Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed my point, sort of. I am saying gods don't exist because there is no evidence AND because we have a better explanation for the beliefs. The evidence points to the beliefs being man made constructs rather than being formed after encounters with real gods.

Those that would put gods in the "never can be tested" category tend also to ignore the fact we have evidence, and the evidence supports no gods were involved in the making of god beliefs. It isn't simply a matter of no evidence at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I have not argued that you are not allowed to have an opinion on what a skeptic is. I said you are not allowed to impose that opinion on others as being the final truth about what a skeptic is.

Yet you try to impose yours on everyone. I believe I have more than once acknowledged your position and stated that I did not hold it. You OTOH, have not once acknowledged anyone's opinion here but your own.

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

Care to read what I said?

I'll take that as you cannot articulate the difference, which was my point. There is no difference, because if you have one you have the other. And I am pointing that out to you when I say you are simply defining 'god' as a god which cannot be tested. That definition is a scientific construct but it in no way resembles the gods people actually believe in, including Deists.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
In the natural world, that would be correct, I see no reason to make exceptions for some god beliefs.

Nobody is doing that.

You are. You are claiming god beliefs are excepted as long as the believer doesn't try to support their belief with evidence.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
You have yet to make a case for some god beliefs being outside of skepticism and other god beliefs not being except the "not evidential" case. But "not evidential" is the essence of "not skeptical".

I am not trying to.

Yes you are. See above answer. I would prefer not to rephrase your statements but you have not made a case for this non-evidential god. You have made up an arbitrary definition which is not the actual definition of anyone's god belief. It is the definition in science of a god which cannot be tested. But Deists by definition believe in more than the scientific principle that there could be gods which science could not detect. That belief is an agnostic belief, not a Deist belief, unless you are equating Deists with agnostics.

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

No, no, no. You are also saying that they are not skeptics anymore.

You must have a short circuit in your brain somewhere that you cannot distinguish between the person and the person's behavior. Is everyone who gets angry an angry person?

I doubt any skeptic is perfectly skeptical all the time, (except me of course )

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm getting a bit confused on what specifically you want me to answer. You want me to answer all these on one post?

Okay Christian Skeptic...

what is it that makes you call yourself a skeptic?

Well - I already posted this up above. But here some more.
You can be sceptical about lots of things. And once you come to a conclusion about something and make a decision it doesn't mean you stop being sceptical about things. It's a process for me on how I filter new information and how I balance what to believe or what not to believe or more often what not to make a decision one way or another - because I am waiting for more information, etc. This may not be what sceptic means to you. If it's not - then this questioning can go nowhere.

What are you skeptical about? Astrology? Zeus? Demon Possession? Psychic powers?

Those things and more. UFO's, bigfoot, faith healers, etc. Pretty much all email forwards, politicians, and anytime my wife says she has a 'headache'.

Within Christianity I am sceptical when someone tries to tell of something I should believe. I don't believe something simply because someone told me too. But I also don't not believe something simply because someone told me too. I look at whatever they are telling me along with whatever knowledge I have or get and try to make a decision.

What brought you to a skeptics forum?

I like reading what Randi says and writes. I appreciate him exposing people like Peter Popoff.

What evidence are you using to determine that your faith is true and other peoples' notions are incorrect, delusions, misperceptions, or cultural derivatives--

All the evidence I have at my disposal - same as you and everyone here.

Why do you think the hijackers god inspired directives are not evidence of god while your subjective experiences are?

I don't understand this question.

Do you think you would have become a Christian had you been born into the Muslim faith?

Probably not.

Do you think god played favorites and had you be exposed to Christianity while others were exposed to false notions and mythical gods?

No.

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?

No - I do not see this as an oxymoron. I think society and the world as a whole would be better off with more sceptics.

Again - being a sceptic doesn't mean you don't ever make a decision on a belief. If anything it means you take longer to make that decision because you want to make sure you make the decision based on the evidence you need to make that decision.

How do you see yourself as being different.

From what or whom?

You've never told me how old you are.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

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.

Yes, the latter. Such a concept is self-contradictory, logically nonsensical, and lacks a rigorous definition. In other words it's meaningless.
Given that, why would someone "beleive" in something they can't even define?

Perhaps a selection pressure (to accept specific irrationality) operating over the eons combined with culture meme indoctrination has produced a global population with the majority beleiving is some form of irrationality.

It may have increased the reproductive fitness of our early hominid ancestors, but with 6 billion homosapiens straining the environment and their pesky meddling into nuclear chain reactions...well, let's just say those beliefs that helped our ancient relatives may not bode so well for our future survival.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No - I do not see this as an oxymoron. I think society and the world as a whole would be better off with more sceptics.

Me neither and me too.

Welcome to the forum ACS. Try not to let some of the more militant atheists around here turn you off of this place.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

It's not a debating tactic. I just find her view on skepticism so much in conflict with what I know and have read and heard e.g. at TAMs.

I want to put her view of skepticism to the test: The test of having a broad forum of skeptics hear it and judge for themselves.

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.

How far are you with the article/presentation?

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.

Didn't you argue that one could have one issue which they weren't skeptical about, and still be a skeptic?

Why doesn't this extend to Christians?

Yet you try to impose yours on everyone. I believe I have more than once acknowledged your position and stated that I did not hold it. You OTOH, have not once acknowledged anyone's opinion here but your own.

I have said plenty of times that I acknowledge other positions than my own, and stated that I didn't share it.

I'll take that as you cannot articulate the difference, which was my point. There is no difference, because if you have one you have the other. And I am pointing that out to you when I say you are simply defining 'god' as a god which cannot be tested. That definition is a scientific construct but it in no way resembles the gods people actually believe in, including Deists.

No, you can't jump to that conclusion. I asked you to read what I said, which clearly you haven't done.

I wasn't talking about how I would define god. I was talking about going with what they claimed.

You are. You are claiming god beliefs are excepted as long as the believer doesn't try to support their belief with evidence.

You keep persisting with this lie.

I am claiming god beliefs are excepted as long as the believer doesn't claim to support their belief with evidence.

Do you understand the difference? Just yes or no.

Yes you are. See above answer. I would prefer not to rephrase your statements but you have not made a case for this non-evidential god. You have made up an arbitrary definition which is not the actual definition of anyone's god belief. It is the definition in science of a god which cannot be tested. But Deists by definition believe in more than the scientific principle that there could be gods which science could not detect. That belief is an agnostic belief, not a Deist belief, unless you are equating Deists with agnostics.

I would prefer it too, if you didn't "rephrase" my statements. When you do that, you alter the meaning of my words.

I have not made up an arbitrary definition. I am going with what people say.

You must have a short circuit in your brain somewhere that you cannot distinguish between the person and the person's behavior. Is everyone who gets angry an angry person?

I doubt any skeptic is perfectly skeptical all the time, (except me of course )

Huh?

What is an angry person, if not angry?

 

[-Fran-]

Huh?

What is an angry person, if not angry?

"An angry person" can either describe a person who is, for some reason, angry at a given time. It can also describe a person in which anger is a great part of his or her personality. The latter could therefore be an 'angry person' even if he/she is not angry at a certain point in time, and the former is not necessarily an 'angry person' even if he/she is angry at the moment.

 

[CFLarsen]

"An angry person" can either describe a person who is, for some reason, angry at a given time. It can also describe a person in which anger is a great part of his or her personality. The latter could therefore be an 'angry person' even if he/she is not angry at a certain point in time, and the former is not necessarily an 'angry person' even if he/she is angry at the moment.

Both are behavior.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I don't think you're paying attention:

Are you skeptical of some Buddhist claims of, say, reincarnation ?

And, if so, why are you skeptical of that and not of, say, life after death ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Are you saying that the beliefs themselves don't exist ? What are you saying, exactly ?

I didn't say it was rational.

How can it be irrational AND skeptical ?

But that kind of believers are not unskeptical, because they don't claim evidence that we can examine.

That's what I said at first, but it's clear now that the very FACT that they believe in something assumes that thing to exist, contra the evidence or lack thereof. Isn't that unskeptical ?

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.

Indeed, and in the absense of evidence one can't blindly, unskeptically believe in something magical.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Right back at you. Many believers say they believe without proof, but they claim that God answers their prayers and speaks to them. So, is there proof, or isn't there ?

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?

If a supernatural event affects the real world, in ANY way, then it is, by definition, measurable.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you saying that the beliefs themselves don't exist ? What are you saying, exactly ?

Of course the beliefs exist.

How can it be irrational AND skeptical ?

I'm not saying it is.

That's what I said at first, but it's clear now that the very FACT that they believe in something assumes that thing to exist, contra the evidence or lack thereof. Isn't that unskeptical ?

No, it's not a fact that they believe in something that exists.

If a Bergsonian can believe the philosophy, why can't you extend that to the Deists? None of them claim evidence (as in tangible evidence - you can talk of philosophical evidence, but in the end, it's just words) of what they believe in.

Is it because that one of these beliefs are labelled "god", and you therefore jump to the conclusion that, because other religious people claim evidence of their god, Deists must also claim evidence?

"God" itself means an evidential claim?

Indeed, and in the absense of evidence one can't blindly, unskeptically believe in something magical.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

Of course the beliefs exist.

Okay... so: what are you saying, exactly ?

I'm not saying it is.

Claus, you wouldn't be arguing just for the sake of arguing, would you ?

No, it's not a fact that they believe in something that exists.

That's not what I said, Claus, and you know it. Maybe if you spent more time reading the actual posts I write, you wouldn't answer such nonsense.

I said, basically, that it's a fact that they believe in something they THINK exists.

Is it because that one of these beliefs are labelled "god", and you therefore jump to the conclusion that, because other religious people claim evidence of their god, Deists must also claim evidence?

I never said they claimed evidence. In fact, I've already burned this strawman of yours yesterday. I said they claim that something exists DESPITE the evidence or lack thereof.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

 

[Big Les]

How can it be irrational AND skeptical ?

I'm not saying it is.

So it isn't then. Excellent. And it only took thirty-six pages.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Yes, the latter. Such a concept is self-contradictory, logically nonsensical, and lacks a rigorous definition. In other words it's meaningless.
Given that, why would someone "beleive" in something they can't even define?

Me saying that evidence may never be presented is not logically nonsensical because I understand that it may be true. It does not mean I believe their may not be any evidence. As a Christian I obviously believe that I have enough evidence to make a decision for myself. But I'm realistic to know that you and others may neve feel they don't have any or will never have enough evidence - and you might rightly feel this way because it could be true.
But why should I not make a decision just because you don't have the same evidence I have or accept the same evidence I have or don't want to believe for the same reasons I do and on and on? I'm not arguing you should or should not believe anything.

 

[-Fran-]

But why should I not make a decision just because you don't have the same evidence I have or accept the same evidence I have or don't want to believe for the same reasons I do and on and on?

What is the evidence you have?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't think you're paying attention:

Are you skeptical of some Buddhist claims of, say, reincarnation ?

And, if so, why are you skeptical of that and not of, say, life after death ?

I'm sceptical of anything that contradicts what I currently believe - just like you. If something's in agreement with what I believe what would there be sceptical about? But that said, you can still be sceptical of people saying and doing things that appear to agree with what you believe.

Look - you're an athiest - you have certain beliefs in place - for example: You don't believe God or Gods or anything like that exists. So anything that contradicts that (namely religion) you'll be sceptical of. If these beliefs are something you want to investigate (hopefully some form of investigation brought you to the conclusion he doesn't exist) then you might change your mind and start believing. If you decide a religion is true - then it obviously wouldn't be accurate to say you are sceptical about that religion. But you would be right to still be sceptical of claims that contradict what you now believe and it would be highly advisable to continue to be sceptical of what fellow followers teach you as you learn about your new religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay... so: what are you saying, exactly ?

Claus, you wouldn't be arguing just for the sake of arguing, would you ?

Try to read my posts.

That's not what I said, Claus, and you know it. Maybe if you spent more time reading the actual posts I write, you wouldn't answer such nonsense.

To wit:

...the very FACT that they believe in something assumes that thing to exist...

They don't assume that thing to exist. That is your claim.

I said, basically, that it's a fact that they believe in something they THINK exists.

No, they don't.

I never said they claimed evidence. In fact, I've already burned this strawman of yours yesterday. I said they claim that something exists DESPITE the evidence or lack thereof.

Then, we are back to how something can exist without evidence - unless you are saying that Deists believe in their god the same way a Bergsonian believes in Bergson's philosophy.

Are you saying that?

So it isn't then. Excellent. And it only took thirty-six pages.

I'm not saying it is unskeptical. I'm saying that it is outside the scope of skepticism. I've been saying this all along.

Do you understand this?

 

[-Fran-]

Claus, you wouldn't be arguing just for the sake of arguing, would you ?

Try to read my posts.

I would say that having come to that conclusion Belz must have read those posts.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

What is the evidence you have?

and

Right back at you. Many believers say they believe without proof, but they claim that God answers their prayers and speaks to them. So, is there proof, or isn't there ?

Nothing you would accept. I obviously can not prove to you a supernatural occurrence or anything supernatural for that matter. And the natural world obviously isn't considered proof either.
Would my answered prayer be proof to you? I would think only your own answered prayer would be proof to you.

By the way I'm not saying I can prove to you God exists. I'm just pointing out that I have my beliefs for the exact same reasons you have yours. I can't ever live your entire life, go through the exact same things you have, learn the exact same things in the exact same way as you. And even if I did I might come to a different conclusion.

Some here claim to have never have had evidence given so they don't believe. Why should I doubt this claim?