Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[-Fran-]

Nothing you would accept.

Depends on what you mean. I accept that you think certain things, and that you have the right to think what you want. I would probably not be convinced by them though, no.

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.

I didn't get that part about the natural world?

Would my answered prayer be proof to you?

No. But I did not ask you to convince me. I asked what the things are that you consider evidence to you, what your reasons to believe are?

I would think only your own answered prayer would be proof to you.

Probably not. If prayers got "answered" if I saw angels, or heard god's voice etc. That would not be proof of god to me. It would be proof of that something is going on in my brain, such as hallucinations. I would first try to find out if I have become ill. My first conclusion would not be 'god'.

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.

How can we know if we have the same reasons, since you won't relate yours. I don't think there is a god because all what science says contradicts supernatural beings such as a god. Science knows enough about, and have explained enough about how our world functions, and how our minds works for god to be highly unlikely and totally unnecessary.

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.

Or you might not. No atheist lives exactly the same lives, or have the exact same background as another atheist, either.

 

[SirPhilip]

But you missed his point. Look at the rockupuncture example. Why is it woo. He posits things and forces not known to exist. They are not something you can build a belief out of except by woo means. So are gods. What else is there to support any god? How can a god belief be more logical than an invisible pink unicorn belief?

A humanistic force over nature and humanism share a relationship. The madness is due to only a privileged 0.5% of 1% of the world's population maturely comprehending either. It will remain inextricably linked with the human condition regardless of technological progress.

 

[modecom]

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

Oh its you and your "militant atheists" rant again, I thought I smelled something.

 

[SirPhilip]

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?

Because.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sceptical of anything that contradicts what I currently believe - just like you.

So you're NOT a skeptic ?

If something's in agreement with what I believe what would there be sceptical about?

Actually, the things that are in agreement with what you believe should be the first things you are skeptical about.

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.

Lack of belief is not a belief. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god or gods. Belief has nothing to do with it.

 

[Belz...]

Try to read my posts.

No, YOU try to answer my question.

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

What the hell are you arguing for, then, Claus ? You're saying that they believe, that their belief exists, but that they don't think what they believe in exists ? And this makes sense to you ?

No, they don't.

Well, now. That's YOUR claim.

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?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, Claus.

But I suspect, instead of actually explaining to me what you're talking about, you'll answer something along the lines of "Well, obviously you don't."

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.

Well, I suppose that's an entirely reasonable position, but I disagree with it.

I don't think anything is beyond the scope of skepticism.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing you would accept.

Convenient, isn't it ?

I obviously can not prove to you a supernatural occurrence or anything supernatural for that matter.

Indeed, by definition.

And the natural world obviously isn't considered proof either.

It would indeed be difficult to use the natural to prove the supernatural.

Would my answered prayer be proof to you?

Yes, if you can demonstrate that there are no other, reasonable, known possibilities.

I would think only your own answered prayer would be proof to you.

No, it wouldn't. I don't trust my own perceptions.

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.

That would sound like a tu quoque, and it would also be false.

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

Experience <> Reality

 

[-Fran-]

And the natural world obviously isn't considered proof either.

It would indeed be difficult to use the natural to prove the supernatural.

Oh, that's what he was implying you think? I didn't even understand what he meant by that

 

[CFLarsen]

What the hell are you arguing for, then, Claus ? You're saying that they believe, that their belief exists, but that they don't think what they believe in exists ? And this makes sense to you ?

It's not a question of what makes sense to me. It's a question of what they claim.

Well, now. That's YOUR claim.

Nope. I go with what they claim.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, Claus.

But I suspect, instead of actually explaining to me what you're talking about, you'll answer something along the lines of "Well, obviously you don't."

Someone believes that Bergson's philosophy gives him peace of mind and comforts him, the same way a Deist's non-evidential god gives a Deist peace of mind and comforts him.

If you can accept the former, why not the latter?

Well, I suppose that's an entirely reasonable position, but I disagree with it.

I don't think anything is beyond the scope of skepticism.

Anything?

We can come to a conclusion, based on skepticism - provisional, of course - that Sylvia Browne is not talking to dead people. She is cold-reading.

Can we come to a conclusion, also based on skepticism - and equally provisional - that a particular political philosophy is the best way to form a society by? E.g., The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Libertarians, Communism?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you're NOT a skeptic ?

Look - if your definition of sceptic means to never come to a conclusion about anything then I probably am not a sceptic as you see it because I come to lots of conclusions about things. And if that's the case where can this discussion go except to spiral into "yes I am" , "no you're not", "yes I am", "no you're not".

But by this definition then athiests who come to the conclusion that there is no God aren't sceptics either - only people who say "I Don't Know" or refuse to come to a conclusion are sceptics.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Oh, that's what he was implying you think? I didn't even understand what he meant by that

Sort of, but not quite.

What I meant is this:

Supernatural:

Science can never prove the supernatural. It's not its purpose. This is because science needs repeated tests in controlled environments. Every science course I've ever taken in college explains this.

Now,

Someone, like Randi for example, can use scientific principles and methods to prove testable manifestations of what appears to be supernatural. And based on the results he can come to a conclusion. But all this can prove is that what is claimed to have happened happened or didn't happen. Not why or how or even that it was supernatural.

Psychics are an easy example because some of these people claim to be able to control their psychic powers. It should be testable. Let's say someone takes Randi's tests and passes 100 times. All you can conclude is that they possess this ability - you can't conclude it's supernatural because you can't test that part.

And one time supernatural events (like mine or your answered prayer) can't be recreated to be tested.

With supernatural events you can always explain them away if you want. Or, you can always simply refuse to believe it. Or just not even come to a conclusion. Or believe it's supernatural if you want. They are all valid conclusions based on the evidence.

Natural:

I can look at a far away supernova and observe it's beauty and power and giganticness and I can look at human cells under a microscope and be amazed at it's intricacies and I can ponder human evolution and nature and be amazed at the wonderful diversity and creative powers and believe in God. and on and on.

Another person may see the same things and not be.

So for you to ask me to prove my evidence to you is ultimately pointless - I can't prove God exists any more than you can prove to me God doesn't. All I can say is the evidence I've seen has led me to this conclusion and all you can say is the evidence you've seen has led you to that conclusion. That sort of discussion is pointless in the sense it can't go farhter and should not be the purpose of this thread.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Convenient, isn't it ?

Quote:
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.

That would sound like a tu quoque, and it would also be false.

Could you explain how that above statement was a tu quoque? I'm saying that "you came to your beliefs by coming to conclusions based on the evidence you have" just like "I came to my beliefs by coming to conclusions based on the evidence I have". I'm assuming here you've come to your conclusion based on evidence you have. If not, then of course it's false. Is this not correct?

 

[-Fran-]

With supernatural events you can always explain them away if you want. Or, you can always simply refuse to believe it. Or just not even come to a conclusion. Or believe it's supernatural if you want. They are all valid conclusions based on the evidence.

Or I can simply know that they are real IF they are proven real.

Natural:

I can look at a far away supernova and observe it's beauty and power and giganticness and I can look at human cells under a microscope and be amazed at it's intricacies and I can ponder human evolution and nature and be amazed at the wonderful diversity and creative powers and believe in God. and on and on.

Another person may see the same things and not be.

Obviously you can observe all this and believe in god (since, well, you do). But do you believe in god because of these observations? And in that case, why?

So for you to ask me to prove my evidence to you is ultimately pointless - I can't prove God exists any more than you can prove to me God doesn't. All I can say is the evidence I've seen has led me to this conclusion and all you can say is the evidence you've seen has led you to that conclusion. That sort of discussion is pointless in the sense it can't go farhter and should not be the purpose of this thread.

I haven't asked you to do any of these things. I asked you to list, if you will, your reasons for believing. To show me what evidence convinced you. I haven't asked you to prove anything. You express a belief, I just asked why you have this belief. You said there are evidence that obviously are good enough for you. I just wanted to hear what it is. Why is that such a secret? The evidence I have seen and base my conclusion on is all out there in the open. No sciences are keeping them a secret. Why can't we also share the evidence you have seen? Unless it is in fact not evidence at all?

I am curious about what you base your conclusions on, and you say you will no tell, because telling me that will be the same thing as trying to convince me, and that can't be done, so telling me is of no use??

You are under no obligations whatsoever to tell me anything, of course, but since you are stating a reason here to why you don't want to do this, I must say that I don't quite understand your reason not to.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I haven't asked you to do any of these things. I asked you to list, if you will, your reasons for believing. To show me what evidence convinced you. I haven't asked you to prove anything. You express a belief, I just asked why you have this belief.

God in General:

In the natural world: everything, physics, atoms, quarks, black holes and time standing still in a black hole, stars, living cells, life, death, love, hate, goodness, art, music, beauty, flowers, my pet dog, my wife and kids, etc.

I've never believed in God because of the supernatural. I'm more drawn to him through what I can see and touch and feel and hear. But ...

Supernatural: I've had prayers answered. I use to brush them away as coincidence, but after many, many. many coincidences I am simply grateful when they are answered.

But without any of that I'd still believe in him - although I wouldn't know what to believe about him. Those are two seperate things.

I'm not sure where that leaves us now. Because all people can say like I listed Natural: Nope - not God. Supernatural: prove it.

Look: Ultimately God, the god I'm talking about - outside the universe - can not be proved.

With no evidence whatsoever you have 4 conclusions you can make:

1) There is a god or gods (whatever he may be like)

2) There is no god or gods

3) I don't know if there is a god so I won't make a decision on it

4) I don't have time to think about this - I need to pay some bills

There are as many reasons to believe in God as there are people who believe because everyone has their own reasons. It could be out of fear, out of obediance to someone, it could be because why not, it could be based on further other things. What God is like is a totally different matter and how he itneracts with his world is also a different matter and what the role of religion is with him is even another different matter.

Frankly - you can make any of those conclusions you want and you have or will.

 

[Belz...]

It's not a question of what makes sense to me. It's a question of what they claim.

Nope. I go with what they claim.

And they claim to believe. Now, how can they believe and not think what they believe in exists ?

And if they DO believe that what they believe in exists, then, automatically, they are claiming that it exists, aren't they ?

Someone believes that Bergson's philosophy gives him peace of mind and comforts him, the same way a Deist's non-evidential god gives a Deist peace of mind and comforts him.

If you can accept the former, why not the latter?

I accept that their beliefs exist and that it may give them peace of mind. What does that have to do with anything ?

Can we come to a conclusion, also based on skepticism - and equally provisional - that a particular political philosophy is the best way to form a society by? E.g., The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Libertarians, Communism?

I suppose we can look at past governments and determine if they were succesful or not, and use that as a basis for arguing future governments. It would be by no means an exact science, but it would be better than voting republican just because your daddy always did.

 

[Belz...]

Look - if your definition of sceptic means to never come to a conclusion about anything then I probably am not a sceptic as you see it because I come to lots of conclusions about things.

Well, it's a good thing that this isn't my definition of "skeptic".

What I said, answering this:

I'm sceptical of anything that contradicts what I currently believe - just like you.

Is that you're not a skeptic. Why would you be only skeptical of what you don't already believe in ?

 

[Belz...]

Could you explain how that above statement was a tu quoque? I'm saying that "you came to your beliefs by coming to conclusions based on the evidence you have" just like "I came to my beliefs by coming to conclusions based on the evidence I have". I'm assuming here you've come to your conclusion based on evidence you have. If not, then of course it's false. Is this not correct?

And again, you're wrong. You are, somehow, conflating "belief" with "evidence". Beliefs aren't reached by following the evidence, because once you follow the evidence, it's no longer a belief.

 

[-Fran-]

God in General:

In the natural world: everything, physics, atoms, quarks, black holes and time standing still in a black hole, stars, living cells, life, death, love, hate, goodness, art, music, beauty, flowers, my pet dog, my wife and kids, etc.

I've never believed in God because of the supernatural. I'm more drawn to him through what I can see and touch and feel and hear. But ...

Supernatural: I've had prayers answered. I use to brush them away as coincidence, but after many, many. many coincidences I am simply grateful when they are answered.

But without any of that I'd still believe in him - although I wouldn't know what to believe about him. Those are two seperate things.

I'm not sure where that leaves us now. Because all people can say like I listed Natural: Nope - not God. Supernatural: prove it.

Look: Ultimately God, the god I'm talking about - outside the universe - can not be proved.

With no evidence whatsoever you have 4 conclusions you can make:

1) There is a god or gods (whatever he may be like)

2) There is no god or gods

3) I don't know if there is a god so I won't make a decision on it

4) I don't have time to think about this - I need to pay some bills

Thanks!

There are as many reasons to believe in God as there are people who believe because everyone has their own reasons. It could be out of fear, out of obediance to someone, it could be because why not, it could be based on further other things. What God is like is a totally different matter and how he itneracts with his world is also a different matter and what the role of religion is with him is even another different matter.

Frankly - you can make any of those conclusions you want and you have or will.

Yes, you can make any conclusions you want. The thing is, all conclusions are not as valid. You have been talking so far as if they were:

All I can say is the evidence I've seen has led me to this conclusion and all you can say is the evidence you've seen has led you to that conclusion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, it's a good thing that this isn't my definition of "skeptic".

What I said, answering this:



Is that you're not a skeptic. Why would you be only skeptical of what you don't already believe in ?

Because I made a decision on my belief just like you. I am not sceptical of that belief just like you. But when I learn something new I weigh it against what I already know and believe and then adjust my beliefs accordingly. I hope you do to. Does that reassure you? I hope an athiest who is a sceptic knows what they believe but still weighs evidence against what they believe as it comes to them and then readjusts their beliefs accordingly. If someone is an athiest and says "There is not God and there will never be any evidence for his existence" that's not being sceptical either then. I don't understand where the misunderstanding is here.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

And again, you're wrong. You are, somehow, conflating "belief" with "evidence". Beliefs aren't reached by following the evidence, because once you follow the evidence, it's no longer a belief.

I'm not talking solely religious beliefs but beliefs in general as in:

Definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

If you don't have any beliefs (which I am sceptical about ) whatsoever then I don't think we can carry on any meaningful conversation.

Anyway - you stated that that statement I made was a "tu quoque" I want to know why. I looked up "tu quoque" and I don't understand why my statement is one. I want to know so I don't inadvertantly do that again. If you don't know what a "tu quoque" is then please don't throw these big logical fallacy words arounds as they only confuse the issue. Thanks.