Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Bri]

Look at is this way;
"I have no reason to believe any gods exist, because there is no evidence".

That is not the same claim as "there are no gods." Specifically, the above is a weak atheist (i.e. agnostic -- a lack of belief that there are gods) perspective, whereas "there are no gods" is a strong atheist perspective (a positive belief that there are no gods).

So, is a strong atheist belief that there are no gods void of skepticism?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The problem is that you're trying to make a sweeping generalisation, without specifying important factors: For example, what is our state of knowledge about the proposition P? If we have all possible information and evidence in regards to P then we will have our answer - through skeptical analysis of the evidence we will arrive at either P or (exclusive or) ~P as the correct answer.

Of course I'm not making sweeping generalizations -- those who claim to have a definition that can be used to objectively determine whether or not a proposition P is skeptical are making sweeping generalizations. I completely agree that all of those important factors need to be specified, and if we had complete knowledge of a given proposition, then we could determine the truth of the proposition. But of course as you pointed out, the reality is that we have complete knowledge of very little, and I don't think the limited knowledge we do have can always be evaluated objectively. But if you disagree, then the method of evaluating incomplete knowledge in order to determine whether it is skeptical to believe P needs to be part of the definition used to determine whether a given proposition is skeptical.

Unfortunately our knowledge about the world is almost never entirely complete. As such, our incomplete view of the 'big picture' will often mean that a skeptical argument can be framed for P and ~P. However, that is not the case where the argument is about the very existence of an object or phenomenon - in that case either there is evidence that P is true, or there is no evidence at all. If there is evidence that P is true, there is a fair degree of certainty that P is true (though never 100%). If there is no evidence, the default state of belief is in the non-existence of an object - I have previously covered why this is the case in a number of posts.

But it isn't the case that if there is some evidence for P then the evidence necessarily indicates a probability that approaches 100%. For some propositions (the existence of intelligent aliens, for example) we simply don't know what the probability is. Therefore, it would seem that a scientist could reasonably believe P or ~P in this case (and indeed some scientists believe that the probability of intelligent aliens is less than 50% while others believe it is greater than 50%). So even if the case of the existence of something, it doesn't seem to be cut-and-dry.

So, once again I will point out that there is indeed a system by which such assessments can be made objectively, and that your criticisms are baseless.

Again, I have to disagree, unless you can post a definition that addresses the above-mentioned problems (and others). At best, this sweeping generalization can only be made in cases where there is fairly conclusive evidence one way or the other.

-Bri

 

[Egg]

If there is no evidence, the default state of belief is in the non-existence of an object - I have previously covered why this is the case in a number of posts.

So, if your mother tells you you used to have a toy trumpet when you were a toddler and you can just about remember your toy trumpet, but it's long gone, so there's no evidence, is the skeptical position to believe that the trumpet never existed?

 

[articulett]

A belief in something begs the question of it's existence... it skips right over the question of whether it exists with the presumption that it does. What is skepticism good for if not wheedling out these superfluous irrationalities. I think a good skeptic remains skeptical about all gods until evidence exists. I suspect that deists are, as skeptic girl described, --fearful atheists or atheists in denial or "on the route to atheism". All god belief comes from culture. Whatever characteristics a god has comes from myths... non evidentiary gods can't leave evidence, after all. And then confirmation bias must fill in the details.

We have wonderful feelings we don't understand--we call it god. Something seems miraculous--we "thank god". To believe that such an entity actually exists enough to say "I believe in god" is to assert that you don't believe that god is your "imaginary friend" or a "concept".

Those saying otherwise just sound like the apologists of every other woo--not skeptics--not logical. Nobody asserts that they believe in an "imaginary god"-- and yet they treat all other god concepts as imaginary except the one they believe in. When there is no evidence that something exists--whether it's psychic powers or some entity who set the ball of life in motion with some intent... a skeptic says, "it's woo until you prove it true" in my book. Theres an infinity of non evidential entities after all, the only thing that makes a person choose one over all the others is the culture the stories he's been told by other humans who cannot know more than scientists or other mortals when it comes to "magic"-- especially "non-evidential" magic.

Imagination exists. Imaginary friends do not. Imaginary gods do not. All gods are imaginary until proven otherwise. There is no way of any human to know about a non-evidentiary god except hearsay-- through culture and confirmation bias (feelings and faith). These are not the way a skeptic decides what to believe or if to believe or if something is even worth investigating.

Such gods are invented as training wheels for letting go of god beliefs... a seeming answer... a "just in case" clause should there be a god who will punish for non belief...a way of not getting the harsh judgment religion teaches the faithful to dish out to atheists...a safety net... a bargaining chip... a way of not questioning the god you were told it was arrogant to question... a way to nurture "faith"--the thing you've been told is a gift... the thing you are told you will be lost without. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. It does make you especially prone to confirmation bias, however.

"Non evidentiary" beliefs are the same as delusions or opinions or imaginary forces. They are not something a skeptic considers evidence of anything except the incredible means at which people will go through to justify their illogical beliefs to convince themselves they are logical.

And Bri--you are just silly. Non evidentiary gods are the same as imaginary gods as far as most skeptics are concerned... just like all the psychics and their with their excuses for not taking the MDC and all the supposed pieces of Jesus' cross and other relics in assorted churches...and all the people who swear they have inner knowingness and mystical gifts and divine truth.

The snideness, strawmen, self aggrandizement about how the apologists or "on the fence" folks are the true skeptics falls flat. If the evidence (or lack of it) for your god is on par with the evidence for other woo-- it's woo too. You may not like it--but that's the way it is. You guys only make sense to yourself just like your gods. You have an imaginary truth and an opinion of your logic not warranted by the evidence. And the hand waving, tangential questions, oblique nothingness, and semantic vagaries don't hide it from the eyes of those who have practice on these blithering tactics to argue non-points about how a belief in some god or other is perfectly skeptical and not woo. It's all woo. It's all woo until proven otherwise. Words just prove how eager people are to protect their woo--the one they are sure is true.

I don't believe in the existence of things for which there are no evidence. The chupacabra is the same as bigfoot is the same as god and it's all woo to me. I don't believe in any gods--not even the non-evidentiary ones and no demons-- not even the non-evidentiary ones-- and nothing involving souls... because I don't believe in souls--they are non-evidentiary... as non-evidentiary as fairies and engrams and sprites. I don't beg the question of their existence because nobody is claiming evidence. When things are real--evidence amasses. When things are BS-- silly arguments, semantics, and excuses amass. Logic tells me which side god beliefs are on.

Most skeptics have no god beliefs for this reason. And most who do have god beliefs, seem to be slowly letting them go making them more and more nebulous as they understand just how improbable all gods are-- how very likely they are ALL a product of the human imagination. Even if one wasn't-- with "non-evidentiary" entities--you wouldn't know which one to "believe in". There's an infinite variety of them. They can exist in multiples in every human mind.

Big Les, I feel your pain. But Claus does that to every one. Only he seems to understand what exactly he's trying to say. He'll rationalize away Moby's rockupuncture analogy to pedantically tell you that what he's saying makes much more sense than that. It doesn't. It's just a bunch of nothingness to make it sound like god beliefs are something skeptics shouldn't be skeptical of.

 

[articulett]

So, if your mother tells you you used to have a toy trumpet when you were a toddler and you can just about remember your toy trumpet, but it's long gone, so there's no evidence, is the skeptical position to believe that the trumpet never existed?

Toy trumpets exist... your mother exists... your mother probably has valid reasons for remembering and sharing the info. You may even have pictures. The skeptical position is to weigh the evidence and the importance of the statement and adjust your belief accordingly. I'd say this was a perfectly rational belief. But god? Your mother telling you about god can only be hearsay... as is all your knowledge and beliefs about god--what he is, what he does, what he wants-- and begs the question. Is there a god? It presumes there is and builds the story on a bogus assertion from the start.

We have no reason to believe that consicousness CAN exist absent a living brain. Everything which asserts such begs a VERY BIG question. It presumes that it can. Based on what? Nothing. I can't imagine a skeptic assuming this presumption and then going on to presume even more non-evidentiary things like assorted characteristics of this god (he created humans... he has a plan...etc.)-- It's all spun from the same woo. If, as the evidence increasingly shows, consciousness cannot exist outside a material brain--then no gods can exist. Get it? Leaping over this fact about reality is really not skeptical in my book.

With the toy trumpet silly analogy-- you only have to presume that your mother is remembering correctly-- that's not a big leap... assuming consciousness can exist without a brain IS A HUGE LEAP. People have believed in such things for eons... scientists would love it to be true. But there isn't even the tiniest bit of measurable evidence to show this is possible. Our own consciousness is a result of evolution of our brains and the stories we mold it it with. What could a god's be? How can a god be?

 

[articulett]

The analogies made by those who want to believe are just so indicative of their desire to believe... they are analogies made to confirm that it's sensible to believe in a god of some sort. But a god is much less likely to exist than a child's toy trumpet. The fact that your logic is coming up with such analogies should be a clue to you about how you are fooling yourself to imagine a god belief as rational. It should not lead you to conclude that believing in a god is a skeptical or logical thing to do. It isn't any more skeptical than believing in demons or psychic powers or past lives. It just isn't.

 

[articulett]

The Rockupuncherist's Clinic...​

Rockupuncherist: Right, your AIDS is caused by a misalignment of you right-autrial jingo. You need to punch this rock, as hard as you can, and then you'll get better.

Patient: I don't know. What evidence is there for this?

Rockupuncherist: There is no evidence. This is a non-evidential claim.

Patient: Oh, well that's okay then. Perfectly rational. [Breaks knuckles]

Fin​

A fabulous analogy. 'Why would egg ignore this and make up a more flawed analogy. We are talking about things that beg the question of their existence... they are positing "non things"-- your analogy is on par. Toy trumpets are not "non things". I think it's amazing the way people use semantics such as false analogies to prop up their belief... and they are blind to it.

Do those positing that a belief can be rational or skeptical understand WHY this analogy is reflective of the god without evidence belief and not the toy trumpet belief? One type of belief requires a huge number of presumptions not based in basic logic--not things that are known to be true... to exist. The other, like positing life on other planets, is based on matter and processes we understand like evolution -- not on forces and things that have never been shown to exist!!! We know that life can evolve on planets with an energy source from a star like our sun-- WE DON'T KNOW-- and have no reason to believe--that consciousness can exist or "appear" without a material brain generating it. It's hugely illogical and massively presumptuous to make such a presumption with such a huge lack of evidence despite eons of belief and lots of knowledge that people make this stuff up and make wrong conclusions about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. No god is true for the same reasons we can presume Zeus never existed nor Satan.

 

[Egg]

Toy trumpets exist... your mother exists... your mother probably has valid reasons for remembering and sharing the info. You may even have pictures. The skeptical position is to weigh the evidence and the importance of the statement and adjust your belief accordingly. I'd say this was a perfectly rational belief. But god? Your mother telling you about god can only be hearsay... as is all your knowledge and beliefs about god--what he is, what he does, what he wants-- and begs the question. Is there a god? It presumes there is and builds the story on a bogus assertion from the start.

We have no reason to believe that consicousness CAN exist absent a living brain. Everything which asserts such begs a VERY BIG question. It presumes that it can. Based on what? Nothing. I can't imagine a skeptic assuming this presumption and then going on to presume even more non-evidentiary things like assorted characteristics of this god (he created humans... he has a plan...etc.)-- It's all spun from the same woo. If, as the evidence increasingly shows, consciousness cannot exist outside a material brain--then no gods can exist. Get it? Leaping over this fact about reality is really not skeptical in my book.

With the toy trumpet silly analogy-- you only have to presume that your mother is remembering correctly-- that's not a big leap... assuming consciousness can exist without a brain IS A HUGE LEAP. People have believed in such things for eons... scientists would love it to be true. But there isn't even the tiniest bit of measurable evidence to show this is possible. Our own consciousness is a result of evolution of our brains and the stories we mold it it with. What could a god's be? How can a god be?

What is it with you and analogies? Why are you assuming things I'm not saying? I know God isn't the same as a toy trumpet. Any similarity or lack of similarity between God and toy trumpets is irrelevant to my question. Of course it's a silly analogy (just like all my other analogies are silly) if you try and read something into it which isn't there.

I'm merely asking Moby to clarify his statement about the skeptical position belief in non-existance, by putting an example to it.

 

[articulett]

Jeez.

This has been nothing more than 34 pages of mindless repetitive head-meets-brick-wall-of-sky-daddy-believers.

What a waste of time.

But you've got to admire the way they keep trying to convince themselves by convincing us that belief in a god is not woo. I find the semantics interesting... the stuff they supposedly want clarified... the inferences in their questions... the stuff they ignore. They have a goal of getting others to say that believing in something for which there is no evidence makes sense somehow--so long as it's god... and no claims are made... and lots of people have believed... etc. They want belief in a god or being on the fence about god to be a logical or skeptical position-- not like other woo. But there is no reason to treat any god as "not woo"-- to presume any has a basis in reality-- to presume that any god is other than imaginary or a "comfort"... a confabulation.

They want it to be logical and so they prevent themselves from seeing what they are doing... the way their own questions confirm their biases... the way their exact arguments and analogies can be used for all kinds of woo... the way they confuse "belief that something exists or has a basis in reality" with "opinions" or "feelings"--which are subjective experiences. I hope they have the pleasure of going back and understanding this about what they are doing some day. It will help them help others reason.

They don't want the god they believe in (or the god they are positing) to be on par with all the gods they reject--and all the other invisible entities and woo powers they reject--and so they play a semantic game to keep themselves from realizing it is. They skip the analogies and points and questions that will show them why this is so.

I remember Randi saying that those who believe they can't be fooled are often the easiest to fool. It's an interesting process to watch. And they get so defensive in defense of their invisible friend and others who prop up the idea that an "invisible friend" is perfectly logical and beyond skeptical dismissal. They are angry that most skeptics consider all gods to be products of the human mind.

 

[articulett]

It may be nonsensical to you. It isn't to them.

Yes, Claus... just as the hijacker's god was not nonsensical to them. Everyone thinks their woo is true.

We can dismiss imaginary friends as imaginary and we can dismiss gods in the same way. They have the same characteristics as all imaginary entities... they don't exist... they presuppose consciousness absent a material brain... we have no evidence that such a thing is possible and lots of evidence that people are prone to believing in such things never-the-less. We can dismiss all such entities just like we can dismiss Allah and Invisible Pink Unicorns and invisible entities spying on you as you sit at your computer. And for the same reason. They do not exist. They are all products of the human imagination-- until or unless the evidence shows otherwise. It's all woo. Just like the powers of homeopathy, psychic powers, bigfoot, and the chupacabra. Skeptics are always ready to change their minds should the evidence appear. But the faithful believe even when there is no evidence that such things are possible.

 

[articulett]

What is it with you and analogies? Why are you assuming things I'm not saying? I know God isn't the same as a toy trumpet. Any similarity or lack of similarity between God and toy trumpets is irrelevant to my question. Of course it's a silly analogy (just like all my other analogies are silly) if you try and read something into it which isn't there.

I'm merely asking Moby to clarify his statement about the skeptical position belief in non-existance, by putting an example to it.

But you missed his point. Look at the rockupuncture example. Why is it woo. He posits things and forces not known to exist. They are not something you can build a belief out of except by woo means. So are gods. How does anyone learn about whatever god they might believe in. Culturally through mortals. The same way they knew about Zeus and Satan and past lives and psychics and witchdoctors and all other woo.

A belief in a god is like a belief in demons or rockupuncture or "bad vibes"--it's not like a belief that your mothers memories accurately reflect reality. Why would you ignore the analogy he gave and then give one of your own which was readily answered by me.... and I'm sure most would answer it the same. Most people have no problem adding up the evidence and the extraordinariness of the claim and reaching logical conclusions when it comes to their mother's memories. It seems that when it comes to god-- they underestimate the extraordinariness of the claim and affirm it without any evidence whatsoever!

Accepting a god is on par with accepting that you need rockupuncture to fix your whatevermajigger-- or that you need "clearing" to get rid of your "engrams" or that you need "faith" so you can be moral and please an invisible guy in the sky.

You don't want clarification, you want a god to be a skeptical or logical conclusion. Skeptics generally don't believe in such unlikely things--especially with such poor evidence that can ONLY be faith, feeling, arguments from ignorance and hearsay. What else is there to support any god? How can a god belief be more logical than an invisible pink unicorn belief?

 

[schlitt]

That is not the same claim as "there are no gods." Specifically, the above is a weak atheist (i.e. agnostic -- a lack of belief that there are gods) perspective, whereas "there are no gods" is a strong atheist perspective (a positive belief that there are no gods).

So, is a strong atheist belief that there are no gods void of skepticism?

-Bri

Well it depends, is the "no gods" refering to the multiple already established religions?

 

[Bri]

I assume you would have to ask the individual what they believe, but I know of atheists who claim to believe that no gods exist. I assume that "no gods" means no gods.

-Bri

 

[Mobyseven]

Of course I'm not making sweeping generalizations -- those who claim to have a definition that can be used to objectively determine whether or not a proposition P is skeptical are making sweeping generalizations. I completely agree that all of those important factors need to be specified, and if we had complete knowledge of a given proposition, then we could determine the truth of the proposition. But of course as you pointed out, the reality is that we have complete knowledge of very little, and I don't think the limited knowledge we do have can always be evaluated objectively. But if you disagree, then the method of evaluating incomplete knowledge in order to determine whether it is skeptical to believe P needs to be part of the definition used to determine whether a given proposition is skeptical.

We cannot know whether a proposition is true or false without evaluating it. A given proposition can be evaluated using skepticism - the conclusion that is reached through such a method would be what you are calling a 'skeptical proposition', and what I have been referring to as rational or reasonable. If it is possible to reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, then all conclusions reached via skepticism are reasonable positions to hold, with the obvious concession that as different positions can be reached given the same evidence, there is either a flaw somewhere in our understanding of the evidence, or there is missing evidence.

But it isn't the case that if there is some evidence for P then the evidence necessarily indicates a probability that approaches 100%. For some propositions (the existence of intelligent aliens, for example) we simply don't know what the probability is. Therefore, it would seem that a scientist could reasonably believe P or ~P in this case (and indeed some scientists believe that the probability of intelligent aliens is less than 50% while others believe it is greater than 50%). So even if the case of the existence of something, it doesn't seem to be cut-and-dry.

It is currently reasonable to hold either position - that there is intelligent life in the universe other than us, and that there isn't. This is because while we know there is a reasonable probability of there being other forms of intelligent life in the universe (as we are aware of the conditions under which at least one form of intelligent life can arrive - us), we don't have any evidence for the existence of these other life forms. If we ever find evidence for the existence of other forms of intelligent life, the probability of it existing will collapse to 1, and a skeptical evaluation will always result in the proposition, "There is intelligent life in the universe that is not human," being found true.

Again, I have to disagree, unless you can post a definition that addresses the above-mentioned problems (and others). At best, this sweeping generalization can only be made in cases where there is fairly conclusive evidence one way or the other.

And again, you're wrong.

 

[Mobyseven]

So, if your mother tells you you used to have a toy trumpet when you were a toddler and you can just about remember your toy trumpet, but it's long gone, so there's no evidence, is the skeptical position to believe that the trumpet never existed?

I will assume for the moment that there is no evidence for the trumpet aside from my mother's say so, and my own vague memory.

My mother could easily be wrong - perhaps I played with a toy trombone, or perhaps it was my sister who had the trumpet. And my memory is also incredibly unreliable. The fact that no one else seems to remember me playing with a toy trumpet is also a red light that the trumpet may not have existed.

As such, when one applies skepticism to the situation it seems likely that the trumpet didn't exist, or that I was not the one who played with it if it did.

ETA - Of course, this is a pretty trivial matter anyway.

 

[Bri]

We cannot know whether a proposition is true or false without evaluating it.

I entirely agree. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether a proposition is true or false without conclusive evidence.

A given proposition can be evaluated using skepticism - the conclusion that is reached through such a method would be what you are calling a 'skeptical proposition', and what I have been referring to as rational or reasonable.

Except that there is no such method -- unless you have one in mind that you haven't posted yet. The one you posted is obviously inconclusive in all but cases where the evidence is conclusive.

If it is possible to reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, then all conclusions reached via skepticism are reasonable positions to hold, with the obvious concession that as different positions can be reached given the same evidence, there is either a flaw somewhere in our understanding of the evidence, or there is missing evidence.

Sure, OK. Then your answer should have simply been "yes, P and ~P are both skeptical" to my question.

It is currently reasonable to hold either position - that there is intelligent life in the universe other than us, and that there isn't. This is because while we know there is a reasonable probability of there being other forms of intelligent life in the universe (as we are aware of the conditions under which at least one form of intelligent life can arrive - us), we don't have any evidence for the existence of these other life forms.

We do know the conditions under which we developed? What were they?

I agree that we don't have any evidence of the existence of other life forms. But according to your definition, belief in something for which there is no evidence is un-skeptical.

If we ever find evidence for the existence of other forms of intelligent life, the probability of it existing will collapse to 1, and a skeptical evaluation will always result in the proposition, "There is intelligent life in the universe that is not human," being found true.

Yes, but the same can be said for the existence of a god. Should one decide to make itself known to us, the probability of it existing will collapse to 1, and a skeptical evaluation will always result in the proposition, "There is a god," being found true.

And again, you're wrong.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Can you modify the definition you posted earlier (or come up with a new one) so that one can objectively determine whether a given proposition is skeptical? Otherwise, the claim that such a definition exists is a claim without evidence, which would seem to be un-skeptical by your definition.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I will assume for the moment that there is no evidence for the trumpet aside from my mother's say so, and my own vague memory...

ETA - Of course, this is a pretty trivial matter anyway.

It's also not an extraordinary claim and doesn't presume that something not known to exist exists.

Yes, your ownership and her memory are in question--but memories and toys and mothers exist. Everything about god's involves something not known to exist--consciousness absent a brain. If such things are not detectable by any means... then how can one get enough knowledge about it so they they can say they "believe in it."-- only through hearsay-- presumption-- the same methods that all people use to believe in and prop up the gods and entities that the believer doesn't believe in-- they can only get belief in their god the same way people get belief in demons or satan or the power of witchdoctors-- and that is fallaciously.

And yet they assert belief while knowing that such things can only be affirmed through fallacious reasoning. Their sources can only have access to the same "non evidence" that they are using. They know that people believe very strongly in entities that don't exist with similar or different or more or less nebulous definitions than their own "god"-- but there is no source or means or evidence or anything to suggest that their belief could be more valid. If there isn't evidence that a god exists... then they've trusted a source who can not know such a god exists to inform them of that gods existence. And yet they've rejected other beliefs arrived at via identical fallacious means.

I think this is inherent in culture molded by religion through the eons--It's the meme that god is just presumed to exist (because otherwise how to explain all this?) and questioning god is seen as "arrogant"-- demonic-- or at least unseemly...like a"doubting Thomas". Whereas, faith is seen as good--necessary for morality... a sign of moral strength and humility. But these are all presumptions not based in truth and they shore up the false presumption of a god.

As a kid I believed because everyone did... I figured it must be based in something somewhere along the line... and besides, I was afraid not to... so at least I said I did. And I know most people were raised with similar cultural input. The nice people I knew and trusted were all believers--surely they couldn't be mistaken?

But now I want to know how a skeptic can be skeptical of whatever it is they are skeptical about while believing something exists which cannot be shown to exist. Everything else in our world that exists-- appears to be measurable and verifiable. But theistic skeptics make an exception for god but not all the other entities, forces, and woo not known to exist. And they give no reason why. They probably don't know why. But they are presuming to have some sort of "divine" insight... and I think skeptics should be very skeptical that any divine anything exists.

What I want to know is how do believers distinguish the likelihood of their god from "demons" or whatever it is they are certain doesn't exist or woo? Because I can't think of a logical way to convince myself that a god I might believe in is any more likely to be true than all the woo and nonexistent things I don't believe in. I expect skeptics to not believe in the supernatural and not to believe in things for which there is no evidence. A mother's memory may constitute evidence for something-- but how can you substantiate a belief in a god for which there is no evidence? How did you come to know about this god to believe in him if there was no evidence? Magic? Or myth propped up by fallacious means of supporting that myth?

I just wish they could give me a logical reason why skeptics should not be atheists to the same extent that they are a-demonists. Or is demon belief perfectly acceptable to those who believe in a god? Are those "on the fence", on the fence about all demons? Or at least the "non-evidentiary" ones. If not--how can they maintain that they are on the fence about some gods? If so, then what exactly are they skeptical about? Why isn't god belief treated with the same skeptical eye as the things they don't believe in? Can't the same lack of evidence be proffered for everything they DON'T believe exists.

Skeptics who aren't atheists sound so illogical to me when trying to explain their rationale. It's woo rationale. They ask tangential questions to keep from having to answer any. They get mad and defensive because inside they know it's woo. Sure, a skeptic can be a believer, but I'd keep it in the closet if you don't want to be prodded about it. For me, I want to understand, and I end up feeling like they have no reason... and they get mad at me for threatening what they want to believe.

What don't theistic skeptics believe in? What are they skeptical about? What is woo? And how do they keep god out of that category except by semantics, tangential questions, hand waving, ire, ad homs, and fallacious reasoning. The apologists here seem to want skeptics to prove that the woo isn't true instead of giving any reason for thinking that it has any basis in logic. It's the woo argumentation strategy. "prove me wrong".

I suspect Randi thinks that all gods are imaginary. I suspect most skeptics do. I think that is where the evidence lies. We can't test all gods... but we can recognize the pattern. We can't prove there are no real psychics, but we can demonstrate the pattern. We can't prove that pi doesn't randomly change in it's further most digits when we aren't looking-- but that is no reason to even posit that it does.

Bri posits the equivalent of that. So does Claus. And Egg. All those arguing for some god existing are. It's a non argument that can't mean anything except as an exercise in people using semantics to prop up their beliefs and pretend that they are making sense to someone other than themselves or those who want to shore up similar nuttiness.

Everyone thinks their woo is true.

Bri, you can't prove pi doesn't change when you aren't looking. And there's no evidence... I'm talking about the numbers just past the millionth place after the decimal. It's amazing. It's a code from god. You are on the fence about that like you are about gods, right?

 

[Lonewulf]

Considering Larsen's "interesting" points here, I'll have to turn him down on offering to publish any articles of mine in his skeptic's report.

Considering that he's running it, it sounds about as reliable given his arguments here as "creation science".

 

[CFLarsen]

If the person is claiming that god is their 'friend', who we know is imaginary but they don't, then they are claiming that their 'friend' exists.

We know what other people believe.

"We know!"

That's a dangerous path to take. When you start telling people what they really believe.

If they are claiming that god is their 'imaginary friend', then they are making a claim that god is imaginary - and they are therefore not theists.

When someone identifys with a school of philosophical thought, they are not making an existential claim about an object. When one proclaims a belief in god, they are making an existential claim about the universe.

Why does God have to be existential?

If there is no evidence for god, then god is no different from any other woo belief - regardless of whether or not the believer admits to the absence of evidence. You wouldn't accept that same argument from anyone else - can you imagine the following scenario occuring in real life?

The Rockupuncherist's Clinic...​

Rockupuncherist: Right, your AIDS is caused by a misalignment of you right-autrial jingo. You need to punch this rock, as hard as you can, and then you'll get better.

Patient: I don't know. What evidence is there for this?

Rockupuncherist: There is no evidence. This is a non-evidential claim.

Patient: Oh, well that's okay then. Perfectly rational. [Breaks knuckles]

Fin​

"Punch this rock" is an evidential claim.

Monkees' Fan: Subjective opinion.
Deist: Objective existential claim.

Your analogy is bunk. Give it up.

See above, re. the necessity of a god being existential.

Claimed - but the evidence claimed is bunk. Actual evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy is non-existent: Which puts it on equal footing with your non-evidential god.

That the evidence claimed is bunk is beside the point. The point is that evidence is being claimed.

You seem to be saying that a belief is rational if the believer realises that their belief is irrational (that there is no evidence for the belief). There's a word for that: Dumb.

No, I am not saying the belief is rational.

Your specific question of evidence, yes. Not evidence in general. Your 'question of evidence' was essentially that a belief was rational as long as the person knows that there is no evidence supporting their belief. That's what my judge analogy was for - to point out how incredibly stupid that claim is. Stop equivocating my demolition of your argument with an argument against evidence in general.

I am not saying that the belief is rational.

The fact that we have no evidence, whatsoever, for the existence of the Chupacabra.

That doesn't make it supernatual/paranormal. It just makes it undiscovered.

The Chupacabra is a little bit more than 'elusive' - it's non-existant. Bats may be elusive, but they are well known to exist - they have been observed and documented, we know much about their biology and behaviour. The Chupacabra is supernatural because it is not a real animal.

Again, no. It has to have supernatural characteristics in order to be supernatural. There is nothing in the reports that indicate it is supernatural. Elusive, impossible to catch - not because it vaporizes into thin air, but because it is one clever li'l bastard.

I'm trying to figure out whether you are suggesting that Dracula is not a supernatural belief, or if you're suggesting that vampire bats are supernatural.

Either way, you're wrong. Nice try though.

The vampire bats in Dracula myths are supernatural, because of their attachment to Dracula - the Undead. That's pretty darn supernatural.

Cryptozoology is a subset of supernatural beliefs, specifically relating to belief in imaginary, legendary and mythical animals.

With one crucial exception: These animals are claimed to be real, sometimes leaving verifiable traces behind them.

You have seriously misunderstood what supernatural/paranormal means.

No more so than you would have to. We aren't dealing in the specifics of belief or the permutations that can spring from it. We're talking about belief in a higher creator being. You're trying to say that there are multiple definitions of belief, and that "Deists" choose the one that does not equate to believing in the existance" of a creator god.

Of course I would have to ask them - that's what I've been saying all along: We can't assume that all Muslims think the same way as the Muslim terrorists.

I am not saying that there are multiple definitions of belief. I am saying that there are multiple levels of evidence claimed for beliefs. Some claim evidence, some do not.

Your example simply neglects to mention that they believe their believed god actually exists. Mine do not. Any objective assessment of the evidence shows that my assertion is correct - to "believe in god" means to believe that god exists. To believe that god exists means that you claim such. If you claim existence, you are open to sceptical enquiry. The fact that the evidence is utterly lacking does not mean that a sceptic is not able to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is that there is no evidence of a god, therefore the adoption of a belief in its existence is irrational and unsceptical.

When you deal with beliefs, it is never safe to assume. It is never safe to say "objectively".

I bloody well did. Did you read my response, or not? I said the fact that people can co-opt the term "scepticism" for their non-sceptical website does is no reflection whatever on the source I quoted, which is as representative of Deist beliefs as any one site is likely to get. You always cry "evidence" - try assessing the source I linked to for its reliability.

You pointed to age as if that is a quality - it isn't. Just because something is old doesn't make it true.

What you do is take a website that calls itself the "World Union" of Deists. But for a website that purports to cover the world's deists, there is a remarkable lack of international people involved.

Yes, I checked.

They don't claim anything that we can test - there is no evidence for what they claim. Until any comes along, the sceptical position is to assume that the god they claim does not exist. If they were to apply scepticism to their belief as they do to the claims of others, they would come to the same conclusion. I simply don't accept that "non-evidential" gods should be afforded a position of belief.

They don't claim anything that we can test, no.

And I told you. In this context, I treat supernatural claims as one. In another. I would differentiate based on the specifics. This being Deism though, there are no specifics, just the watered-down notional belief in a creator god.

No specifics, no.

No two are 100% identical, needless to say, but most can be grouped by the misinterpretation of natural phenomena that inspired them. Belief in a creator god originally was inspired as such, but once stripped of most of its claims, it becomes more like your imaginary friend analogy, or any one of the other supernatural claims if the proviso of intangibility is claimed.

No two are 100% identical, no. Therefore, you can't group them in order to dismiss one because of what the other claims.

Phenomena for which testable claims are made hide in the gaps created by the moving of the testing goalposts. The next step, when and if one has chosen to retreat to an intangible claim, is the god of the gaps. That is where the Deist god hides, and also where many other former tangible claimants choose to place their treasured but flimsy beliefs.

Maybe. But we can only do something about their claims as skeptics, the moment they make a testable claim.

For example, many homoeopaths now claim that science cannot meaningfully test their treatments, that something else, currently intangible and untestable, is at play. This is no different to the claim of an intangible and untestable god, and sceptics should assume the same default position of non-belief for both, until and unless some evidence is made available.

No, no, no. They point to a non-meaningful explanation of the effects of their claims. That is wholly different than pointing to no effects at all.

Please stop asking this, ad infinitum. THEY DON'T CLAIM EVIDENCE. They claim existence. This does not exclude their claim from sceptical scrutiny - it just makes it easier and quicker to, for the time being, discount it.

What exists without evidence?

A belief in something begs the question of it's existence... it skips right over the question of whether it exists with the presumption that it does. What is skepticism good for if not wheedling out these superfluous irrationalities. I think a good skeptic remains skeptical about all gods until evidence exists. I suspect that deists are, as skeptic girl described, --fearful atheists or atheists in denial or "on the route to atheism". All god belief comes from culture. Whatever characteristics a god has comes from myths... non evidentiary gods can't leave evidence, after all. And then confirmation bias must fill in the details.

We have wonderful feelings we don't understand--we call it god. Something seems miraculous--we "thank god". To believe that such an entity actually exists enough to say "I believe in god" is to assert that you don't believe that god is your "imaginary friend" or a "concept".

Those saying otherwise just sound like the apologists of every other woo--not skeptics--not logical. Nobody asserts that they believe in an "imaginary god"-- and yet they treat all other god concepts as imaginary except the one they believe in. When there is no evidence that something exists--whether it's psychic powers or some entity who set the ball of life in motion with some intent... a skeptic says, "it's woo until you prove it true" in my book. Theres an infinity of non evidential entities after all, the only thing that makes a person choose one over all the others is the culture the stories he's been told by other humans who cannot know more than scientists or other mortals when it comes to "magic"-- especially "non-evidential" magic.

Imagination exists. Imaginary friends do not. Imaginary gods do not. All gods are imaginary until proven otherwise. There is no way of any human to know about a non-evidentiary god except hearsay-- through culture and confirmation bias (feelings and faith). These are not the way a skeptic decides what to believe or if to believe or if something is even worth investigating.

Such gods are invented as training wheels for letting go of god beliefs... a seeming answer... a "just in case" clause should there be a god who will punish for non belief...a way of not getting the harsh judgment religion teaches the faithful to dish out to atheists...a safety net... a bargaining chip... a way of not questioning the god you were told it was arrogant to question... a way to nurture "faith"--the thing you've been told is a gift... the thing you are told you will be lost without. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. It does make you especially prone to confirmation bias, however.

"Non evidentiary" beliefs are the same as delusions or opinions or imaginary forces. They are not something a skeptic considers evidence of anything except the incredible means at which people will go through to justify their illogical beliefs to convince themselves they are logical.

And Bri--you are just silly. Non evidentiary gods are the same as imaginary gods as far as most skeptics are concerned... just like all the psychics and their with their excuses for not taking the MDC and all the supposed pieces of Jesus' cross and other relics in assorted churches...and all the people who swear they have inner knowingness and mystical gifts and divine truth.

The snideness, strawmen, self aggrandizement about how the apologists or "on the fence" folks are the true skeptics falls flat. If the evidence (or lack of it) for your god is on par with the evidence for other woo-- it's woo too. You may not like it--but that's the way it is. You guys only make sense to yourself just like your gods. You have an imaginary truth and an opinion of your logic not warranted by the evidence. And the hand waving, tangential questions, oblique nothingness, and semantic vagaries don't hide it from the eyes of those who have practice on these blithering tactics to argue non-points about how a belief in some god or other is perfectly skeptical and not woo. It's all woo. It's all woo until proven otherwise. Words just prove how eager people are to protect their woo--the one they are sure is true.

I don't believe in the existence of things for which there are no evidence. The chupacabra is the same as bigfoot is the same as god and it's all woo to me. I don't believe in any gods--not even the non-evidentiary ones and no demons-- not even the non-evidentiary ones-- and nothing involving souls... because I don't believe in souls--they are non-evidentiary... as non-evidentiary as fairies and engrams and sprites. I don't beg the question of their existence because nobody is claiming evidence. When things are real--evidence amasses. When things are BS-- silly arguments, semantics, and excuses amass. Logic tells me which side god beliefs are on.

Most skeptics have no god beliefs for this reason. And most who do have god beliefs, seem to be slowly letting them go making them more and more nebulous as they understand just how improbable all gods are-- how very likely they are ALL a product of the human imagination. Even if one wasn't-- with "non-evidentiary" entities--you wouldn't know which one to "believe in". There's an infinite variety of them. They can exist in multiples in every human mind.

Big Les, I feel your pain. But Claus does that to every one. Only he seems to understand what exactly he's trying to say. He'll rationalize away Moby's rockupuncture analogy to pedantically tell you that what he's saying makes much more sense than that. It doesn't. It's just a bunch of nothingness to make it sound like god beliefs are something skeptics shouldn't be skeptical of.

Write that article. Send it to me, or Skeptic Magazine. Present it at TAM. Let's see how well your idea of what skepticism is fares.

Yes, Claus... just as the hijacker's god was not nonsensical to them. Everyone thinks their woo is true.

Which is why we have to ask each and everyone of them what their faith means to them.

 

[articulett]

Hurray! Claus is out of straw men... so out comes the snide, holier than thou thread derailing, ad-hom nothingness. (But what else can you do when people say your woo is poo?)

--Claus wins points in his imaginary game when he gets others to join his fatwas against me. I hope none of the apologists disappoint him. I just get a bouncy little spring in my step every time I know I've pissed off a self-righteous blow hard. (The ignited hubris, outrage, hypocrisy, and buffoonery makes for such colorful fireworks-- and who doesn't enjoy the irony of seeing forum bullies have their asses handed to them.)

And the most excellent thing is that it lives on forever in cyberspace to enjoy again and again and again. So bring it on, I say. Every time I irk a Bozoface, I get grateful encouragement by pm. Not only does my ego get bigger, but I get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that my fellow skeptics get to see that it's not them that is the problem as the blowhards allege. The social boobs are just absolutely blind to their boobery.

--And now back to Claus's regularly scheduled thread derailment, self aggrandizement and theatrical display of galloping tangential twilight zone topic muddlement peppered with demands for "evidence?" to prove that "non-evidentiary" gods don't exist.

Claus Larsen: JREF forum vigilante eternally blowing out the candle that lights the darkness because he insists it's a fire hazard.