Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Bluefire]

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?

I was born and raised in a religious family.

Parts of the beliefs of the church, which we were hammered with was the possibility of a personal answer of gods existence, if one asked sincerely through prayer.

I stopped being religious when I began demanding evidence, and found none. Before that I was a "believer".

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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


What evidence are we talking about, exactly?

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

I basically was trying to understand 2 things.

1) I wanted to know if you had ever asked - many times I hear someone say God's never shown them evidence and then when asked if they had asked him they say "no." I think the first step would be to ask, and unreasonable to expect something if you never ask. But you've asked - so good.

2) You said you wanted evidence. And I was wondering what it would need to be and what scope. It sounds like you are saying you want scientific evidence of a supernatural event - but how can a supernatural event even be measured scientifically? Especially a one time event?

I suppose on this same line - I was wondering what you meant by evidence - supernatural or natural? I was just trying to clarify - I have nothing I can prove to you. Sorry.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

I was born and raised in a religious family.

Can I have my million plz? I'm a good psychik!

 

[Lonewulf]

I basically was trying to understand 2 things.

1) I wanted to know if you had ever asked - many times I hear someone say God's never shown them evidence and then when asked they say "no." I think the first step would be to ask, and unreasonable to expect something if you never ask. But you've asked - so good.

And nothing delivered. So far, this God guy of yours doesn't seem quite so potent. Or he's an asshat.

I find it funny that I have to ask the guy. The guy's willing to throw people in hell if they don't believe, and supposedly doesn't want this, because he's a good guy and all that. Except that you have to ASK Him, which means you have to believe in Him in the first place.

Isn't that great? Catch 22; only an ass would come up with THAT.

2) You said you wanted evidence. And I was wondering what it would need to be and what scope.

Something extraordinary. I'm sure that God can be sufficiently creative. He's God, after all, isn't he?

It sounds like you are saying you want scientific evidence of a supernatural event - but how can a supernatural event even be measured scientifically? Especially a one time event?

So angels coming from the skies isn't supernatural enough for ya? And cannot be measured? Hell, what about a major city suddenly vanishing in a ball of flame with "THIS IS FOR BEING MORONS" in the skies in 100 foot letters, complete with a face from the heavens shouting at us humans? Then the clouds arrange themselves and say, "Don't screw with god, bitches!"

Sheesh, am I the only one that has any sort of creativity? If I was God, I'd rule with evidence.

I suppose on this same line - I was wondering what you meant by evidence - supernatural or natural?

Extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence. Period.

I was just trying to clarify - I have nothing I can prove to you. Sorry.

Y'know, I know what you're doing here. It's the standard religious trick.

"Yeah, well, what would convince you?" is a leading question, intentionally trying to trip the opposition up and making yourself look skeptical. It always comes off as kinda silly, because if you're lord of the Universe, there's always a way to convince people. You're ****ing Lord of the Universe, and you can't convince a few ants that you're worth worshipping? Puhleeze. Talk about "noob".

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

And nothing delivered. So far, this God guy of yours doesn't seem quite so potent. Or he's an asshat.

I find it funny that I have to ask the guy. The guy's willing to throw people in hell if they don't believe, and supposedly doesn't want this, because he's a good guy and all that. Except that you have to ASK Him, which means you have to believe in Him in the first place.

Isn't that great? Catch 22; only an ass would come up with THAT.

I was just wondering if you even asked. You did. You don't have to.

Y'know, I know what you're doing here. It's the standard religious trick.

"Yeah, well, what would convince you?" is a leading question, intentionally trying to trip the opposition up and making yourself look skeptical. It always comes off as kinda silly, because if you're lord of the Universe, there's always a way to convince people.

No - sorry if you feel I was misleading you. But the common thing people say is prove it - and I can't, I'm not God. Any supernatural occurrences I may have seen or experienced wouldn't be proof to you because they would have to have happened to you. And any natural proofs I may find or see wouldn't be proof to you either. I was just curious - that's all.

 

[Big Les]

Can we clear this up before going any further please, CFL? I'm not sure whether you've totally lost the plot, or if there's been some communication issue to do with you picking part of people's arguments to savage rather than the whole thing.

When you say this;

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.

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.

Are you in fact saying you didn't claim that to believe in something is to believe that it exists. Because I'm afraid you have been saying that the whole time, starting here?

...doesn't the very act of belief imply that they think such a deity must exist?

No. Why?

I can quote further examples from there onwards. What the hell is going on?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can we clear this up before going any further please, CFL? I'm not sure whether you've totally lost the plot, or if there's been some communication issue to do with you picking part of people's arguments to savage rather than the whole thing.

Yes, whatever the reason is, it is certain to be my fault.

Just pay attention to what I say.

 

[articulett]

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.

It would have to be evidence that is not the kind of evidence that people regularly use to trick themselves. That's why Randi offers the MDC. Have you seen much of his work or videos. We know people believe in gods that aren't real and demons and Satan and so forth because of cultural indoctrination and the like. We know exactly where people get their beliefs. But we have no basis of thinking any of them are true. Or if one was true--that it was more true than any others. Either there are divine truths that can only be accessed in a manner indistinguishable from an illusion or delusion-- or there isn't. All religions rest on the premise that there is and that some invisible divine someone or other dictated words to someone else on and off through the years and told him to right it down-- revelations tend not to be real. We have no evidence that any revelations claimed are actually revelations. We don't even have the original copies of the words the invisible guy supposedly dictated. And there is nothing in those writings that is prescient or indicative of some "divine truth"-- nothing.

The more woo you see-- the more easy it is to recognize it. You believe what the people you trust told you to believe. And you shore it up with faith, feelings, and false inferences-- just like all the believers of things you don't believe in.

There is just no good evidence to presume otherwise from my point of view. So how do you manage to assume there is--or to believe knowing this.

 

[Big Les]

I have paid an awful lot of attention to what you say Claus. Unfortunately your abrupt and interrogating style is extremely difficult to follow, as you tend to only allude to what you're trying to say rather than just saying it. The constant questions (backed up with bulldog pursuit when they are not directly answered), put everyone else automatically on the defensive. We're all left guessing at what exactly it is you're trying to say, and when we attempt clarification, you still refuse to come back with plain English.

The gigantic irony is that despite all this, at the root of it all, we actually agree as far as your posited self-deluding Deists go. If I might quote another of your comments;

Because it comforts you. Those that do that allow themselves to deceive themselves - ever so slightly, knowingly, but without any major damage - simply because they feel good about it.

If this were true of all religious sceptics, you would have a point when you say that they do not claim existence of their god. Already we have a snag though, because if any of these self-deluders ever say "I believe in god", they are still outwardly claiming the existance of god. However, I know you do not agree on the definition of "believe", for some reason.

Leaving that aside, the main problem with your argument, and it's an ironic one considering your accusation of putting words in people's mouths, is that you are the one baldly asserting that all religious sceptics think in this way. Many of the rest of us disagree - even many Deists seem to sincerely believe in their absentee landlord creator god.

I'm going to need some evidence that this is the case beyond your one dictionary definition, because that does not even touch on the question of belief. The fact that it does not outright state that Deists believe in their god, or that this belief in god for the majority means that they believe god exists, does not support your argument to any great extent. I simply have more and better examples than you do, that Deists do in fact claim the existence of their god. You choose to try to discredit the sources. There isn't much I can do about this.

Finally, it's still clear to me that if we assume for a moment that most religious sceptics really do "deceive themselves...knowingly", that this is qualitatively not the same thing as really believing in god. You are saying this yourself when you claim that they deceive themselves! If they deceive themselves regarding their belief, they do not actually hold that belief. Q.E.D. Remember, you are the one claiming that they do this.

 

[CFLarsen]

It would have to be evidence that is not the kind of evidence that people regularly use to trick themselves. That's why Randi offers the MDC. Have you seen much of his work or videos. We know people believe in gods that aren't real and demons and Satan and so forth because of cultural indoctrination and the like. We know exactly where people get their beliefs. But we have no basis of thinking any of them are true. Or if one was true--that it was more true than any others. Either there are divine truths that can only be accessed in a manner indistinguishable from an illusion or delusion-- or there isn't. All religions rest on the premise that there is and that some invisible divine someone or other dictated words to someone else on and off through the years and told him to right it down-- revelations tend not to be real. We have no evidence that any revelations claimed are actually revelations. We don't even have the original copies of the words the invisible guy supposedly dictated. And there is nothing in those writings that is prescient or indicative of some "divine truth"-- nothing.

The more woo you see-- the more easy it is to recognize it. You believe what the people you trust told you to believe. And you shore it up with faith, feelings, and false inferences-- just like all the believers of things you don't believe in.

There is just no good evidence to presume otherwise from my point of view. So how do you manage to assume there is--or to believe knowing this.

Considering how much you write, it should be a breeze for you to write that article.

 

[Big Les]

Why in the name of Greek Buggery should articulett have to write you an article Claus? What a bizarre debating tactic.

 

[articulett]

The fact that you have to believe and then interpret the answer is just so cheesy... that's what Mormon's do-- read this book and ask god to know if it's true. That's not a method for truth.... that's a message for fooling yourself. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video8.htm

Faith and feelings aren't methods to truth. Asking god for proof begs a pretty big question, don't you think? It presumes there is someone to hear you and makes your brain ready to see "signs".

 

[articulett]

Yes, whatever the reason is, it is certain to be my fault.

Just pay attention to what I say.

Yes. The evidence being that no one seems to understand you. Nobody seems able to sum up the point. Nobody but you seems to think you are actually saying something. Skeptics tend to find agreement about what the facts reveal. So, yes--the evidence is that you are not communicating whatever it is you think you are communicating.

Yes, skeptics can be theists... they do it by keeping their god free from scrutiny. Yes, we believe the believers really believe in god. We don't think the believers beliefs have a basis in reality. The most logical conclusion is that all gods are made up. We know some definitely are. What evidence is there to even suggest that one might be real-- that consciousness can exist absent a living brain. A skeptic doubts claims and doesn't presume things exist until enough evidence amasses to warrant consideration. Gods have none. Nor does your argument. Occams razor shaves woo completely away allowing for clearer thinking by all so that we can increase understanding of the singular observable reality we share--the one you don't have to believe in for it to exist.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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.

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.

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

- My opinion would be that you could also add more things

- that there may be multiple Gods. (Like the Greek Gods)

- Also - it could be the God or Gods do not exist outside of the universe / reality / time - what have you like # 1.

- the God might not even be personal, simply a force.

As to the Christian God I would say #1 is the best according to your definitions since Christians believe he created everything and the he isn't simply an impersonal something.

I hope you understand that is a simplified explanation.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

A skeptic doubts claims and doesn't presume things exist until enough evidence amasses to warrant consideration. Gods have none.

I'm not arguing on behalf of whoeever this CFLarsen guy is. But I think it's more accurate to say enough evidence hasn't been presented to you to draw a conclusion God exists yet. It could be it never will. I hope if enough evidence was presented to you (however or whatever the means) and you then concluded he exists you wouldn't stop being sceptical about things.

 

[articulett]

I'm not arguing on behalf of whoeever this CFLarsen guy is. But I think it's more accurate to say enough evidence hasn't been presented to you to draw a conclusion God exists yet. It could be it never will. I hope if enough evidence was presented to you (however or whatever the means) and you then concluded he exists you wouldn't stop being sceptical about things.

Yes, but there can never be enough evidence to prove an imaginary entity real. The lack of evidence claim works equally well for all woo. Randi can't prove that nobody is psychic, but he can show how he can make it look like what they do and he can offer an incentive for those to put their claims on the line. But how can you prove that real psychic powers don't exist somehow?

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? Any amount of good evidence could get me to believe... but no amount of contrary evidence can penetrate the faith shield. I hope you don't stop exploring skepticism even if it leads you to conclude your god is just as much of an illusion as Zeus. It's scary--but it's been worth it. I'd rather have a truth I can know is real than to convince myself of a lie.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Yes, but there can never be enough evidence to prove an imaginary entity real. The lack of evidence claim works equally well for all woo. Randi can't prove that nobody is psychic, but he can show how he can make it look like what they do and he can offer an incentive for those to put their claims on the line. But how can you prove that real psychic powers don't exist somehow?

I don't think you could ever completely prove psychics don't exist or have never existed. All you could prove is no one so far has ever proven they really are psychic and all the evidence available that you are aware of shows it most unlikely. And you could never prove no one ever in the past had never been psychic unless they left something to test. You could attempt to prove if a person around right now who is claiming to be psychic really is. With all that information above you can then make a conclusion about whether you believe in psychics.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

I don't mind. I'm 33. You?

Any amount of good evidence could get me to believe... but no amount of contrary evidence can penetrate the faith shield. I hope you don't stop exploring skepticism even if it leads you to conclude your god is just as much of an illusion as Zeus. It's scary--but it's been worth it. I'd rather have a truth I can know is real than to convince myself of a lie.

Actually my sceptism tends to lead me not to unbelief in Christianity or God as a whole, but rather unbelief in certain teachings of certain Christians.

 

[Mobyseven]

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?

Misunderstanding the process. With the information you gave me, approaching the issue using skepticism would result in the most likely conclusion being that the trumpet didn't exist.

If you add extra information, that changes the scenario from the one you gave me. For example, when I'm one of seven children and the mother is known to be vague, it isn't that the mother is vague that is the important information - vague people are correct some of the time, just as keen observers are wrong some of the time - the important information is that no one else remembers the trumpet.

If you add extra information such as, the mother is quite sharp and the uncle remembers the trumpet too - then the important information is that the uncle also remembers the trumpet. That there are two independant stories (as well as my vague recollection) tells us that it is now a bit more likely that the trumpet existed.

If you actually want to apply some sort of percentage to the likelihood, then you're getting deep into subjective territory. Myself, depending on the evidence in any particular case, would probably just evaluate the evidence and lend my support to what is the more likely conclusion.

Of course there is a little bit of subjectivity here - in such situations it is tricky to eliminate subjectivity entirely. As such, it is possible for two people to both apply skepticism to the situation and come to different conclusions - this is because (as I have mentioned in previous posts) there is a problem with the evidence. specifically that we are missing some.

However, this example is not particularly controversial - the reason for this is that we are talking about a particular object from a class of objects that are known to exist. Had my mother told me that as a child I had a baby unicorn as a pet, the standard of evidence would be much higher - I could not just take her word for it, nor any amount of anecdotal evidence. No matter how many people testified to the existence of the unicorn, it would not be enough to reasonably come to the conclusion that I had a pet unicorn as a child. If my mother had said it was a toy train, once again we are talking about a class of objects that is known to exist, and that children are known to play with. If she tells me that I used to talk to ghosts - ghosts are a class of objects that have not been established to exist, and so the standard of evidence would be higher.

Does that clarify?

 

[Egg]

Does that clarify?

Yes. Thanks, Moby.

 

[articulett]

Okay Christian Skeptic...

what is it that makes you call yourself a skeptic? What are you skeptical about? Astrology? Zeus? Demon Possession? Psychic powers? What brought you to a skeptics forum? What makes you skeptical of whatever it is you are skeptical of? What evidence are you using to determine that your faith is true and other peoples' notions are incorrect, delusions, misperceptions, or cultural derivatives-- Why do you think the hijackers god inspired directives are not evidence of god while your subjective experiences are? Do you think you would have become a Christian had you been born into the Muslim faith? Do you think god played favorites and had you be exposed to Christianity while others were exposed to false notions and mythical gods?

I find Christian Skeptic a sort of oxymoron. You define yourself as a person who believes the truth can be revealed via faith or feelings in the first adjective and reject that notion in the second. Would find "Astrologist Skeptic" an oxymoron? How do you see yourself as being different.