Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Big Les]

No, I am not saying the belief is rational.

I am not saying that the belief is rational.

Forgive the intrusion, but would you say it is irrational then? It has to be one of the two.

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.

Depends upon level of specificity. It is safe to assume that that

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.

You are saying that to "believe" does not also mean to "believe exists". That's a different definition to the one I've demonstrated is the accepted one. Ergo you either saying that everyone else is wrong (which seems unlikely), or that there are at least two definitions of "belief". Whether they claim evidence or not is irrelevant. They also claim belief in a god - that their god exists, somewhere, sometime. That, theoretically, leaves that god open to scepticism. The fact that the evidence is currently inaccessible does not mean that a sceptic should leap to the positive conclusion of belief. Neither, admittedly, should they default to outright and unconditional disbelief. However, the sceptical null hypothesis or provisional position of "does not exist", is to most intents and purposes the same as an outright disbelief, because all other evidence associated with gods (where it is claimed) and all other alternate explanations for these, point to a likelihood that no evidence for any god is likely to be forthcoming in the near future.

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

In general, yes, because beliefs are mental constructs. However, many of them say things about the world that can be checked for evidence. If there isn't any, it's irrational to hold them.

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

That's quite true. However, it lends a modicum of credibility to the source, when taken alongside other facts about the organisation. Which by all accounts speaks for many Deists. Not all, but then neither does your own source. Mostly because you don't have one that I'm aware of.

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.

So what? It speaks for a large number of them, more than you can ever hope to adequately represent with your hypothetical and Hal-based arguments.

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

This would be relevant if we were talking about a level of detail where some discrepancy in doctrine or belief might apply, like whether they attend a certain ritual or not. But we are talking about the very underpinning of EVERY religious belief - a belief that god exists.

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

I don't see that "god exists" is any less a testable claim than "god talks to me through my grilled cheese sandwiches", in theory. The onus ought to be on the claimant, in any case. Extraordinary claims and all that?

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.

Deists do point to at least one rather important effect - the creation of the universe/world/life. Any non-supernatural alternate explanation (e.g. the big bang) trumps this god of the gaps in sceptical terms.

What exists without evidence?

BINGO! Nothing. There is no evidence for god, ergo as sceptics we can assume for the time being that god does not exist. I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Lonewulf]

So can someone point out a Muslim to me that doesn't believe that God exists?

 

[Big Les]

Well, there must be "cultural Muslims", who observe certain rituals for the sake of their families and tradition, but don't actually believe in god. Just as there are cultural Jews and Christians. Maybe Deists are "cultural theists"?

But otherwise, yes, we're talking about the belief in god itself, not the details of how it's expressed. The twin towers analogy is therefore a red herring.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

What a pathetic, vindictive, petty little rant.

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.

Forgive the intrusion, but would you say it is irrational then? It has to be one of the two.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Depends upon level of specificity. It is safe to assume that that

...what?

You are saying that to "believe" does not also mean to "believe exists". That's a different definition to the one I've demonstrated is the accepted one.

Nope.

Ergo you either saying that everyone else is wrong (which seems unlikely), or that there are at least two definitions of "belief". Whether they claim evidence or not is irrelevant. They also claim belief in a god - that their god exists, somewhere, sometime. That, theoretically, leaves that god open to scepticism.

Not unless you can point to something we can test.

The fact that the evidence is currently inaccessible does not mean that a sceptic should leap to the positive conclusion of belief. Neither, admittedly, should they default to outright and unconditional disbelief.

So, skeptigirl and articulett are wrong, when they do that?

However, the sceptical null hypothesis or provisional position of "does not exist", is to most intents and purposes the same as an outright disbelief, because all other evidence associated with gods (where it is claimed) and all other alternate explanations for these, point to a likelihood that no evidence for any god is likely to be forthcoming in the near future.

Back to school, Les.

A null hypothesis does not postulate "does not exist".

"Null" doesn't mean "not exist".

In general, yes, because beliefs are mental constructs. However, many of them say things about the world that can be checked for evidence. If there isn't any, it's irrational to hold them.

But theists aren't saying things about the world that can be checked for evidence.

That's quite true. However, it lends a modicum of credibility to the source, when taken alongside other facts about the organisation. Which by all accounts speaks for many Deists. Not all, but then neither does your own source. Mostly because you don't have one that I'm aware of.

Really? Does that mean that you think that the world's earliest astrology site lends a modicum of credibility to the source?

So what? It speaks for a large number of them, more than you can ever hope to adequately represent with your hypothetical and Hal-based arguments.

Stop lumping all Deists together, then.

This would be relevant if we were talking about a level of detail where some discrepancy in doctrine or belief might apply, like whether they attend a certain ritual or not. But we are talking about the very underpinning of EVERY religious belief - a belief that god exists.

Nope.

I don't see that "god exists" is any less a testable claim than "god talks to me through my grilled cheese sandwiches", in theory. The onus ought to be on the claimant, in any case. Extraordinary claims and all that?

But we, as skeptics, are testing their claim, aren't we? What can we test? Nothing.

Deists do point to at least one rather important effect - the creation of the universe/world/life. Any non-supernatural alternate explanation (e.g. the big bang) trumps this god of the gaps in sceptical terms.

How do we test it? We can't.

BINGO! Nothing. There is no evidence for god, ergo as sceptics we can assume for the time being that god does not exist. I'm glad you agree with me.

Not so fast.

If they don't claim evidence, how can they claim God exists?

 

[articulett]

So can someone point out a Muslim to me that doesn't believe that God exists?

The dead ones.

No brain, no belief, no god.

Trifecta.

 

[articulett]

What a pathetic, vindictive, petty little rant.

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.

No, you write the article and show how it's perfectly compatible with skepticism to believe in a god-- along with all other woo like the chupacabra. Show how it is one can logically arrive at a belief for which there is no evidence. You send it to me or Skeptic Magazine or present it at TAM. You are the one making the assertion away from the default position. No evidence of gods=no gods in the same way that No evidence of demons=no demons. It's not a skeptics job to prove to every woo that their woo isn't true. It's up to those positing gods et. al. to prove that their notions are worth considering as something other than woo or special.
pleading. Find me one respectable person who can sum up your point while concluding it's skeptical.

I don't claim to be speaking for all skeptics. I'm not the one appointing myself as the JREF vigilante and definer of skepticism. Enough of your straw men. It is a fact that most skeptics are atheists per the TAM poll. And I think any logical person can readily see why. Your straw men and semantics are exposed once again as smoke and mirrors erected to disguise the fact that you have no point and you make no sense just like peoples' god beliefs. The only one inferring that he is the keeper of definitions is you. You are the one inferring that someone other than you supports your view. Prove it. You put up or shut up.

 

[articulett]

Gawd Claus-- you do the semantic nuttiness where you confuse the belief for the thing believe in. Belief in god is a concept. It doesn't suggest that a real god exists. Learn to tell the difference between the two.

And skeptics don't have unconditional belief as you allege skepticgirl and I do. We just don't believe in things that are indistinguishable from the imaginary. Maybe it's a language translation problem... but your position is hopelessly muddled. Believing in god is as logical as believing in demons. And no argument has been made to show otherwise. Your word games are only fooling yourself.

We recognize your tantrum for what it is. You're just peeved because we find your god belief woo-ish. That's what is really eating you. And you know we have a point.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

No, we cannot know if a proposition is true without supporting evidence. Until such time as evidence is provided, the default position is one of non-existance. You cannot provide evidence for the non-existance of an object.

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.

Here we hit upon a problem - what is your definition of 'conclusive' evidence? How much evidence is required, and of what type, before it is considered 'conclusive'? I would say that there the evidence for evolution is conclusive. I would say the same about the germ theory of disease.

But you also hit upon another point - you say that the method is inconclusive. That is false. The method is complete - the answer we arrive at in the face of missing or incorrectly interpreted evidence is inconclusive, tentative at best. Why do you consider that a bad thing? I would argue that an inconclusive answer is a good thing for this method to provide, as it tells us that something about our evidence is not right - it has been incorrectly interpreted or there is some missing.

Skepticism does not deal in absolutes, it forces us to examine our beliefs and tells us what beliefs we should, at least tentatively or temporarily, lend our support to and accept as fact. The unchangable and the certain are the domain of faith, along with an inaccurate and often dangerous view of the world. I will take the uncertain accuracy of skepticism over the blind inaccuracy of faith any day.

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

If my answer were, "Yes, P and ~P are both skeptical," I would have said that instead of what I did say. You are oversimplifying the matter, and it bores and annoys me - don't tell me what I should say and don't tell me what I meant to say. I choose my words carefully, and I choose my words for a reason. If you disagree with my words you are welcome to make your case - you are not welcome to change my words so that they seem to support your oversimplified strawman notion of skepticism.

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

For that, you'll have to talk to someone who works in the evolutionary sciences. I, personally, have very little knowledge of exactly what the world was like in the past - there are, however, many scientists who do have reasonable hypotheses as to how life may have developed, and what the conditions were like. Not only that, but we know of many conditions under which life thrives merely by looking at the world around us and noting the multitude of environments capable of supporting life.

If you want a step by step account of how the world changed, with exact measurements and a full catalogue of evolutionary changes, you won't find that answer. But if that is the answer you're looking for, you've set the standard of evidence too high - the standard you are looking for is reminiscent of the standard 'required' by Creationists. Hell, even as I type now I can hear the goalposts moving.

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.

Before Australia was discovered by Europeans - indeed, before Australia was a possibility in the Europeans' minds - there had already been widespread colonisation. Pacific islands, India and China, Africa, and even across the Atlantic to the Americas. In all those places, there was human civilisation. As such, the conditions that could support human life were known, as was the fact that there were humans to be found in most locations that could support them. If someone were to suggest the existence of a huge island in the Southern hemisphere, would it have been un-skeptical to imagine there might be human life in such a place? Certainly there was no direct evidence for human life - how could there be, the island was hypothetical! But, if the island exists, then it would be reasonably likely that there would be human life there, wouldn't you say?

Extraterrestrial life is similar, but with one difference - we aren't just idly speculating about possible other planets, we are actually able to look for them. And because we know of one planet that is capable of supporting life, we are also able to flag planets that have a reasonable probability of supporting life based on how similar they are to the one planet that is known to support life. We won't have any evidence of that life until we actually send something off to check, but that doesn't make the hypothesis automatically unreasonable or unskeptical. By those standards, every hypothesis ever made was unreasonable until tested - clearly a silly notion, and one that would serve only to stifle imaginative research and block funding into innovative ideas and technology.

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.

Except we have additional relevant information regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life that we do not have regarding god. That is the reason that one can apply skepticism to claims about the existence of extraterrestrial life and decide that it is probable, or highly likely. If you disagree with that, kindly tell me which statement of the following you disagree with:

• There is evidence for the existence of life; or
• There is no evidence for the existence of god.
  
  

  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.

  
  I don't need to modify my definition - your 'problems' with my definition are only problems in your own mind. Skepticism does not deal with certainty - if you want the warm fuzzy feeling of certain knowledge, join a doomsday cult like Heaven's Gate or the Catholic Church, and leave those of us who value accuracy over certainty alone.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, there must be "cultural Muslims", who observe certain rituals for the sake of their families and tradition, but don't actually believe in god. Just as there are cultural Jews and Christians. Maybe Deists are "cultural theists"?

But otherwise, yes, we're talking about the belief in god itself, not the details of how it's expressed. The twin towers analogy is therefore a red herring.

Ah, okay.

Well, then, I'm a "cultural atheist".

 

[Mobyseven]

Forgive the intrusion, but would you say it is irrational then? It has to be one of the two.

Actually, I have seen the argument advanced that a belief can be arational. I am not yet entirely sure if I agree with that idea, because I haven't really looked into it critically yet, but for example there are people who would say that the question, "Why should I be moral?" is an arational question - an answer using the moral 'should' is a case of begging the question; an answer using the prudential 'should' (think Hobbes and the social contract) is a contradiction, as that means that the prudential 'should' is actually more important than the moral 'should'; and the logical 'should' (think Kant and the moral imperative) doesn't provide a satisfying answer for why I should be moral - only why everyone should be. As there is no possible way that reason could enter into the decision, the decision is considered arational.

First note: I don't yet know what I think about this idea. I literally just read it today, and am still processing it. If you want to discuss it further I'd be happy, but it probably belongs in another thread.

Second note: Even if one accepts the idea of arationality, Claus' idea still doesn't qualify as being arational, as there are possible ways that reason can enter into such a decision (about god).

 

[Big Les]

Nobody is saying otherwise.

Way back you did indeed agree that these beliefs are irrational. If they are irrational, how can they also be sceptical?

...what?

Sorry - sentence fragment I left hanging by mistake. More haste, less speed. I said what I was intending to say later on in the same post - your Muslim analogy only applies where details are being discussed, like whether one Muslim interprets the Koran's various "kill the unbeliever" lines literally (9/11) or whether they try to reinterpret them metaphorically (moderates). Both people believe in their god. We are talking about belief in god, not differences of interpretation.

Nope.

Don't be absurd! Yes you are. You keep saying it, in fact. You have told me that as far as Deists are concerned, to "believe" does not also mean to "believe exists". Read your own posts.

Not unless you can point to something we can test.

The way I see it, we have already "tested" by looking for evidence of the creation of the universe and developing scientific theories about this that do not require any deity-related intervention. Why do we have to be able to test for specifics of something that presents no evidence to us? Why can't we simply adopt either the null hypothesis (agnosticism) or the negative (atheist) position and be sceptical about it either way? If we can, as you yourself suggest, then how can the positive (theist or deist) position also be sceptical?

So, skeptigirl and articulett are wrong, when they do that?

Neither of those people have been outright and unconditional. They have said no more emphatically than you yourself (see below) that it is sceptical to say that "god does not exist, because there is currently no evidence for one".

Back to school, Les.

A null hypothesis does not postulate "does not exist".

"Null" doesn't mean "not exist".

I'm aware of that, but I won't take offence at your condescention, because I can see how my comment was badly phrased. The strictly sceptical position is the null hypothesis of "we can't say it does or doesn't exist". You've been basically arguing this all along, and you're quite right as far that goes. But in the absence of evidence, should we not go one step further and assume existence. If it's unsceptical to disbelieve with no evidence, as you seem to say, then it sure as hell is unsceptical to adopt a position of belief. That was what I was trying to say.

But theists aren't saying things about the world that can be checked for evidence.

Can't be checked now. Just because the evidence is currently lacking, i.e. unavailable to us doesn't mean that we can't assess that very unavailibility as equivalent to non-existence at the present time. And in theory, given a time machine or thousands of years, or whatever change to the state of play, we could indeed assess the evidence for god. At least one claim is made by Deists - that their god created the universe. This ought to be at least theoretically testable, even if we cannot at present do so. You've made the same argument about availability of evidence yourself, and in fact you've even said that it is sceptical to say that god does not exist on the basis of currently available evidence (see below).

Really? Does that mean that you think that the world's earliest astrology site lends a modicum of credibility to the source?[/quote]

As far as astrologists opinions on their own belief, yes, absolutely. But only when the source is assessed for its reliability i.e. who wrote it, who it claims to speak for, who it actually speaks for.

Stop lumping all Deists together, then.

I am no more lumping them together than you are, matey. You're the one saying that they don't actually claim their god exists. You've yet to show me any who agree with this - omission of specific mention of this in one dictionary definition will not cut I'm afraid. And even if you do find one who says this, I already have thousands right there who do claim it. At the very least, we're both right on that score, and more likely (IMO) those who do not claim to claim existence of their god are very much in the minority. Prove me wrong.

Nope.

If you don't accept that every religious person (where a god is believed) also thinks that god exists, then I'm really not sure where we can go from here.

But we, as skeptics, are testing their claim, aren't we? What can we test? Nothing.

How do we test it? We can't.

The really maddening thing about this is that despite insisting that we can't test for god, way back in this thread you posted this;

The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic.

So you apparently do think that sceptics can take a provisional position, a negative position, on the existence of god. In fact you say this outright. And yet you disagree that it is unsceptical to believe in god, despite the same lack of evidence.

Something is not right there.

If they don't claim evidence, how can they claim God exists?

Don't ask me, I don't know how they can either, but they do nonetheless.

 

[Belz...]

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

You still haven't found a single example of someone who doesn't believe what he believes in. Your "imaginary friend" respond is idiotic. Children who believe in imaginary friends believe that they exist. Otherwise they're just playing make-believe, in which case it isn't a belief at all. You can't have it both ways.

So do philosophical ideas. If you can grant believers in philosophy (of which some find immense comfort in!) their beliefs, why not believers in a non-evidential god?

I grant the existence of the BELIEF, not the thing it represents, remember ?

How can you test the Deist god?

You can't test it directly, but like all unfalsifiables there are very good ways to favour one hypothesis over the other.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

OK - I haven't read every post in this thread (sorry- it's quite long) - but going from the original posters question about 'can a sceptic be religious?'.

It probably depends on your definition of a sceptic.

two different definitions I've found:

sceptic - someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

sceptic - One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is
looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after
facts or reasons.

I'd say yes according to those definitions which are basically similar to the definition I have for the word. Being a sceptic to me doesn't mean never coming to a conclusion about anything - even religion. Those of you who are Athiests - in the sense of not believing in a God - have made a conclusion about religion. You've concluded there is no God to believe in. They're both valid conclusions for a sceptic to make. If not then you might as well ask 'Can a sceptic be Athiest?'

But back to religion - if a sceptic finds enough evidence for themself (however they may define evidence for themself) to make a decision for a belief in a religion are they then supposed to abandon the sceptic process?

To me, being a sceptic is an approach I take towards pretty much every new thing I learn or am told about anything and all things. I don't even think it would be possible to abandon it.

Based on the amounts of charlatans there are in the religious world I wish there were more religious sceptics.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Which, of course, shows that you don't understand why God isn't the same as the toy trumpet.

 

[articulett]

So what makes you call yourself a Christian, Christian Skeptic... and not a Buddhist? What does that label mean to you? You posit much more than an undetectable immeasurable god with that label. How do you determine what invisible entities not to believe in. Are you an a-demonists? (Do yo lack a belief in demons)?

What don't you believe in? What are you "skeptical of" and what makes you determine something else is woo while accepting some version of Christianity as true. Do you believe in virgin births?... Original Sin? That god killed his kid who (was really him) to atone for that sin? Adam and Eve? Talking snakes? heaven? hell? Satan? How do you imagine god communicated his teachings to people... whom did he select to write the message and when via what means if he's not indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion. And why is everything so unclear... with no originals?

What are you skeptical of and how do you imagine to believe in such vast amounts of extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims while knowing people have been fooling themselves in this arena for eons. Why do you believe there is something divine or that consciousness can exist without a material brain?

Where do you use the tools of skepticism in your life? And how do you manage to let such extraordinary claims go unexamined with the presumption they are more than imaginary? You don't believe your god is imaginary, do you? You find that notion insulting, don't you. I don't think any person who believes in god thinks that their god is imaginary as Claus (cflarsen) seems to infer.

Oh... and do you think that the answer must be one of the following:

1. God exists as a real entity that is the same entity no matter who believe in him (her/it them) or not-- that is... god exists in the same way gravity exists and planets exist. He is a form of consciousness with thoughts, desires, and wants that is undetectable and immeasurable via objective means.

OR

2. All gods are a product of the imagination.

Those are the only two options right? Or am I missing something? Would you agree that most skeptics go with the latter because of lack of evidence for the former coupled with tons of evidence that people are really easy to fool in this area?

Where did you get your knowledge of god from? And what was their source? And theirs? Do you think faith and feelings can lead to any truth? Do you ever fear god might be a product of your imagination? Is that a scary thought to you? Would you want to know if your god was as imaginary as Xenu?(Scientology's overlord spirit).

Please don't get defensive. You are curious about atheism per your other thread. Lots of us are curious about the apparent contradiction inherent in skeptics of faith.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

articulette: jokingly - Did you type all that for me? Or was that copied and pasted?

Seriously though - are you really interested in having me answer these? Do you want me to answer all of them? Do you think you'd believe if all these were answered to your satisfaction or would there be more questions to be answered before you'd believe?

I suppose how you answer will determine how I answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you write the article and show how it's perfectly compatible with skepticism to believe in a god-- along with all other woo like the chupacabra. Show how it is one can logically arrive at a belief for which there is no evidence. You send it to me or Skeptic Magazine or present it at TAM. You are the one making the assertion away from the default position. No evidence of gods=no gods in the same way that No evidence of demons=no demons. It's not a skeptics job to prove to every woo that their woo isn't true. It's up to those positing gods et. al. to prove that their notions are worth considering as something other than woo or special.
pleading. Find me one respectable person who can sum up your point while concluding it's skeptical.

I don't claim to be speaking for all skeptics. I'm not the one appointing myself as the JREF vigilante and definer of skepticism. Enough of your straw men. It is a fact that most skeptics are atheists per the TAM poll. And I think any logical person can readily see why. Your straw men and semantics are exposed once again as smoke and mirrors erected to disguise the fact that you have no point and you make no sense just like peoples' god beliefs. The only one inferring that he is the keeper of definitions is you. You are the one inferring that someone other than you supports your view. Prove it. You put up or shut up.

If you think your position is the skeptical one, then you should have no problems getting your article accepted by Skeptic Magazine. I'll put it in SkepticReport anyway. Contact JREF and offer to present your position at TAM, too.

Gawd Claus-- you do the semantic nuttiness where you confuse the belief for the thing believe in. Belief in god is a concept. It doesn't suggest that a real god exists. Learn to tell the difference between the two.

Now you are suddenly arguing that even theists don't suggest that a real god exists?

And skeptics don't have unconditional belief as you allege skepticgirl and I do. We just don't believe in things that are indistinguishable from the imaginary. Maybe it's a language translation problem... but your position is hopelessly muddled. Believing in god is as logical as believing in demons. And no argument has been made to show otherwise. Your word games are only fooling yourself.

We recognize your tantrum for what it is. You're just peeved because we find your god belief woo-ish. That's what is really eating you. And you know we have a point.

Yes, back to the "we" again. "We know we are right!"

Way back you did indeed agree that these beliefs are irrational. If they are irrational, how can they also be sceptical?

Pay attention to what I say!

Deists haven't reached their beliefs by applying skepticism - because there is nothing to apply skepticism to.

Sorry - sentence fragment I left hanging by mistake. More haste, less speed. I said what I was intending to say later on in the same post - your Muslim analogy only applies where details are being discussed, like whether one Muslim interprets the Koran's various "kill the unbeliever" lines literally (9/11) or whether they try to reinterpret them metaphorically (moderates). Both people believe in their god. We are talking about belief in god, not differences of interpretation.

Nope: We are talking about what they believe, period.

Don't be absurd! Yes you are. You keep saying it, in fact. You have told me that as far as Deists are concerned, to "believe" does not also mean to "believe exists". Read your own posts.

You are doing it again, this time with me: Telling people what they believe, telling them what they argue, telling them what their points are.

The way I see it, we have already "tested" by looking for evidence of the creation of the universe and developing scientific theories about this that do not require any deity-related intervention. Why do we have to be able to test for specifics of something that presents no evidence to us? Why can't we simply adopt either the null hypothesis (agnosticism) or the negative (atheist) position and be sceptical about it either way? If we can, as you yourself suggest, then how can the positive (theist or deist) position also be sceptical?

See above.

Neither of those people have been outright and unconditional. They have said no more emphatically than you yourself (see below) that it is sceptical to say that "god does not exist, because there is currently no evidence for one".

While you read my posts, take a look at theirs, too.

I'm aware of that, but I won't take offence at your condescention, because I can see how my comment was badly phrased. The strictly sceptical position is the null hypothesis of "we can't say it does or doesn't exist".

Indeed.

You've been basically arguing this all along, and you're quite right as far that goes. But in the absence of evidence, should we not go one step further and assume existence.

No, we should not go one step further and assume existence. We have to go with what people claim.

If it's unsceptical to disbelieve with no evidence, as you seem to say, then it sure as hell is unsceptical to adopt a position of belief. That was what I was trying to say.

Now you got it right!

Go back and see how this fits with your previous statements.

Can't be checked now. Just because the evidence is currently lacking, i.e. unavailable to us doesn't mean that we can't assess that very unavailibility as equivalent to non-existence at the present time. And in theory, given a time machine or thousands of years, or whatever change to the state of play, we could indeed assess the evidence for god. At least one claim is made by Deists - that their god created the universe. This ought to be at least theoretically testable, even if we cannot at present do so. You've made the same argument about availability of evidence yourself, and in fact you've even said that it is sceptical to say that god does not exist on the basis of currently available evidence (see below).

What is the difference between their God creating the universe as the only supernatural act (and then stand down, doing nothing), and e.g. the theory of Big Bang?

As far as astrologists opinions on their own belief, yes, absolutely. But only when the source is assessed for its reliability i.e. who wrote it, who it claims to speak for, who it actually speaks for.

But you didn't do that with the Deist website you pointed to. You just took it for granted that because it was "deism.com", it just had to be the one and only deist credo.

omission of specific mention of this in one dictionary definition will not cut I'm afraid.

You had no problems jumping to the conclusion that omission in one dictionary really meant that they believed in the existence of their god anyway.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you won't jump to the conclusion that they don't claim their god exists because they don't say it directly.

You are totally inconsistent.

If you don't accept that every religious person (where a god is believed) also thinks that god exists, then I'm really not sure where we can go from here.

I have to go with what each person actually believes.

The really maddening thing about this is that despite insisting that we can't test for god, way back in this thread you posted this;

So you apparently do think that sceptics can take a provisional position, a negative position, on the existence of god. In fact you say this outright. And yet you disagree that it is unsceptical to believe in god, despite the same lack of evidence.

Something is not right there.

Oh, for crying out loud...

Don't ask me, I don't know how they can either, but they do nonetheless.

No, no, no. I am asking how you can say that they claim evidence, if they don't claim their god exists.

You still haven't found a single example of someone who doesn't believe what he believes in. Your "imaginary friend" respond is idiotic. Children who believe in imaginary friends believe that they exist. Otherwise they're just playing make-believe, in which case it isn't a belief at all. You can't have it both ways.

Can you show me a way by which we can tell with certainty if people really believe what they say they believe in?

I grant the existence of the BELIEF, not the thing it represents, remember ?

Go with that only, and you're there.

You can't test it directly, but like all unfalsifiables there are very good ways to favour one hypothesis over the other.

We can't test it any way.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

articulette: Let me ask one other question,

Are you expecting me to tell you what and why I believe things, or prove to you what you should believe?

 

[articulett]

Clause... we all believe that people believe in their god just like we all know schizophrenics really believe their illusions. But we don't believe in their illusions. We believe that they believe-- we don't believe in what they believe in... we find their inferences in the absence of evidence to be signs of unwarranted credulity--the very opposite of skepticism.

Imaginary friends exist as a concept. They don't exist in our shared objective reality. Nobody thinks their of their god as imaginary. They all presume a "real" god-- otherwise, why believe?

Now I see why you are avoiding my questions as to either 1 or 2 must be true. You keep wanting to interchange. Belief in god is not evidence of any objective god. You keep interchanging these two ideas to suit your ever moving goal posts and the game in your head.

Most skeptics choose option 2 Claus. Which one do you choose? Or is there a third option.

 

[articulett]

articulette: Let me ask one other question,

Are you expecting me to tell you what and why I believe things, or prove to you what you should believe?

No. I really am just curious the same way you were curious in your thread. My answers aren't an attempt to trap you or lead you. That's the job of the woo. I want to understand how it is a person calling themselves a skeptic rationalizes being a skeptic while believing in extraordinarily unlikely things.

I used to be a believer... most of us have been in fact. I think I know what is going on. I sense you don't want to answer my questions because you are afraid they might make you question your faith.

But can you at least tell me if you think that I've covered all bases with option 1 and 2 above. I haven't cut and pasted anything. I am typing this up as a go. Theists tend to start tossing up straw men and ad homs and tangential questions before we ever get to find out what is going on in their head. And then they'll accuse us of being rude.

Just answer a question or two in the same manner and with the same respect you wanted from us when you asked atheists what sort of god they would imagine for themselves on your other thread.

Are 1 and 2 comprehensive-- that is, everyone is somewhere on the scale if they have an opinion on the topic?

If your religious beliefs were no more likely to be true than Scientology and your god was no more likely to be true than Xenu-- would you want to know that? Would you want to know if your god was a product of your imagination or would you prefer to believe that he's real?

That's an important question, don't you think? It's at essence to the thread in question.