL in the same category.

The arguments for doing otherwise are specious-- special pleading-- not logical. And those doing so are the arrogant ones calling other people arrogant. I think most people will agree that one of the following is true:

1. All gods are imaginary
or
2. Many gods are imaginary--but some god(s) exists that is the same for all people that some people can or have known about or communicated with. This god is (or these gods are) undetectable and immeasurable and invisible but exists outside of human brains and before humans existed on this planet. That is,there is a god (or gods) that exist outside the human imagination.

I think most people would say they agree with option 2. I think most skeptics would say they agree with option 1-- because that is the most logical conclusion to reach based on the eons of belief and the complete lack of evidence.

I don't think it's logical to treat both claims as being equally probable, and I don't see where a different option is being proffered. Skeptics go with the most parsimonious explanation. Number 1 is far more likely to be the truth.

 

[schlitt]

But there is nothing in science that you are 100% certain of?

No. Technically everything comes down to a prediction of probability.
The earth is round for example: 99.999999999999999999999... sure, however the most miniscule of chance remains there are factors which may have been deceptive in forming this belief.

For the sake of ease, if the evidence is there, and the probability is so likely, something is accepted as certain.

All verifiable: 20,000 years ago is verifiable. Three million years ago in another galaxy is also verifiable.

Not very practical, sure, but it is verifiable.

Again you get down to an impracticle technicality. Sure, technically at some point it was verifiable, however it is no longer. Any God is also techinically verifiable, if it is not, it does not exist. Whether we have the practicle means to verify it is another matter entirely.

Because "Mildred" is evidence. It is verifiable and, not to forget, falsifiable. If it turns out that it was really "Splonxtz", the belief would not be validated.

Yes but that is based on an IF which is impossible currently.

Nobody is saying that it is. It falls outside skeptical methodology, because of the non-claimed evidence.

Great so we are in agreement then?
Belief in god is never formed through an unbiased skeptical methodology?

A person can believe in god and be a skeptic, but cannot claim to have applied skepticism when accepting a god belief.

Does an atom exist?

See my first answer...

They haven't reached their belief based on skeptical methodology.

Right. So what are we arguing then?

You know that: A non-evidential god/imaginary friend/whatever.

So, now you are saying that they don't have a belief? What's your problem, then?

You cannot claim to believe there is a god, and also claim you do not claim there is a god. They cancel each other out. Either you do, or you do not.

But they don't claim to have used skeptical methodology. You are the one who wants them to have done so.

No, i am making the very simplistic statement "The belief was not formed through skepticism, because skepticism was not, and could not be applied"

The truth of this statement has ramifications regarding the OP, which myself and many others have pointed out.

A person can believe in god and be a skeptic, but cannot claim to have applied skepticism when accepting a god belief.

No, no, no.

Pink unicorns and the FSM are verifiable evidence.

It seems to me that you think this particular god belief is the only possible belief which is non verifiable. That seems odd to me, because surely there are infinite things you could make up which fit into the same category.

 

[CFLarsen]

All right... it's my turn to be driven to madness via Claus' tangential and omnipresent wormhole.

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome
In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620


I know it will piss him off...but what else can you do but warn others when someone is one of those people. They cannot recognize themselves and assume that it's their stunning logic that drives others people away.

It is not only rude, but also disgusting of you to try and paint those who disagree with you as mentally ill, even as a joke.

Claus is making points in a game/argument that only he understands. When you give up, he assumes it's because he's "won" (whatever that means). He accuses others of offenses that seem much more applicable to him. He pretends that he's interested in clarification and dialogue, but he asks irrelevant questions and answers attempts at clarifying obliquely. He is having an entirely different conversation then every one else. Every one else appears to be delineating whether a god belief can be compatible with skepticism. Is it ever a "rational" belief? How do people manage to keep their gods shielded from skeptical scrutiny when they are aware of how readily people are mislead on such topics? And why defend belief over "the truth"--or the most likely of explanation? Why the presumption that god belief and faith is something worth protecting and shielding and defending? What other conclusion is a skeptic to make when they see someone dismissing other gods and faith based notions as being vastly improbable, but not their own? Believers must be concluding that they have some sort of access to divine truth while there is no evidence of there being such thing as divine truths. No matter how you slice it, belief in a god is a leap of faith and, therefore, the opposite of skeptical. I think it's logical to dismiss beliefs as woo whether people claim evidence for their beliefs or not.


I think the majority have agreed to the notion that anyone can call themselves a skeptic--but most people who apply the tools of skepticism to god belief conclude that god belief is like any other woo belief-- not based on any real god or real supernatural entities or forces. The evidence indicates that gods are one of the many ways people fool themselves. None of us think the MDC is at risk, which means that we all conclude that it's safe to think of unknowable entities and forces as non-existent entities or forces-- if scientists can't know about them, then It's unlikely that believers really "know" anything in regards to the truth that is the same for everyone either... and if we want to understand the truth, then we aim to understand why people believe in such things without positing that such things are based on some real undiscovered power or entity.


Some people, including Claus seem to think that god belief can be perfectly rational or in line with skepticisms... but they don't give a good argument as to why it should be treated differently than other types of woo. It seems like it's all semantics to make god belief less prone to scrutiny--more compatible with skepticism--to make non- believers defensive and believers and those on the fence about such things sound as logical as the nonbelievers. Sure, believers can call themselves skeptics... just as believers can call themselves scientists. But to believe in something supernatural (outside of nature) which is most likely very natural (a misperception of the human brain) is not a skeptical position.


Everything supernatural is nonexistent until shown to be otherwise. As Moby said, it doesn't make sense to allow for some as possibly true in some unknowable way and not all non-evidentiary beliefs. It makes much more skeptical and logical sense to conclude that it's all garden variety woo-- and the semantics are all about people not willing to admit this to themselves. Claus' verbal distractions is like the diviner explaining why their powers didn't work when tested. There is no logical reason to believe in god, and though I don't say this out loud in the presence of the omnipresent believer, I feel like this forum should be a place where one can treat god like all other woo without having the skeptic vigilantes jump down our throats. We don't wait until evidence is claimed to dismiss Intelligent Design as woo or anything else. God is as woo as any woo. There is no reason for believing that gods exist anywhere but in the minds of humans. If we cannot prove that Zeus never existed, we cannot prove that any god ever did--and it makes sense to put them ALL in the same category.

The arguments for doing otherwise are specious-- special pleading-- not logical. And those doing so are the arrogant ones calling other people arrogant. I think most people will agree that one of the following is true:

1. All gods are imaginary
or
2. Many gods are imaginary--but some god(s) exists that is the same for all people that some people can or have known about or communicated with. This god is (or these gods are) undetectable and immeasurable and invisible but exists outside of human brains and before humans existed on this planet. That is,there is a god (or gods) that exist outside the human imagination.

I think most people would say they agree with option 2. I think most skeptics would say they agree with option 1-- because that is the most logical conclusion to reach based on the eons of belief and the complete lack of evidence.

I don't think it's logical to treat both claims as being equally probable, and I don't see where a different option is being proffered. Skeptics go with the most parsimonious explanation. Number 1 is far more likely to be the truth.

Verbal diarrhea is not a substitute for rational discourse.

Try answering the questions instead:

Does calling yourself a skeptic make you a skeptic?

Why don't you write an article where you present your views on this, and send it to me? Or Skeptic Magazine? Or offer to present it at TAM? See just how your perception of what skepticism fares?

Can you point out where my point of view is inconsistent or not?

Do you think you could be wrong that I am trying to win points in a game?

Do you speak for atheist skeptics?

What is the reason why Chupacabra is supernatural/paranormal?

Do you see demons as bad gods?

Is Lucifer evil?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus--does it ever occur to you that no-one but you seems to get your point? .....

I get his point. He just doesn't get why some of us don't find his argument logical.

Some (most?) of us in this thread agree with you on this point:

I'm willing to agree that anyone can call themselves a skeptic. If they believe in god, I will conclude that they haven't applied the tools of skepticism to that belief.

Claus is arguing that, one we have no right to our opinions about what a skeptic is:

The same arrogance: You elevate your opinion to be the skeptical truth.

And two,

I am arguing that unless the faith based beliefs are evidence-based (which they are not), we can't say skeptically if the beliefs are true or not.

This is simply another way of saying he's defined god as a god which cannot be tested. He's created the exception by which he can include god believing skeptics by excluding their god beliefs from skeptical analysis.




And somewhere in the disconnect, Claus cannot understand the view of separating the description of the person, a skeptic, from the fact they have an unskeptical belief.

You are not trying to exclude people from being skeptics by definition just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort?

The reason he cannot understand is because from his perspective, the belief is excluded from skepticism rather than simply not being skeptical.




In excluding god beliefs from skeptical assessment, Claus uses this example:

One of the major reasons is comfort. We are comforted as humans to "know" that there is someone watching out for us. Someone we can unburden our worries on to. Maybe something, maybe it does exist. But the belief is comforting to us.

Claus, that is an excuse not to let go of god beliefs, not a rationale of why such beliefs are beyond skeptical analysis. And while I do understand your position, apparently you cannot comprehend why I don't accept its validity. Clearly you don't accept the validity of my position. Fine, but your failure to even acknowledge the other point of view in this thread has led you to repeat your arguments over and over as if that was going to convince us to accept their logic.

Actually, I see no reason a god belief, based on faith or whatever, for the reason of comfort or Pascal's wager or whatever, should be outside of the natural world which we evaluate using skepticism. Whether the person claims to believe without evidence doesn't in my reality, except such belief from skepticism. And it isn't arrogance, it is evidence and logic. Unless you can make a legitimate case why one god belief is exempt from skepticism and all the rest are not, you are merely creating that special category of political correctness and nonconfrontation which only sounds good if you don't question the validity of the underlying "special case" premise. The difference is more a matter of choosing to confront the skeptic's god belief as woo or give them a pass on their god belief as being outside of skepticism.

 

[articulett]

Claus, I feel like I understand everyone but you. I know it's a losing abyss to answer your nonsensical and ever leading questions. If you're mad or think I'm rude-- congratulations, now you understand the effect you have on people regularly. You lead the conversation into twilight zone tangents. You are having a different conversation than everyone else-- you are just not aware of it-- just as those who believe in gods are not aware of the irrationality of concluding other gods or things are woo--but not their god.

Where is the evidence that someone other than you thinks that you are capable of a rational discussion or conversation on this topic? Do you agree that one of the following must be true?

1. All gods are imaginary
or
2. Many gods are imaginary--but some god(s) exists that is the same for all people that some people can or have known about or communicated with. This god is (or these gods are) undetectable and immeasurable and invisible but exists outside of human brains and before humans existed on this planet. That is, there is a god (or gods) that exist outside the human imagination.

If you don't, you've failed to provide an alternative. If you do, you appear to lean towards belief in the second category or undecided as to which is more likely. I am very confident that the majority of those who call themselves skeptics would conclude that the first is far more likely than the second or be moving increasingly in that position, because that is the best explanation for what we observe in our universe. I think it takes a lot of mental spin for a skeptic to not conclude that number one is vastly more likely to be true than the alternative. I don't seem how thinking they are both equally likely is skeptical. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not equally likely to be true. A skeptic goes towards the position accumulating the evidence.

 

[articulett]

Is it me, or does Claus seem to be doing the woo semantic dance and demonization of others as a hand waving distraction-- a method of protecting his woo from skeptical scrutiny? Claus, I think you are playing a mental game to protect your woo from the proddings of skepticism. We all agree that anyone is welcome to be included at the skeptics table; ridiculous assertions will, however, be properly derided.

To quote South Park, "I'm calling shenanigans on you." You're doing what every woo does when presented with the notion that their woo isn't true.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. Technically everything comes down to a prediction of probability.
The earth is round for example: 99.999999999999999999999... sure, however the most miniscule of chance remains there are factors which may have been deceptive in forming this belief.

For the sake of ease, if the evidence is there, and the probability is so likely, something is accepted as certain.

As long as you make sure that "certain" isn't "100% certain".

Again you get down to an impracticle technicality. Sure, technically at some point it was verifiable, however it is no longer.

You don't know that. We once thought that Troy was lost, until Schliemann discovered it.

Any God is also techinically verifiable, if it is not, it does not exist. Whether we have the practicle means to verify it is another matter entirely.

Any God is technically verifiable, if he is verifiably claimed to exist.

Now you are getting closer.

Yes but that is based on an IF which is impossible currently.

No, not impossible. Not currently verifiable.

Great so we are in agreement then?
Belief in god is never formed through an unbiased skeptical methodology?

A person can believe in god and be a skeptic, but cannot claim to have applied skepticism when accepting a god belief.

An evidential god belief, no.

See my first answer...

Yeah. We know - as far as science can tell us - that atoms exist. Yet, you and I have never seen an atom. We can deduct, based on theory, experiment and empirical evidence, that atoms do exist.

Right. So what are we arguing then?

You can't call them unskeptical, then.

You cannot claim to believe there is a god, and also claim you do not claim there is a god. They cancel each other out. Either you do, or you do not.

We've been through this: Nobody is arguing otherwise. The issue is about a non-evidential god/imaginary friend.

No, i am making the very simplistic statement "The belief was not formed through skepticism, because skepticism was not, and could not be applied"

The truth of this statement has ramifications regarding the OP, which myself and many others have pointed out.

A person can believe in god and be a skeptic, but cannot claim to have applied skepticism when accepting a god belief.

But why can't a person believe in something non-evidential, acknowledge this, and still be a skeptic? You can't dismiss evidence as if it has no value.

It seems to me that you think this particular god belief is the only possible belief which is non verifiable. That seems odd to me, because surely there are infinite things you could make up which fit into the same category.

Of course. But the common denominator is that they are evidential.

Claus is arguing that, one we have no right to our opinions about what a skeptic is:

No, I am not.

And two, This is simply another way of saying he's defined god as a god which cannot be tested. He's created the exception by which he can include god believing skeptics by excluding their god beliefs from skeptical analysis.

No, I am not defining god as a god which cannot be tested. I am going with what people actually claim: That their god is not evidential.

And somewhere in the disconnect, Claus cannot understand the view of separating the description of the person, a skeptic, from the fact they have an unskeptical belief.The reason he cannot understand is because from his perspective, the belief is excluded from skepticism rather than simply not being skeptical.

It is outside the scope of skepticism.

Maybe you think that nothing is outside the scope of skepticism?

In excluding god beliefs from skeptical assessment, Claus uses this example:Claus, that is an excuse not to let go of god beliefs, not a rationale of why such beliefs are beyond skeptical analysis. And while I do understand your position, apparently you cannot comprehend why I don't accept its validity. Clearly you don't accept the validity of my position. Fine, but your failure to even acknowledge the other point of view in this thread has led you to repeat your arguments over and over as if that was going to convince us to accept their logic.

Actually, I see no reason a god belief, based on faith or whatever, for the reason of comfort or Pascal's wager or whatever, should be outside of the natural world which we evaluate using skepticism. Whether the person claims to believe without evidence doesn't in my reality, except such belief from skepticism. And it isn't arrogance, it is evidence and logic. Unless you can make a legitimate case why one god belief is exempt from skepticism and all the rest are not, you are merely creating that special category of political correctness and nonconfrontation which only sounds good if you don't question the validity of the underlying "special case" premise. The difference is more a matter of choosing to confront the skeptic's god belief as woo or give them a pass on their god belief as being outside of skepticism.

What is it about post #1208 and #1210 that you don't understand?

If you are not trying to exclude people from being skeptics by definition just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort, what have you been doing, then?

Claus, I feel like I understand everyone but you. I know it's a losing abyss to answer your nonsensical and ever leading questions. If you're mad or think I'm rude-- congratulations, now you understand the effect you have on people regularly. You lead the conversation into twilight zone tangents. You are having a different conversation than everyone else-- you are just not aware of it-- just as those who believe in gods are not aware of the irrationality of concluding other gods or things are woo--but not their god.

Where is the evidence that someone other than you thinks that you are capable of a rational discussion or conversation on this topic? Do you agree that one of the following must be true?

You are in no position to ask questions until you have answered the questions put to you:

Does calling yourself a skeptic make you a skeptic?

Why don't you write an article where you present your views on this, and send it to me? Or Skeptic Magazine? Or offer to present it at TAM? See just how your perception of what skepticism fares?

Can you point out where my point of view is inconsistent or not?

Do you think you could be wrong that I am trying to win points in a game?

Do you speak for atheist skeptics?

What is the reason Chupacabra is supernatural/paranormal?

Do you see demons as bad gods?

Is Lucifer evil?

 

[articulett]

I always regret answering your questions claus--they don't clarify anything and they make you think you are winning points...

I've concluded that you want option 2 to be true and a skeptical or logical conclusion. You believe in or want there to be some god that isn't woo that exists separate from human imagination. Yet, on some level, your skepticism makes you aware that number one is far more likely. And all your distractions are to keep you from admitting this to yourself, because you want a belief in a god to be rational and perfectly in line with skepticism.

Skeptics are free to believe as they wish. But skeptics believing in a god in the number 2 category is NOT evidence in support of the god in the #2 category. It's support of just how easy it is to be infected with the meme of the god in the number one category. I think all the shouting down of atheists is about protecting fragile egos from realizing their own nebulously defined god is a delusion.

You think you are making points but you are making a lot of noise to keep your brain from understanding that all gods are products of human imagination--they all are woo.

 

[CFLarsen]

I always regret answering your questions claus--they don't clarify anything and they make you think you are winning points...

I've concluded that you want option 2 to be true and a skeptical or logical conclusion. You believe in or want there to be some god that isn't woo that exists separate from human imagination. Yet, on some level, your skepticism makes you aware that number one is far more likely. And all your distractions are to keep you from admitting this to yourself, because you want a belief in a god to be rational and perfectly in line with skepticism.

Skeptics are free to believe as they wish. But skeptics believing in a god in the number 2 category is NOT evidence in support of the god in the #2 category. It's support of just how easy it is to be infected with the meme of the god in the number one category. I think all the shouting down of atheists is about protecting fragile egos from realizing their own nebulously defined god is a delusion.

You think you are making points but you are making a lot of noise to keep your brain from understanding that all gods are products of human imagination--they all are woo.

Cut the crap and answer the questions:

Does calling yourself a skeptic make you a skeptic?

Why don't you write an article where you present your views on this, and send it to me? Or Skeptic Magazine? Or offer to present it at TAM? See just how your perception of what skepticism fares?

Can you point out where my point of view is inconsistent or not?

Do you think you could be wrong that I am trying to win points in a game?

Do you speak for atheist skeptics?

What is the reason Chupacabra is supernatural/paranormal?

Do you see demons as bad gods?

Is Lucifer evil?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While Moby does an excellent job of defending his positions, they also tend to reflect mine.

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
Er, yes they are. A statement to the effect of, "I believe in x," is a statement that, "I believe that x exists." Implicit in the statement, "I believe that x exists," is the claim, "x exists."

Unless you have some marvellous philosophical insight by which you have either discovered a way that people can believe in x without believing x exists, or by which people can believe that x exists without making the claim that x exists, I'm going to suggest you concede the point.

Can you point me to the existence of a philosophical idea?

Can you point me to the existence of someone's belief that The Monkees is the greatest band ever?

Apples and oranges. you are comparing a preference with a belief. And simply wording something using, "I believe" doesn't make, "I believe in god", equal to, "I believe the Monkees' music is the best". One is a value, the other is a thing.

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
If they have reached their belief in a way that is not rational, then they have reached their belief in a way that is also not skeptical. You can't have it both ways: A person who applies skepticism to a belief while engaging in irrational reasoning is a contradiction in terms - it can't happen. A person who claims belief but who refuses to apply skepticism is also not being skeptical, by definition.

The question of evidence that you raise is a pointless question. You wouldn't accept a judge finding a man guilty in the absence of any evidence (or in conflict to the evidence) so long as the judge admitted that he wasn't considering evidence in his decision. It would be irrational, a decision made without reason by a person who is supposed to hold reason in the highest regard. So too a skeptic should hold reason in the highest regard - and belief in god is most definitely a decision made without reason.

You are treading on thin ice, when you completely disregard evidence when talking about skepticism.

Very thin ice.

What???? He has given you an analogy that simply claiming you believe without evidence does not make it true. You insist on ignoring the actual point and going off on non sequiters. You say we cannot determine if the claims are true. Which claim? The claim of how one reached a conclusion without evidence or the conclusion?

There are other things one uses to assess a claim other than the person's word. You used the example we had no way to test the validity of the person's belief. BUT that is not the same as testing the validity of the claim of how one reached a conclusion.

And whether we can test the validity of the belief has nothing to do with whether we determine the belief is unskeptical.

The essence of your argument is creating a "special case" for selected god beliefs.

You want your case to be about arrogant assumptions of why people believe weird things. That case ignores the evidence we've described here in various posts that people use to assess a person's statements in addition to their "claims" about why they believe.

But that argument is irrelevant. The lack of evidence is unskeptical regardless of the reason.

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
I see what you're doing there - trying to create a new class of claim that can be exempt from the normal rules. That, Claus, is called special pleading, and by gosh does there seem to be a lot of it floating around this thread. I'm starting to think it's contagious.

You call it a 'non-evidential claim'. I say that it is a claim that has no evidence to justify it. [snip]
That's the problem with special pleading, Claus. If you let one in, you've got to let them all in.

It is definitely not special pleading, because it is vital that we look at the evidence.

I know you don't see evidence as pivotal in skepticism. You're wrong.

Evidence is the basis of skepticism. What on Earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
A vampiric flying demon that travels by night, sucking the blood out of cows, for which there is absolutely no evidence...by gosh you're right! I can't see anything supernatural or paranormal about that belief at all.

I'd better get started classifying it - remind me again what the phylum for 'demon' is?

Swap "demon" with "bat". See the problem?

You are not saying that bats are supernatural/paranormal, are you?

I believe he is saying if you make a special case for one god belief then why not do the same for everything else?

 

[CFLarsen]

While Moby does an excellent job of defending his positions, they also tend to reflect mine. Apples and oranges. you are comparing a preference with a belief. And simply wording something using, "I believe" doesn't make, "I believe in god", equal to, "I believe the Monkees' music is the best". One is a value, the other is a thing.


What???? He has given you an analogy that simply claiming you believe without evidence does not make it true. You insist on ignoring the actual point and going off on non sequiters. You say we cannot determine if the claims are true. Which claim? The claim of how one reached a conclusion without evidence or the conclusion?

There are other things one uses to assess a claim other than the person's word. You used the example we had no way to test the validity of the person's belief. BUT that is not the same as testing the validity of the claim of how one reached a conclusion.

And whether we can test the validity of the belief has nothing to do with whether we determine the belief is unskeptical.

The essence of your argument is creating a "special case" for selected god beliefs.

You want your case to be about arrogant assumptions of why people believe weird things. That case ignores the evidence we've described here in various posts that people use to assess a person's statements in addition to their "claims" about why they believe.

But that argument is irrelevant. The lack of evidence is unskeptical regardless of the reason.


Evidence is the basis of skepticism. What on Earth are you talking about?

I believe he is saying if you make a special case for one god belief then why not do the same for everything else?

Don't address my posts to others and ask me questions, before you answer the questions put to you:

Do you think that nothing is outside the scope of skepticism?

What is it about post #1208 and #1210 that you don't understand?

If you are not trying to exclude people from being skeptics by definition just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort, what have you been doing, then?