Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

Are there rational reasons for a skeptic to believe that god is likely to exist outside the human imagination? I have heard of none. Is there a rational reason not to toss all god beliefs into the pile of woo beliefs? I have heard of none.

Just because some skeptics believe in god is not a reason for god beliefs to get special deference from other skeptics. No skeptic is required to believe anything. But if a believer doesn't want their god beliefs considered woo by skeptics, they probably shouldn't mention it around skeptics and/or they should provide evidence if they want others to believe that their god is more than a product of their imagination and wishful thinking.

Clearly, the most likely explanation for what we observe is that all gods are imaginary--not that someone might somehow have knowledge of some real invisible entity. If a god really was true, why would it matter if skeptics thought it was woo? Why would a believer get defensive unless they were fearful that a cherished belief was woo? We're skeptics... we want to understand how come people come to such strong beliefs that have no basis in the natural world.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are there rational reasons for a skeptic to believe that god is likely to exist outside the human imagination? I have heard of none. Is there a rational reason not to toss all god beliefs into the pile of woo beliefs? I have heard of none.

Just because some skeptics believe in god is not a reason for god beliefs to get special deference from other skeptics. No skeptic is required to believe anything. But if a believer doesn't want their god beliefs considered woo by skeptics, they probably shouldn't mention it around skeptics and/or they should provide evidence if they want others to believe that their god is more than a product of their imagination and wishful thinking.

Clearly, the most likely explanation for what we observe is that all gods are imaginary--not that someone might somehow have knowledge of some real invisible entity. If a god really was true, why would it matter if skeptics thought it was woo? Why would a believer get defensive unless they were fearful that a cherished belief was woo? We're skeptics... we want to understand how come people come to such strong beliefs that have no basis in the natural world.

If you have anything new to add, feel free. And then answer the questions.

If you don't have anything new to add, 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]

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

No, I am not.

I posted your quote, Claus, which I was referring to. People can draw their own conclusions as to what you meant.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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.

Care to articulate the difference between, "cannot be tested" and "is not evidence based"?

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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 the natural world, that would be correct, I see no reason to make exceptions for some god beliefs. You have yet to make a case for some god beliefs being outside of skepticism and other god beliefs not being except the "not evidential" case. But "not evidential" is the essence of "not skeptical".

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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?

Excluding their specific god belief, not their person. What is so hard about that concept?

Does calling yourself a skeptic make you a skeptic?

No. But if they are pretty much skeptical except one blind spot for their god beliefs I have no trouble with such a person claiming to be a skeptic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Or else what?

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?

I answered the posts in sequential order.

And I don't have a clue what your imaginary friend analogy was about, nor did your follow up posts make it any more clear. I just gave up on that one.

Listen, just put me on ignore. Don't make idle threats.

 

[schlitt]

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

Agreed.

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

Well, we know at this very point in time verifying a person who lived 3 trillion years ago in a galaxy light years away is not going to happen.

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

Now you are getting closer.

My position has not changed.
Skeptics require evidence and will not believe by faith alone. Claimed evidential or not, this does not change.

No, not impossible. Not currently verifiable.

It is conditionally impossible.
I.e Currently impossible.

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.

Agreed.

You can't call them unskeptical, then.

We can however state that skepticism was not applied to the god belief they uphold. This is my whole point, which you have already agreed to. So i am not sure why we are continuing to argue

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.

No one is saying they can't.
What most people here are saying is, they can still be skeptics, but they cannot claim to have been skeptical when it comes to their belief in god.

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

So can you come up with another belief that is not evedential? We will use that as an example.

 

[articulett]

Put me on ignore too Claus... Your questions are silly and irrelevant... they are clearly designed for you to win your imaginary game. You aren't saying anything and you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. You want god belief to be rational or to be something other than woo or a delusion-- but you've made no case for that while presenting one straw man and semantic game and ad hom and loaded question after another. You present no case for any point of view and you imagine yourself making one valid point after another-- it doesn't matter to you that only you seem to think this.

I cannot tell your rantings from other woo nothingness and so I've concluded it fits in that category. But I think you might want to work on communicating with older forum members before inflicting yourself on newer members as T'ai does. Suppose you are coming across like T'ai. How would you possibly know? Take the most obnoxious forum member you know-- what makes you think that others find you less obnoxious, anything? Or is it just one of those non-evidentiary beliefs that you put outside of skeptic scrutiny. I seem to always be able to understand the people you are endlessly arguing with, but never quite follow you. This leads me to logically conclude that the problem is you and you can't fix it because you have no awareness that the problem is you.

Does it matter at all to you that nobody but you seems to understand your point and nobody but you thinks you are make a valid case for anything?--nobody but you seems particularly clear on what you are saying-- only that you are readily mischaracterizing the rest of us while putting your inferences out of the realm of skeptical scrutiny with language games. How is discussing something with you any more valuable or edifying than discussing something with T'ai or a creationist? What's your damn goal anyhow. To bully skeptics into believing that there might be a god that is more than human imagination? To convince yourself that god belief is not irrational? We all know that we can't address claims not made. But we also know enough to understand that all beliefs of a certain ilk are very probably woo... we have no reason to conclude otherwise.

And I don't understand your imaginary friend analogy or Lucifer questions or any of it. Most skeptics understand these to be products of the human mind--they don't exist outside the human mind... nor do fairies or chupacabras... people can believe they have evidence... but they are making the wrong inferences from the evidence...just like people who believe Uri Geller is a real psychic. If anyone thinks god beliefs are more than that or wants a skeptic to consider such beliefs as more than that, then they would need to be the one to present evidence. There is no means of proving something exists only in the imagination of humans--but we can accept this to be the case for all supernatural claims unless or until some evidence somewhere puts such things into the realm of the real--the natural. I imagine Randi would agree as would most scientists and skeptics. It makes no sense to think otherwise. It's not a recipe for understanding anything. It's a recipe for gullibility... a method which says any woo could be true. Why be a skeptic unless you are interested in separating the truth from wrong perceptions, inferences, myths, opinions, and everything else? Isn't a skeptic about finding the best and most truthful explanation of our shared reality-- the facts that are the same for everyone. Either a god exists absent human imagination or he (it, they) do not. These are not equally probable possibilities. Things for which there are no measurable evidence are much more likely not to exist than things for which there are evidence. After all this applies to ALL non existent things that one might imagine-- all imaginary forces too. That's the bottom line.

Your semantics are all about putting others down and pretending super open mindedness of the "true skeptic" is a silly ruse to keep yourself from admitting that your god is as much woo as all the other things you call woo. You don't believe in other gods but you want it to be logical that the one that exists in your head is real. You don't want it to be the delusion you understand other gods to be or past life claims or Invisible pink unicorns. Your semantics is all about taking your god outside of known woo.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Empirical evidence? No - because philosophical ideas are artificial human constructs. They don't exist outside of the minds that conceive and consider them.

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

Again, no - because it is an entirely subjective opinion that does not exist outside of the mind that conceives it.

Why is it that whenever arguments like this come up, people start talking about abstract ideas as though they are concrete, real world objects?

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

Very thin ice.

Are you entirely daft? Do you have a reading comprehension issue? How is me saying that it is bad for you to completely disregard evidence somehow indicative of me disregarding evidence? This entire thread I've been discussing the importance of evidence, and you turn around and say that - are you a freaking moron?

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

It is special pleading, because you are suggesting that the lack of evidence means that this specific claim is reasonable to believe. I doubt you'd say the same about homeopathy.

And I know that we have to look at the evidence. I've been talking about the damn evidence this entire thread.

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

One example, Claus. One example of me saying that evidence is not pivotal in skepticism. That's all you need.

When most people commit the strawman fallacy, they at least try and make it subtle. You, on the other hand, have just attributed to me a position which is the exact opposite position to the one I hold. If you're going to argue with me, at least make sure that you argue against a position I hold.

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

It is supposedly a heavy creature, the size of a small bear, with a row of spines reaching from the neck to the base of the tail./quote]

The problem is that the Chupacabra is nothing like a bat. Hence, saying that it is makes you look a little bit like an idiot. Do some basic research on a subject before you pass comment.

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

Nope. But then, the Chupacabra is very, very different to a bat. The Chupacabra is a supernatural belief. Bats are not.

 

[qayak]

Empirical evidence? No - because philosophical ideas are artificial human constructs. They don't exist outside of the minds that conceive and consider them.

Hmmmmmmmm....... They can be communicated to others verbally, allowing them to exist in the minds of others, plus they can be communicated through written language which not only allows them to be communicated to others immediately, but also for a long time into the future.

I would say that there is clear evidence that they exist even if we can't actually see them.

 

[articulett]

Nope. But then, the Chupacabra is very, very different to a bat. The Chupacabra is a supernatural belief. Bats are not.

And even if they saw a bat and thought it was a chupacabra--it doesn't make chupacabra's real. It means their belief in the chupacabra caused them to make incorrect inferences regarding what it was they saw. It's the same as people thinking that belief in god or faith and feelings regarding god infer that there is a god that exists outside of human imagination.

Humans are very prone to incorrect inferences and conclusions based on beliefs. I think no one but Claus believes the strawmen he creates and no one but him seems to understand his argument. He not only doesn't understand every one else who seems to perfectly understand each other--but he appears to imagine this is because he is thinking on a higher level than everyone else making fabulous points on a position that only he seems to understand or find "skeptical" or "logical".

 

[articulett]

Hmmmmmmmm....... They can be communicated to others verbally, allowing them to exist in the minds of others, plus they can be communicated through written language which not only allows them to be communicated to others immediately, but also for a long time into the future.

I would say that there is clear evidence that they exist even if we can't actually see them.

Yes, but no one thinks philosophies exist absent a human mind... Whereas, nobody thinks their god exists only as construct of the human mind like philosophies. Those who believe in god do not think of their gods as mental illusions or pure mental constructs--they think of them as entities that exist outside of human imagination and wouldn't profess belief if they thought it was just a mental construct or "imaginary friend".

 

[qayak]

Yes, but no one thinks philosophies exist absent a human mind...

Technically, human's don't exist, absent a human mind.

I think that people still believe even though they know god is only in their head. We fool ourselves everyday. Our mind makes up stories, images, sounds, etc., in order to make the world make sense. We THINK we are aware of everything around us and yet experiments show that this is not true. Our mind plays a game of "Fill in the Blanks."

It is likely that that is all the belief in god started as and it only later became an integral part of culture, which would explain the differences in gods between cultures.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hmmmmmmmm....... They can be communicated to others verbally, allowing them to exist in the minds of others, plus they can be communicated through written language which not only allows them to be communicated to others immediately, but also for a long time into the future.

I would say that there is clear evidence that they exist even if we can't actually see them.

It probably wasn't clear, but when I said 'conceive and consider', I meant the people who come up with the idea as well as other people who the idea is communicated to.

The written language with which we write the ideas is also an artificial human construct - certainly the physical writing exists if humans were to disappear, but the meaning that is attached to the symbols and patterns exists only in the minds of those interpreting them. This can be easily demonstrated through the fact that, when one is presented with an unknown foreign writing system (Chinese, or Arabic for example) they are unable to assign any innate meaning to the words - one needs to have the 'key' to the language in their mind before they can understand the text.

Similarly, one can draw a picture of a unicorn - but it doesn't mean that unicorns exist in the real world. If one were to paint a picture of a tree and broadcast it into space, it is highly unlikely that any intelligent being that was able to receive and correctly unscramble the broadcast would be able to assign any sort of real meaning to the picture, unless they also had trees of some kind on their planet.

Just because something can be given greater permanency through written communication doesn't mean it exists outside of the mind. Artificial human constructs still require humans (or some kind of intelligent life) to exist - without the mind to interpret the writing, all you have is a collection of meaningless patterns.

 

[articulett]

So which do you think is the most rational/skeptical position (the position most compatible with skepticism)
1. All gods exist only in the human mind
2. Some god entity/force might exist outside of the human mind--as more than a mental construct... and some people have a belief in or access to or knowledge of this god.

Do you think it's rational to believe in some form of consciousness separate from the mind--consciousness without a material brain? Do you think god belief is like any other woo or that it should get special treatment so long as believers are making no claims that they have evidence for their beliefs. I think that most skeptics would refer to themselves as atheists because there is no evidence to show that a god is more than a product of human imagination.

 

[qayak]

Yes, but no one thinks philosophies exist absent a human mind...

Only if you limit "philosophy" to human reasoning as related to human activities. If that be the case, then the argument is absurd.

However, if you are saying that a philosophy is "the basic principles of a discipline," then philosophical ideas do exist outside the human mind and can be seen in many other species.

 

[articulett]

Only if you limit "philosophy" to human reasoning as related to human activities. If that be the case, then the argument is absurd.

However, if you are saying that a philosophy is "the basic principles of a discipline," then philosophical ideas do exist outside the human mind and can be seen in many other species.

Do you think that any of those who believe in a god believe that their god is on par with principles of philosophy?-- Why say you believe in a god if it's really just a god philosophy you believe in (whatever that means). Don't you think that most people who believe in god believe in it as an anthropomorphic entity without a material brain? And is there a good reason to think that consciousness can exist absent a human brain? Do you think god belief can be treated as demon belief or other woo in regards to considering it a misperception of reality. Or do you think god belief deserves more consideration or deference so long as people aren't claiming they believe for a reason? (Claus' position.)

Some people seem to think that being on the fence regarding a god is the most skeptical position, but most who have weighted in, including me, think it's more logical to conclude that all gods are products of the human imagination and things that are undetectable and immeasurable don't exist or are indistinguishable from things that don't exist and can be presumed to be in that category.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Technically, human's don't exist, absent a human mind.

I think that people still believe even though they know god is only in their head. We fool ourselves everyday. Our mind makes up stories, images, sounds, etc., in order to make the world make sense. We THINK we are aware of everything around us and yet experiments show that this is not true. Our mind plays a game of "Fill in the Blanks."

It is likely that that is all the belief in god started as and it only later became an integral part of culture, which would explain the differences in gods between cultures.

So are you talking about the history of god beliefs or the god belief?

Values and philosophical positions are real things. They just aren't analogous to god beliefs.

 

[qayak]

Do you think that any of those who believe in a god believe that their god is on par with principles of philosophy?-- Why say you believe in a god if it's really just a god philosophy you believe in (whatever that means). Don't you think that most people who believe in god believe in it as an anthropomorphic entity without a material brain? And is there a good reason to think that consciousness can exist absent a human brain? Do you think god belief can be treated as demon belief or other woo in regards to considering it a misperception of reality. Or do you think god belief deserves more consideration or deference so long as people aren't claiming they believe for a reason? (Claus' position.)

Some people seem to think that being on the fence regarding a god is the most skeptical position, but most who have weighted in, including me, think it's more logical to conclude that all gods are products of the human imagination and things that are undetectable and immeasurable don't exist or are indistinguishable from things that don't exist and can be presumed to be in that category.

My position is that there are several issues being cross discussed here.

1- God is a construct of the mind
2- All constructs of the mind do not exist
3- There is no evidence to support god

I agree with 1. I disagree with 2. I agree with 3.

However, it is not the fact that gods are constructs of the human mind (1)that makes them non-existent (2). It is the fact that there is no evidence to support their existence (3) that decides.

If I entertain the idea that because gods are a construct of the human mind, they therefore do not exist, then I have to say that computers, Evolution, Relativity, etc., also do not exist.

There are a lot of ideas out there, what seperates the good from the bad is the evidence that results from the idea being put to the test.

 

[qayak]

So are you talking about the history of god beliefs or the god belief?

I see them as one and the same. Religion hijacked a simple mechanism that we use to make sense of our world so that we can operate in it, and then religion itself evolved.

 

[86kam]

I see them as one and the same. Religion hijacked a simple mechanism that we use to make sense of our world so that we can operate in it, and then religion itself evolved.

I see a problem here qayak..
You are stating that religion hijacked a simple mechanism.... You are assigning religion as some kind of separate entity that took over a human reaction.

I would say that religion was born FROM this mechanism that we use to make sense of things we did/do not understand, and that religion derived from that.

Before we can take your statement as is... you should have to show (evidence) that this separate "entity" ie religion, was around to hijack us.

A bit of "cart before the horse" here, methinks.

 

[articulett]

I see a problem here qayak..
You are stating that religion hijacked a simple mechanism.... You are assigning religion as some kind of separate entity that took over a human reaction.

I would say that religion was born FROM this mechanism that we use to make sense of things we did/do not understand, and that religion derived from that.

Before we can take your statement as is... you should have to show (evidence) that this separate "entity" ie religion, was around to hijack us.

A bit of "cart before the horse" here, methinks.

Not really... yes religion sprung from some primal urges to explain and feel safe and form communities and understand and trust of authority figures... but it took on a life of it's own... The more virulent ones spread by promising eternal rewards and killing infidels and claiming to have the one true world of god while threatening eternal damnation to those who doubt. And then it encouraged the spread of itself by encouraging proselytizing and "going forth and multiplying" and spreading the "good news" to make the invisible overlord happy. Prophets and gurus and self appointed infallible leaders could pretend to be the humble servants of the big guy in the sky spreading "his" message that faith is good and necessary for morality and salvation... and the message is culturally indoctrinated in the very young... often without question and questioning is discouraged.

People are afraid not to believe... afraid to "bite from the tree of knowledge"... afraid to "question god" lest they and their posterity suffer forever ala Eve... Religion creates an imaginary problem (eternal damnation) to make people fearful and then makes you pay and show gratitude for the solution-- (allegiance to their creed). It spreads a lot like a chain letter... it spreads because it can. It may have grown from primal need to explain... but it spread by hijacking human fear and inventing problems so that humans needed it.

And it's creepy, because then everyone sort of thinks it must be good or there must be some truth or reason behind it... but as you examine the supposed reasons behind belief, the whole thing comes crashing down.