Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

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.

All's fair!

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.

Nope. That's not it. I question my faith every day. What I don't want to do is tell you what to believe, and I'm not arrogant enough to think I could ever argue someone into a belief. And even if I could - that's not my responsibility to convince people of anything. It's Gods.


That being said - let me clarify a few things and think of where to go next.

So what makes you call yourself a Christian, Christian Skeptic... and not a Buddhist? What does that label mean to you?

1) I am a Christian - what that means is I've decided that Jesus is my Lord. I try to do follow his teachings. I've accepted his divinity. What this doesn't mean is I'm in any way successfull at it. I'm not a Buhddist because I don't follow Buhdda (even though I like some of his teachings.)

2) I am probably not a good example of what you consider a Christian (even though there are so many flavors, if you will) I know, based on past experiences, most Christians (especially Evangelicals) will disagree on most what I believe.

Tongue-in-cheek:
For all I know I may be a heretic damned to Hell.

That being said - are you still interested in me going on?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

articulette: Also - do you want me to post Bible verses?

If you don't accept the bible I'm not really sure what good or crebility that would add other than to show I've found a bible verse.

I'd be happy to do that though it would make my responses longer in coming.

Also - any Christians reading this who disagree with anything I say I will not debate with you - there is no point. You've got your opinions, I've got mine. This is to Articulette and such.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nope. That's not it. I question my faith every day. What I don't want to do is tell you what to believe, and I'm not arrogant enough to think I could ever argue someone into a belief. And even if I could - that's not my responsibility to convince people of anything. It's Gods.

For someone like me, he's sure doing a crap job of it.

But burning in hell in all eternity is probably what he gets kicks out of, so who knows?

Either way, when God allows any slight bit of evidence outside of the minds of the imaginary, I'll pay Him heed. Until then, he's about as logical as FSM and the invisible pink uincorn.

 

[Egg]

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.

So, we could say that the likelihood of this trumpet existing, would be a subjective matter, based on what the person weighing up the evidence knows (presumably there's no objective probability possible here). For instance, I could be one of seven children and my mother could be known to have a sketchy memory and that would decrease the likelihood in my head, or I could be an only child with a sharp witted mother, who's rarely wrong about such things, and that would increase the likelihood of the trumpet actually existing. If another family member also remembers, I might think the probability of the trumpet's existence is becoming pretty high.

Presumably, we would say that if I was telling another person about this trumpet, from a skeptical point of view, their evidence is even weaker as it would only be my anecdotal evidence of what my mother had said and what my memories were and they would weigh it up as really unlikely.

Would you agree with this, Moby, or am I misunderstanding the process somewhere?

 

[Egg]

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

If I was making some analogy about God, you might have a point, however it was just an example to make it easier to understand how Moby is describing and defining the skeptical process. I'm not talking about God at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Do you believe? Or do you know?

Or is that the same to you?

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?

Why are you so dead-set against Credo Consolans?

Now I see why you are avoiding my questions as to either 1 or 2 must be true.

No, I'm not.

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.

Nonsense.

Most skeptics choose option 2

Evidence?

Which one do you choose? Or is there a third option.

I have explained and explained and explained. If you still don't understand, it's because you don't want to understand.

Now, are you going to write that article? Present your idea of what skepticism is at TAM?

 

[Belz...]

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

Okay, that's the source of the confusion, then.

I'm not saying that everybody believes in what they claim to believe in. I'm saying that everybody that believes in something, by definition, thinks that something exists.

Go with that only, and you're there.

Was that supposed to be an argument, of some sort ?

We can't test it any way.

In what way does that make believing in it in any way rational, supposing you are correct ?

 

[Belz...]

1) I am a Christian - what that means is I've decided that Jesus is my Lord. I try to do follow his teachings. I've accepted his divinity. What this doesn't mean is I'm in any way successfull at it. I'm not a Buhddist because I don't follow Buhdda (even though I like some of his teachings.)

I think what Articulett meant was (that's Articulett, not articulette) that you are probably very skeptical of the Buddhists' claims, but not of the Christians'.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

For someone like me, he's sure doing a crap job of it.

But burning in hell in all eternity is probably what he gets kicks out of, so who knows?

Either way, when God allows any slight bit of evidence outside of the minds of the imaginary, I'll pay Him heed. Until then, he's about as logical as FSM and the invisible pink uincorn.

Thanks for responding Lonewulf. I do have a question:
What would be evidence enough for you to believe? And have you ever asked Him for it or any evidence?

I'm just curious.

 

[Lonewulf]

What would be evidence enough for you to believe?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd need a lot more than oil down some statue, or some guy that claims to have been "miraculously" healed of his ailment that suspiciously had a chance to go away on it's own.

Seeing someone smote by a giant fist from the heavens would be pretty kickass. So would angels descending from the heavens.

Invisible "pretend" tricks aren't very convincing.

Seeing the afterlife, even just a glimpse, first-hand would be nice. None of this "dream" garbage; I mean God coming down en-masse and saying to everyone, "Yo! Close your eyes and I'll show you what Heaven is like!"

But the supposed all-master of the universe can only seemingly send in peons called "priests", that seem to be so good at their job that they have time for "extracurricular activities" with the altar boys...

And these peons don't even glow or anything. What a gyp!

And have you ever asked Him for it or any evidence?

Sure, back when I was all into the religious thing. I used to pray all the time, and I went to catholic church like a good little boy. Even went through first communion and first confession and all that other fun stuff. They kept me from the wine as I was under-aged, though. Which is good, 'cause I hated wine.

What did I get? Zilch. Squat. Nadda. Nothing. Absolutely lack of anything.

What exactly would I expect to get, from the all-powerful master and creator of the universe that threatens me with eternal damnation if I don't believe in him, and supposedly doesn't want that to happen?

Either God is all-powerful, and chooses not to give any spectacular sign. In the case of sending people to hell if they don't believe, that makes him a satisfactory bastard. Even if he didn't punish, he'd still let people war over their own beliefs instead of setting them straight, still making him a bastard. OR, he can't do it for whatever reason, which merely makes him impotent. And if he's impotent, I'd be skeptical that he'd be able to do stuff like, y'know, create the universe and all that crap.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I think what Articulett meant was (that's Articulett, not articulette)

oops. Thanks.

that you are probably very skeptical of the Buddhists' claims, but not of the Christians'.

I'm not sceptical that Buddha taught certain things or that they are not accurate recordings of his teachings. Buddha never taught much about God (although he apparently believed in him or whatever his cultures understanding was at the time). And Buddha never claimed to be God. He was very concerned with the here and now. I know many cultures have turned him into a god. As an aside, it does annoy me when preachers say something like "And Buddha's still in the grave! Jesus is not!" Of course Buddha is still in the grave - he was a man and never claimed anything else. If he had made such a claim that would be another matter. I am sceptical of some of his teachings, though.

Because I am a Christian of course Jesus teachings will outweigh anyone elses. I wouldn't expect anything differently from someone who accepted someone elses teachings / claims / divinity / etc.

 

[Lonewulf]

Wait, now you're claiming that the Hindus Believe in God?

I guess you can say that if you define any supernatural claim to mean "believe in God".

Hilarious.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Either God is all-powerful, and chooses not to give any spectacular sign. In the case of sending people to hell if they don't believe, that makes him a satisfactory bastard. Even if he didn't punish, he'd still let people war over their own beliefs instead of setting them straight, still making him a bastard. OR, he can't do it for whatever reason, which merely makes him impotent. And if he's impotent, I'd be skeptical that he'd be able to do stuff like, y'know, create the universe and all that crap.

I'm just trying to clarify - would the evidence you require need to be shown to you only or to all people simultaneously? And if it was shown to you only would you expect others to believe because of the evidence shown to you only? Or would God need to individually show evidence to everyone? Thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, that's the source of the confusion, then.

I'm not saying that everybody believes in what they claim to believe in. I'm saying that everybody that believes in something, by definition, thinks that something exists.

Nope. You can be as Bergsonian as you like, it still doesn't make the beliefs existing.

Was that supposed to be an argument, of some sort ?

See above.

In what way does that make believing in it in any way rational, supposing you are correct ?

I didn't say it was rational. But that kind of believers are not unskeptical, because they don't claim evidence that we can examine.

You can't rationalize your way to a scientific-skeptical position. You have to examine the evidence. Without the evidence, claims of evidence, or even phenomena, there's no science, there's no claims.

It's really a philosophical question. Not a question if the believers are skeptical or not.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Wait, now you're claiming that the Hindus Believe in God?

I guess you can say that if you define any supernatural claim to mean "believe in God".

Hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

This is how Buhddism generally seems to approach God. You don't have to believe in him to be Buhddist.
But there are cultures that worship Buhdda - making him their God.

And Hindus do believe in Gods and a Supreme God. This was common in Buhddas time.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Gods

 

[Bluefire]

Thanks for responding Lonewulf. I do have a question:
What would be evidence enough for you to believe? And have you ever asked Him for it or any evidence?

I'm just curious.

Back (many years ago) when I was religious I asked. Of course none came, other than what can be attributed to self-suggestion.

As for what evidence would suffice, you can consult this little guide:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

Essentially, what we are asking for, is strong scientifically valid evidence of the supernatural, god, or anything else you would want us to believe in.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm just trying to clarify - would the evidence you require need to be shown to you only or to all people simultaneously?

The latter would be nice. It shouldn't be too much to ask from your Lord of the Universe, should it?

And if it was shown to you only would you expect others to believe because of the evidence shown to you only? Or would God need to individually show evidence to everyone? Thanks.

What evidence are we talking about, exactly?

Can we demonstrate what kind of evidence you're explaining here?

 

[Lonewulf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

This is how Buhddism generally seems to approach God. You don't have to believe in him to be Buhddist.
But there are cultures that worship Buhdda - making him their God.

You said that Buddha believed in God. Your link doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It does, however, talk about exceptions to the norm. I don't see anything in there about the "normal" Buddhist teachings, but instead Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

And "making him their God" -- does this mean that one God is immediately equal to another? Are they all the same kind of God?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Back (many years ago) when I was religious I asked. Of course none came, other than what can be attributed to self-suggestion.

I'm still trying to clarify here - are you saying you were religious before you had evidence and then stopped being religious when none came. How did you become religious in the first place without evidence?

 

[Lonewulf]

How did you become religious in the first place without evidence?

Probably the same as anyone else. Why do you think that the majority population of any country tends towards the same religion, in spite of major variances between countries?

It's a passed meme, brainwashed into growing minds.