Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[CFLarsen]

Which "Deists," exactly? What are their names? How do you know that they don't believe that what they believe in exists?

Please post a link or citation to one or more of these claims.

Your laziness is your problem only.

 

[Steven Howard]

Your laziness is your problem only.

My "laziness" is not at issue. You are the one making a positive claim, therefore it is incumbent upon you to present evidence in support of that claim. That's the essence of ... oh, shoot, I forget what you call it. Starts with an "s" ...

 

[-Fran-]

Hi Fran -
You are summarizing everything I already said. I don't have any disagreement here. What's the issue?

So you are now saying that there isn't a god answering your prayers, and that you are aware that it is coincidences and wishful thinking, even though you said earlier that you don't think it is coincidences and that you think a god actually answers your prayers?

I use the exact same process for my religious beliefs as I do with other beliefs. Take evolution for instance: If someone believes in evolution do they need to believe every theory of evolution ever presented? Or do you start whittling away the different theories that people have and come to some sort of conclusion that best matches the information you have?

How many theories of evolution are there?

It's the same with God. Just because I believe in God and the supernatural why do I have to believe in every supernatural claim? Once I believe in God then I can leave it at that or move on and try to whittle away all the different ideas about him and come to sort of conclusion. Or not. Or maybe I'll spend my whole life never coming to a conclusion about it.

Because there really isn't any differences between one supernatural claim and another, in that they are all equally baseless. There's no evidence for any of them, so there is no logical way to come to a conclusion about what is most likely to be true and not true. So, as in your case, it's only a question of personal preference, really, which one you chose to believe in. How is that the same thing as coming to a conclusion about something based on scientific research and evidence? It isn't. I do not chose, a fact is a fact is a fact, no matter what I think about it, no matter if I like it or not, no matter if it fits into my world view or not, no matter if I am alive or dead, no matter if I misinterpret it and come to other conclusions about it. Since there are no facts about your beliefs you can do what you want with them. And that's OK, it really doesn't bother me.

Are you wanting to know what I believe or the thought process behind deciding what I believe? Because if it's the thought process you want to know - then the answer is The Same Way As You.

So what are we exactly talking about here? Please tell me where you want this discussion to head?

I can't see that the thought process used here are the same, as you say that they are. That's all. I disagree with you on this point.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you are now saying that there isn't a god answering your prayers, and that you are aware that it is coincidences and wishful thinking, even though you said earlier that you don't think it is coincidences and that you think a god actually answers your prayers?

Maybe summarized is the wrong word - responding? I didn't want to even go down this road because what I consider evidence for you consider evidence against.

How many theories of evolution are there?

There is lots of dispute among paleoanthropologists about exactly how and when evolutionary things may have happened. For example: Some scientists think the creative jump around 50,000 years ago was pretty instantaneous - some argue it was a longer process. A person looks at all the arguments and make a decision. Read Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins for a nice up to date general summary on evolution in general. http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-I...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197487908&sr=1-1
The point I am making is just because you accept one thing doesn't mean you accept everything related! If you're going to insist I have to then I guess we are done. Thanks for the thoughts and information.

I can't see that the thought process used here are the same, as you say that they are. That's all. I disagree with you on this point.

You know - the more this goes on I feel like I mistook being sceptical as being the same as critical thinking. Maybe they aren't the same. If not - my error. Sorry.

 

[Big Les]

Please post a link or citation to one or more of these claims.

I've asked. He can't. I posted one example from the World Union of Deists and he claimed it wasn't representative. Here are some more;

Wikipedia:

Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience.

PositiveDeism.com

Deists most frequently mention that they instinctively consider nature's order and complexity to be some evidence for God's existence, and/or it satisfies their reasoning that the universe has a creator.

Reason and Nature indicate to us that there is a God. But we cannot know the specific nature and purpose of God.

- includes quotes from Thomas Paine.

"Reason can be used to determine that God exists, but it falls far short in discovering all of God's qualities."

"It is evident that an Almighty Power exists, even though it is impossible for us to imagine the nature and manner of its existence."[/quote]

At this time there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, Deists feel that it's reasonable to accept the existence of God based upon the compelling circumstantial evidence that we see in nature. Deism is not based on faith in something that cannot be empirically proved. It is based on the acceptance of reasonable circumstantial evidence. A Deist's belief in the existence of God can be thought of as a working hypothesis.

From moderndeism.com:

Essentially, through the use of Reason, God’s existence is revealed by the observation of nature and our own personal experiences. For the Deist, the order and complexity found in nature coupled with our rational experiences of nature leads to a belief in God.

From religioustolerance.org:

Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority....Disagree with strong Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God.

Do I need to dig up more?

 

[-Fran-]

Maybe summarized is the wrong word - responding? I didn't want to even go down this road because what I consider evidence for you consider evidence against.

Yeah, well, we have already established that one is not going to convert the other, and I'm not really trying to. Only it's tricky to explain what I mean without addressing the actual beliefs at all. It's not so much though that I consider your 'evidence for', as 'evidence against', but that I don't really consider your evidence as evidence. There's a slight difference.

There is lots of dispute among paleoanthropologists about exactly how and when evolutionary things may have happened. For example: Some scientists think the creative jump around 50,000 years ago was pretty instantaneous - some argue it was a longer process. A person looks at all the arguments and make a decision. Read Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins for a nice up to date general summary on evolution in general. http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-I...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197487908&sr=1-1
The point I am making is just because you accept one thing doesn't mean you accept everything related! If you're going to insist I have to then I guess we are done. Thanks for the thoughts and information.

The actual theory of evolution though is not in question here, neither are there several such theories. There's a debate on details within the theory. I understand your point but I can't quite see how it is an analogy for believing in the supernatural. It isn't like all of the supernatural is a scientific theory, and then we can just argue about how god does things, or which parts of the supernatural are likely and which are not. The question is if the supernatural exists at all, or does not exist at all. Before we have proved that it does beyond reasonable doubt, then yeah, discussing the details of it, such as if it's rational to believe in the Christian god and not rational to believe in the tooth fairy, is rather meaningless, as I see it.

I am not insisting that you have to anything. How could I force you even if I wanted to? Which I don't. But if you want to stop discussing, sure...

 

[Lonewulf]

Maybe Larsen needs us to talk to the same invisible Deist friend he does.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

The actual theory of evolution though is not in question here, neither are there several such theories. There's a debate on details within the theory. I understand your point but I can't quite see how it is an analogy for believing in the supernatural.

I'm using the same process I use for anything. The same process I use to decide which of the differeng theories of how evolution happened is the same process I use for which beliefs about god I hold.

It isn't like all of the supernatural is a scientific theory, and then we can just argue about how god does things, or which parts of the supernatural are likely and which are not. The question is if the supernatural exists at all, or does not exist at all.

But the example and question from you and Artecculat (spelling?) was in regards to how I decide which supernatural things I believe. I use the same process I do with anything. But with supernatural it's against what I believe about God. As a Christian this is based on what Jesus teaches, etc.

 

[Bri]

What you are doing is trying to mount a huge tu quoque. That won't work. My lack of belief in god is NOT a belief. The lack of evidence indicates that I shouldn't be of the opinion that such a god exists.

Belz, do you really lack a belief as to whether or not a god exists? Are you saying that you have absolutely no opinion whatsoever as to the existence or non-existence of a god?

And if you're still confused about the "tu quoque", you seem to be trying to make your belief more believable by making my "beliefs" just as irrational.

I believe that A Christian Sceptic was attempting to show an inconsistency in your argument by comparing his belief that you're critical of to a belief that you seem to be perfectly OK with. From Wikipedia:

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.​

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

I am going with what they claim.

No, as they don't claim that their god doesn't exist.

What about the Bergsonian example?

What about it ?

Come, now. If you can say we can look at the various governments, you can also say which political party is best at ruling.

Non sequitur. I can say that we can launch rockets to the moon, but that doesn't mean that _I_ can launch rockets to the moon.

If you are not an American, what about your own country? Surely, you must have some idea of how the different governments have fared?

Again, I'm not interested in politics at this time.

 

[Belz...]

Yes it is, it's just not a religious belief. I posted a link to the definition of belief.

So... what's your "belief" in relation to the existence of Zeus, then ? Is it really nothing more than a belief ? I doubt it.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, do you really lack a belief as to whether or not a god exists? Are you saying that you have absolutely no opinion whatsoever as to the existence or non-existence of a god?

There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god". It's quite reasonable to assume, therefore, that no god exists until evidence to the contrary is shown.

My opinion ? There are no gods. There is no God. There are no spirits, souls, fairies or anything supernatural.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...There is lots of dispute among paleoanthropologists about exactly how and when evolutionary things may have happened. For example: Some scientists think the creative jump around 50,000 years ago was pretty instantaneous - some argue it was a longer process. A person looks at all the arguments and make a decision. Read Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins for a nice up to date general summary on evolution in general. http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-I...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197487908&sr=1-1
The point I am making is just because you accept one thing doesn't mean you accept everything related! If you're going to insist I have to then I guess we are done. Thanks for the thoughts and information.....

As Fran explained, there is a big distinction between unresolved specifics within the theory of evolution and the theory itself. The evidence is clear that life evolved from a single organism into all the lifeforms today. (Genetics so far suggests that if life did emerge more than once, a single source resulted in the rest of life on this planet. We could find out life evolved more than once.) There is no evidence life did not evolve.

It is strongly suggested from the evidence that life evolved from inorganic materials into replicating molecules and into organisms. Abiogenesis has yet to be confirmed but no evidence supports that it did not occur. Some argue where it occurred, either on Earth or elsewhere.

You are talking about something quite different than alternate theories.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So... what's your "belief" in relation to the existence of Zeus, then ? Is it really nothing more than a belief ? I doubt it.

My belief is that regardless of whetheer Zeus exists he is not the same (as represented) as the God of Jesus.

Your belief is he doesn't exist.

I already have stated I have beliefs about things.

This could be a fun and neverending game though:
What's your belief about black holes?

 

[Egg]

My opinion ? There are no gods. There is no God. There are no spirits, souls, fairies or anything supernatural.

Would you say that there's a difference between saying that it's your opinion that there is no God and saying that you believe that there is no God?

 

[CFLarsen]

My "laziness" is not at issue. You are the one making a positive claim, therefore it is incumbent upon you to present evidence in support of that claim. That's the essence of ... oh, shoot, I forget what you call it. Starts with an "s" ...

I've asked. He can't.

All of two days ago.

Do I need to dig up more?

Just what is it, precisely, they claim to "exist"? What is it we can test?

I've asked. You can't.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

As Fran explained, there is a big distinction between unresolved specifics within the theory of evolution and the theory itself. The evidence is clear that life evolved from a single organism into all the lifeforms today. (Genetics so far suggests that if life did emerge more than once, a single source resulted in the rest of life on this planet. We could find out life evolved more than once.) There is no evidence life did not evolve.

It is strongly suggested from the evidence that life evolved from inorganic materials into replicating molecules and into organisms. Abiogenesis has yet to be confirmed but no evidence supports that it did not occur.
Some argue where it occurred, either on Earth or elsewhere.

But I do not have to accept both theories of whether Abiogenesis happened on "Earth or elsewhere" just because I believe in evolution anymore than because I believe in the Supernatural I need to believe in everything ever claimed about the Supernatural. That's my point!

 

[Bri]

There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god". It's quite reasonable to assume, therefore, that no god exists until evidence to the contrary is shown.

My opinion ? There are no gods. There is no God. There are no spirits, souls, fairies or anything supernatural.

Then it seems that A Christian Sceptic was spot-on that you have a belief, despite your insistence that your "lack of belief in god is NOT a belief."

You also said that the "lack of evidence indicates that I shouldn't be of the opinion that such a god exists." It should be noted that there is also a lack of evidence to support your opinion that no gods exist.

-Bri

 

[Big Les]

All of two days ago.

Preposterous. You posted;

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.

This does not in any way, shape, or form constitute a refutation of the notion that Deists believe their god exists.

Just what is it, precisely, they claim to "exist"?

You know, that god thing.

What is it we can test?

I've already responded, countless times, that there's nothing we can test, because there is at present (nor has there been thus far) any evidence available. This is exactly why no one who is being sceptical should adopt a position of belief on the issue.

I've asked. You can't.

For the love of monkeys, Larsen, I have said as much on multiple occasions. You don't have to keep asking the same thing over and over. I'm not thick - I understand what you're saying, it's just that I disagree with you. I think that we can apply scepticism where there is no accessible evidence.

Frankly I'm incredulous that you can have directed me to Carl Sagan, when his Invisible Dragon example, which you must know inside out and back-to-front, concludes re an invisible, untestable entity, that;

...the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

This is exactly why I wonder why so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion that there is a god. And

The disconnect though, it that you assert that to "believe" does not mean to "believe exists", or that religious sceptics are deceiving themselves about the existence of god, as you stated earlier. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better to show that either of those assertions reflects real beliefs held by a majority of real religious sceptics. Because nobody here that I can see is buying it. Personally I can readily believe that a significant number (maybe even all, though that would be speculation) do think this way, and are well aware that their belief is a sham. But their belief in that case is therefore... well... a deception. A sham. Not genuine belief. Please don't tell me again that you can call their belief self-deceiving and still maintain that it's also genuine.

Let me ask you a question for a change. If a person claiming to be a sceptic did state outright that they believe god exists, i.e. make an overt claim, would this change your attitude toward them?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, as they don't claim that their god doesn't exist.

What does this god do, then? What do they claim he does that is so evidential?

Nothing.

Some "existence"...

What about it ?

Are you able to swap "Bergsonian" with "Deist"?

Non sequitur. I can say that we can launch rockets to the moon, but that doesn't mean that _I_ can launch rockets to the moon.

No, and I'm not asking you to rule a country either. I'm asking you what party would be best.

Again, I'm not interested in politics at this time.

If you have no interest in politics, how can you say that we can look at the various past governments to see who did best?

Preposterous. You posted;


This does not in any way, shape, or form constitute a refutation of the notion that Deists believe their god exists.

They reject a god that interferes with the universe and human life, yet you say they say their god exists?

How, exactly, do they say he "exists"?

You know, that god thing.

See above.

I've already responded, countless times, that there's nothing we can test, because there is at present (nor has there been thus far) any evidence available. This is exactly why no one who is being sceptical should adopt a position of belief on the issue.

Exactly. There is nothing we can test. So stop saying that they claim their god exists.

For the love of monkeys, Larsen, I have said as much on multiple occasions. You don't have to keep asking the same thing over and over. I'm not thick - I understand what you're saying, it's just that I disagree with you. I think that we can apply scepticism where there is no accessible evidence.

Frankly I'm incredulous that you can have directed me to Carl Sagan, when his Invisible Dragon example, which you must know inside out and back-to-front, concludes re an invisible, untestable entity, that;

Yes, I do. But you miss the point of Sagan's Dragon-in-the-garage example. It isn't just about an invisible, untestable entity. He used the example to show how the claimant's claims shifted, when a new test was introduced for a specific, testable claim.

This is exactly why I wonder why so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion that there is a god. And

The disconnect though, it that you assert that to "believe" does not mean to "believe exists", or that religious sceptics are deceiving themselves about the existence of god, as you stated earlier. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better to show that either of those assertions reflects real beliefs held by a majority of real religious sceptics. Because nobody here that I can see is buying it. Personally I can readily believe that a significant number (maybe even all, though that would be speculation) do think this way, and are well aware that their belief is a sham. But their belief in that case is therefore... well... a deception. A sham. Not genuine belief. Please don't tell me again that you can call their belief self-deceiving and still maintain that it's also genuine.

I don't give a flying fig if nobody "here" - a thread on a big forum, with precious few participants - "buys" it. The majority is not right because it is the majority.

Let me ask you a question for a change. If a person claiming to be a sceptic did state outright that they believe god exists, i.e. make an overt claim, would this change your attitude toward them?

Depends on whether they make testable claims about their god or not.