Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Steven Howard]

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"?

The same way anybody says anything exists. By saying it.

Look, quit dodging. You've made the assertion that there are people who believe in God, but do not believe that God exists. This, to me and apparently many others, is so absurd as to be nearly meaningless. Therefore, I asked you a simple, direct, unequivocal question: Who are these people? Just name one of them, and show me that he or she actually has the beliefs you've described.

I don't want analogies. I don't want you quoting dictionaries at me and drawing unfounded inferences from them. I don't want any more of your "answer a question with a question" games. I just want a straight answer. Can you or can you not show me that there are actual human beings who have the beliefs you're describing, people who would answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?" and "No" to the question "Do you believe that God exists?"

Put up or shut up, Claus.

 

[Bluefire]

Put up or shut up, Claus.

Seconded. Claus dodging is getting more and more contrived, and embarassing.

 

[Herzblut]

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

I agree. From a sceptical pov the different creeds of the different branches of the different religions would have to be checked one by one.

There is no such creed like:

I believe that:

(1) God exists.
​

End of creed!

The current discussion looks at least superficial to me, if not meaningless.

Herzblut

 

[Big Les]

I'm sorry, have you been reading the same thread? If nothing else we've established that Deism posits a god who has created the universe and then buggered off for a nice infinitely-long sit down and a nice cup of tea.

Besides which, it's the belief that we're talking about, not the extra bits that may or may not be bolted onto it. Because it's the root belief in god, and how sceptics can hold this belief, that is being discussed.

With that in mind, whilst this discussion may be mind-numbingly circular, it's not entirely meaningless and not at all superficial that I can see.

 

[Big Les]

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"?

They say he created the universe, and then took a back seat. You pretty much have to exist, or once have existed, to accomplish this. His posited existence is not, by anyone apart from you it seems, in question.

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

The two things are not mutually exclusive. They can say he exists all they like, regardless of what evidence there is, or how available it is. And they do, from where I'm sitting.

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.

Indeed, for the bulk of the example. But then, having had all his suggestions for testing met with excuses, he says 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.

"The only sensible approach". The only sensible approach. How else are we meant to interpret this than that the opposite of this, to accept the claim of existence, is insensible?

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.

Quite true. But it's a handy rule of thumb, I find. If you can produce evidence that people believe as you claim they believe, then this admittedly very poor quality evidence that you might be wrong will simply evaporate. So, go for it, I say.

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

As far as you're concerned, yes. We've established that, thanks. Any more intact LPs in the pile?

 

[Mobyseven]

This is a criteria that was not in your definition (that the default position must be non-existence for propositions involving the existence of something). I have no problem with that, but I'm just pointing out that your definition was inadequate to address this case.

Are you daft? Have you got a reading comprehension problem? Have you been selectively reading my posts? Probably three times now I've gone into an in depth explanation as to why non-existence is the default position in skepticism, and you're acting like it's something new I just brought up? That's either you being intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy, and it's damn annoying for me, if not also anyone else reading your posts.

The problem is that you also cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of intelligent aliens, so by that criteria, the default position ought to be one of non-existence.

[...]

It is true that we know of many varied conditions under which life can survive, but we have very little knowledge of the conditions under which life developed. Nor do we know how close conditions must be to those conditions under which life on this planet developed. And, yes, there are scientists who have reasonable hypotheses as to how life may have developed, and what the conditions were like, but that's not quite the same thing as "we are aware of the conditions under which at least one form of intelligent life can arrive - us."

[...]

According to your definition, only propositions with valid evidence would be considered skeptical, so this one wouldn't qualify. So you seem to be modifying the definition again, which again I have no problem with. But by what criteria can we determine whether a hypothesis is skeptical or unskeptical when there is a lack of evidence?

[...]

Sure, one can decide that it is probable, or highly likely, or one can just as easily decide that it is improbable, or highly unlikely. We simply don't know the conditions under which intelligent life on this planet developed, nor do we know how close conditions must be to those unknown conditions for intelligent life to develop, nor can we determine the probability of those unknown conditions under which intelligent life can develop occurring elsewhere. Some scientists believe that a certain event (or series of events) occurred that were very specific to our planet which caused the development of intelligent life, and therefore those scientists assign a very low probability to the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Other scientists believe that the conditions are not specific to our planet, and therefore assign it a higher probability. In other words, the so-called "information" (that we exist) only helps us determine that the existence of intelligent aliens is possible (i.e. that the probability is greater than 0% and less than 100%). In what way do you consider that "relevant information?"

[...]

I don't disagree with either (although some might disagree with the second). Of course, I wasn't comparing the existence of life with the existence of a god. I was comparing the existence of intelligent alien life with the existence of a god, a difference which would change the first statement dramatically.

[...]

What criteria are you using to determine that one can have either opinion about the existence of aliens (of which there is no conclusive evidence for either position), but cannot have either opinion about the existence of a god (of which there is no conclusive evidence for either position)?

[...]


Exactly my point -- there is no definition of "conclusive" that can determine how much evidence is required and of what type. I tend to agree that the evidence for evolution and the germ theory of disease are indeed so overwhelming that they would qualify as "conclusive," but there is no objective, clear line between what is conclusive and what is not conclusive. Which is precisely why I don't think you can come up with a definition for "skepticism" that will allow us to objectively determine whether a given proposition is skeptical or not.

I've lumped all the sections that deal with 'intelligent aliens' together, because I can deal with them in one sentence:

You're being intellectually dishonest by trying to define your question from an egocentric point of view, specifically to eliminate the evidence we have, but your handwaving away of the evidence we have does not mean that it does not exist.

Our observations of the universe tell us a number of things. For one, they tell us that where we live in the universe is not special. Our position and situation is not unique. It tells us that there are billions of planets orbiting billions of stars, and that there are probably quite a few of those planets inside the 'goldilocks zone' - not too hot and not too cold to develop life. Indeed, a few planets have been found that may fit the bill. All we need to know is that at least one form of intelligent life exists, and then we know that it is possible for intelligent life to develop in such places.

We do know of one form of intelligent life. Humans. But you are trying to handwave away that bit of evidence because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what skepticism is, or because you're desperately trying to find a flaw in my argument. Whatever the issue, you're clutching at straws - this is what? The fourth? The fifth time I've had to explain to you why your intelligent alien analogy is incorrect? And every time you just react as though I never addressed the issue, bringing it up again as though it hasn't already been ripped to shreds. If you're just going to rehash faulty arguments everytime I reply to you, well - it's hardly worth my responding is it?

I could only have meant that the results of the method aren't necessarily conclusive -- that you cannot necessarily use the method to determine whether a given proposition is skeptical or not.

Actually, you said that the method was incomplete. You can change your arguments, but don't pretend that you didn't say what you said. I don't care if someone refines or changes their arguments in the face of criticism - that's what skepticism is about. I do care if they pretend they never advanced the faulty argument in the first place.

Also, can you stop referring to propositions as 'skeptical' or 'not skeptical'? Propositions are true or false, and skepticism is a method that can be used to determine the truth value of a given proposition.

I don't consider that a bad thing. What gave you the impression that I did?

That you've been touting it as a flaw of skepticism. Maybe things are different outside of Australia, but here we generally don't consider flaws to be good things.

I disagree. Skepticism tells us that we should never accept anything as fact unless it actually is fact. And only in cases where the evidence clearly points to a particular conclusion can skepticism necessarily tell us which conclusion to lend our support to.

You're getting things the wrong way round. Skepticism is the method that allows us to determine what is and what isn't a fact. Not only that, but skepticism tells us that there is no such thing as 100% certainty about any issue - though there are things that come close enough that they can be considered certain by skeptical standards. Skepticism tells us that we should accept as fact that which is supported by reason and evidence - but that we should always be prepared to change our facts should new evidence come to light.

Here is what you did say in response to my query about whether both P and ~P can be skeptical according to your definition given that there is valid evidence for each:

Notice how there is more in what I said than the simplified strawman you implied was my position?

Again, I'm not sure what makes you think that I want "the warm fuzzy feeling of certain knowledge" since I'm the one claiming that we lack certain knowledge about whether a given proposition can necessarily be objectively determined to be skeptical or not.

So what is your position? That we can't know anything? And again - please stop saying that a proposition can be skeptical. A proposition can be true or false - your paragraph doesn't actually make any sense.

I'm fine with the definition you posted, as long as you realize that it either cannot be used to make such a determination in cases where there is no conclusive evidence, or else either allows certain beliefs that you probably believe to be unskeptical or disallows certain beliefs that you probably believe to be skeptical.

I'm fine with the definition I posted too - and I'm more than aware that the criticisms you bring up in this final paragraph are entirely baseless and have been thoroughly dealt with many times over by now. Either say something new or don't say anything at all - if you come back with the same arguments that I and others have already dealt with a million bloody times again, I'm just going to put you on ignore. If I wanted to repeat myself over and over I'd bash my head against a brick wall - Ed knows it'd be more fun than dealing with your tripe again.

 

[Herzblut]

I'm sorry, have you been reading the same thread? If nothing else we've established that Deism posits a god who has created the universe and then buggered off for a nice infinitely-long sit down and a nice cup of tea.

Besides which, it's the belief that we're talking about, not the extra bits that may or may not be bolted onto it. Because it's the root belief in god, and how sceptics can hold this belief, that is being discussed.

With that in mind, whilst this discussion may be mind-numbingly circular, it's not entirely meaningless and not at all superficial that I can see.

I kindly disagree. What you call "extra bits" might be key to understanding a belief and the worldview it constructs.

What are the fundamental basics of your worldview, if I may ask? Would you be so kind to put them down in a few sentences, like

I believe that

(1) I exist. You exist. Mankind exists.
(2) Nature exists and nothing but nature.
(3) Man is capable to understand all aspects of himself and nature by scientific methods and only by those.
(4) Any personal pov or decision is and shall only be based upon scientific evidence.
(5) Other worldviews based upon other beliefs are nul and void.

​

Something like that, you know, that's just a sample. Let's have a sceptical look at it then, what you think?

Herzblut

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Things that make me go hmmm....

THINGS THAT MAKE ME GO HMMM….

This a general response to:

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?

and

In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god".

NOTE: Apologies to all scientists for this broad general overview.

*** creating something out of nothing ***

There is a cosmological theory that I learned about in my Astronomy class. It’s called The Steady State Theory or Continuous Creation theory.

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

In addition to stating the universe has no beginning or ending matter is continuously being created as the universe expands! And this theory never breaks any law of physics.

*** eternal, timelessness, forever ***

We know now that it appears the Steady State Theory is not what is happening due to advances in astronomy tools. It now appears the Big Bang is what happened.

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

It is not known if the Big Bang started out of nothing or always existed. There are some models where it appears the universe can expand and collapse on itself over and over forever and ever.

****
With these two scientific explanations I already see two qualities of God that do not break any laws of physics. God could be timeless, always existing, and be creating something out of nothing.

That being said – there are plenty more wild and crazy things that scientists want me to believe (and I have no problem doing so – especially as more and more evidence comes in)

*** Time slowing down ***

Thanks to the general theory of relativity by Einstein (and this has been proven) we now know that time is not constant throughout the universe. The more massive an object the slower time goes. Time on earth is slower than in space, time on Jupiter is slower than on earth, and time in a black hole (which is a collapsed star) goes haywire.

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

*** Time Stopping ***

Thanks to scientists like Stephen Hawkings and others we now have some better understanding of what black holes are and possibly how they operate. And inside and near these things time goes crazy. Some theories show time stopping and some showing possibilites that black holes might punch holes into the fabric of space and time.

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

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

Both black holes and worm holes are theoretically possible without breaking any laws of physics.

*** duality of matter ***

Matter appears to be both waves and particles simultaneously. Until you observe them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

*** Matter may be in two place at once ***

In quantum physics there have been experiments done that appear to show that matter can be in two places at once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

*** string theory ***

This is a theory under much debate (mainly how to test it) that matter may be fundamentally tiny string like objects all vibrating.

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

I highly recommend The Elegant Universe DVD :
http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Universe...=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197513663&sr=1-2

It’s also shown on PBS a lot.

For that matter you might want to also watch COSMOS by Carl Sagan although by now many things have changed with new findings.
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-S..._bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197513715&sr=1-1

I already believe in a universe that can possibly exist forever, create matter out of nothing, have time speed up or slow down or completely stop, where matter paradoxically can be two things at the same time and be at two places at the same time, and possibly connect all things on some sub-sub-sub-atomic level with a funky little dance.

Believing all that through science I also believe God has those same properties and more!

 

[-Fran-]

THINGS THAT MAKE ME GO HMMM….

This a general response to:



and



NOTE: Apologies to all scientists for this broad general overview.

*** creating something out of nothing ***

There is a cosmological theory that I learned about in my Astronomy class. It’s called The Steady State Theory or Continuous Creation theory.

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

In addition to stating the universe has no beginning or ending matter is continuously being created as the universe expands! And this theory never breaks any law of physics.

*** eternal, timelessness, forever ***

We know now that it appears the Steady State Theory is not what is happening due to advances in astronomy tools. It now appears the Big Bang is what happened.

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

It is not known if the Big Bang started out of nothing or always existed. There are some models where it appears the universe can expand and collapse on itself over and over forever and ever.

****
With these two scientific explanations I already see two qualities of God that do not break any laws of physics. God could be timeless, always existing, and be creating something out of nothing.

That being said – there are plenty more wild and crazy things that scientists want me to believe (and I have no problem doing so – especially as more and more evidence comes in)

*** Time slowing down ***

Thanks to the general theory of relativity by Einstein (and this has been proven) we now know that time is not constant throughout the universe. The more massive an object the slower time goes. Time on earth is slower than in space, time on Jupiter is slower than on earth, and time in a black hole (which is a collapsed star) goes haywire.

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

*** Time Stopping ***

Thanks to scientists like Stephen Hawkings and others we now have some better understanding of what black holes are and possibly how they operate. And inside and near these things time goes crazy. Some theories show time stopping and some showing possibilites that black holes might punch holes into the fabric of space and time.

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

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

Both black holes and worm holes are theoretically possible without breaking any laws of physics.

*** duality of matter ***

Matter appears to be both waves and particles simultaneously. Until you observe them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

*** Matter may be in two place at once ***

In quantum physics there have been experiments done that appear to show that matter can be in two places at once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

*** string theory ***

This is a theory under much debate (mainly how to test it) that matter may be fundamentally tiny string like objects all vibrating.

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

I highly recommend The Elegant Universe DVD :
http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Universe...=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197513663&sr=1-2

It’s also shown on PBS a lot.

For that matter you might want to also watch COSMOS by Carl Sagan although by now many things have changed with new findings.
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-S..._bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197513715&sr=1-1

I already believe in a universe that can possibly exist forever, create matter out of nothing, have time speed up or slow down or completely stop, where matter paradoxically can be two things at the same time and be at two places at the same time, and possibly connect all things on some sub-sub-sub-atomic level with a funky little dance.

Believing all that through science I also believe God has those same properties and more!

So, you're saying that you think that science is already supernatural, so you might as well believe in a god of your chosing as well?

 

[-Fran-]

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.

Yes, this is quite clear, but you keep saying that we ALL think like you, and we don't.

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.

Articulett...

You can use which methods you want and reach any conclusions you want. But when you say that it is a skeptical method you use then you will have to be prepared to have that statement questioned. And what use is there in using any method to chose between A) that doesn't exist and B) that doesn't exist? You are not even trying to use the method to come to a conclusion about if it actually exists in the first place. That you think it does is a leap of faith, not a conclusion arrived at skeptically. Having then come to this conclusion unskeptically, you use arbitrarily choises of which of all these non-existing things to believe in, based on a book that is a highly flawed and notoriously unreliable source of information.

You are entitled to do what you want, but I can't see anything skeptical about what you are doing. That is my only gripe with all that you are saying. That it is skepticism. Based on what you have written here, I can't see that it is.

 

[Herzblut]

.. you use arbitrarily choises of which of all these non-existing things to believe in, based on a book that is a highly flawed and notoriously unreliable source of information.

How can choices be arbritrary and based on one book at the same time?

Would you please cite a "reliable source of information" for getting answers to questions like:

- What should I do?
- What can I hope for?
- What can I know?
- What's my role and man's role in this world?

Thanks
H

 

[articulett]

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?

You keep confusing facts for opinions and evidence based claims for belief and certainty regarding facts over certainty regarding whether imaginary things might be more than that. You say you didn't come here to convert anyone, and you call yourself a skeptic. But you don't seem to have even the basics of skepticism down... and it is critical thinking. Even as a kid I recognized some things that were really wrong with the Christian story... and as an adult I think guys just are convinced that their god is the right one and so they believe and women believe because they are afraid not to.

Because how can you see people killing themselves (Jonestown) and others (9-11 hijackers) because they really truly believe their myth and not wonder about yours. Andrea Yates killed her kids, but if the point of life is to get you or at least your kids into heaven, then why not kill them before they are old enough to sin? Doesn't it just start their happily ever after earlier. I'm sure her reasons for believing were every bit as valid to her as your magical beliefs are to you. You realize most people through history have been wrong and wrongly attributed things to the supernatural-- and yet you assume you haven't-- you somehow got born into and stumbled upon the right faith to live happily ever after. How is that skeptical.

When I was a kid I couldn't believe that grown ups who believed this stuff were so cavalier about our eternity. Once I realized there were different prophets and infallible leaders and gurus, mine was in doubt.... And there were different hells that different people went to and different rubrics for who was saved and even the Christians didn't agree on who was Christian much less who was "saved"... and it has something to do with belief--but how are you supposed to know that you belief in the right one the right way when clearly the vast majority of people were believing the wrong thing. If one is right-- the majority have been wrong. All the Zeus believers... the Scientologists... the Heavens Gate crowd missed their spaceship... Why weren't scientists testing these guys to find out who the real infallible leader was, I wondered. OUr collective Eternity was at stake, afterall. ETERNITY. You shouldn't be cavalier about that. But guys are... they just assume they got indoctrinated with the right god... and women go along for fear of bringing down the fall of man or bringing some other tragedy upon her kids for her own assertiveness. And you can't question the invisible guy--he just wants you to have faith-- that prick. And he can read your mind so if you can't fake faith... what are you gonna do. I think it's a no win situation for the logical.

And how can anything exist without a brain. How can anyone suffer or be happy after they die--these are experiences of the brain. You can't even form a new memory without a hippocampus-- what could you be without a brain? Brain damage alters personality and no soul steps in to fix anything. It can't be real. Especially when you start really studying skepticism--read Demon Haunted World. Read what people believe and why they are convinced. Not being able to explain something does not mean "magic" is the explanation. It only means that if you are looking for signs and confusing correlation with causation (this feeling means god is listening)-- and snowballing it with confirmation bias. (My faith must be true because all the nicest people I know believe it.).

Lack of belief is NOT belief. You are a wog. That's a Scientologist term for a non-scientologist. Is that a belief? Is not believing that unicorns are real, a belief? Is your dismissal of Allah as real a belief? Is your lack of belief regarding the heavenly sex life of the hijackers a belief?

It's the illogic fuzziness promoted by your faith that makes you confuse the two. You are also confusing developing and opinion based on evidence... and positing the existence of something indistinguishable from known delusions. We know people once sacrificed other people to weather gods or volcano gods. As science explains more, god explains less. Your faith has taught you to think very illogically. You see that humans fool themselves and strongly believe things that cannot be true... and yet you are not skeptical enough to imagine it could happen to you. No, you can't convince us-- because you sound like all the other woo. Everyone thinks their woo is true-- but none gives us any reason to think their woo is more likely to be truer than any woo.

If you took someone who believed something very strongly that you did not believe in... reincarnation, for example... and they had anecdotal evidence and some pretty amazing stories and coincidences... would you think that reincarnation was real? Why not? How can they be so sure and be so wrong when their evidence is as strong or weak as yours.

And their all woo if there is no such thing as consciousness outside of a living brain. And so far, there is NO EVIDENCE to even posit the notion...much less the nature of these magic invisible "people". All forces are measurable. Black holes are measurable... we don't have all the facts--but we have lots of facts... we have no facts about any invisible immeasurable entities or forces-- the only knowledge we have about such things is that humans are really super duper good at making them up and then propping them up further through confirmation bias and FAITH.

I don't think you are here to explore skepticism. Or to find out what is objectively true. I think you came here to try to convince yourself that your faith was rational by demeaning rationality and building up whatever you've imagined to be evidence.

I am fairly knowledge on evolution and in the sciences. When we have gaps... we let them stay gaps--we don't fill them with "supernatural" explanations, because those have never been real explanations.... they never lead to more knowledge... the just make us trick ourselves. If we thought god made babies, we couldn't have test tube babies or prevent babies from being conceived. If we thought god went "poof", we'd never have learned the FACTS about evolution.... we've mapped the whole genome... God didn't mention DNA. The story in our genomes beats any written by any primitive holy people hearing voices in their heads about stories of long ago revealed or remembered by friends of a friend most of whose names we are pretty shaky about. Adam and Eve weren't taking notes--nor was the talking snake or Noah.

An opinion about the details of evolution will strengthen and converge as the evidence comes in and leads to more understanding... that's the way science works. Religion is built on an imaginary or unprovable, or supposedly divine and invisible premise from the start. It's built on something that is indistinguishable from known myths. Nothing about it is verifiable. Nothing about god is measurable. So how do you imagine you have access. Weren't the hijackers praising Allah all the way down--as the passengers cried out to their god to be saved? Which god was listening.

I was going to be kind... I was afraid you were young. But you are a little dishonest, evasive, and arrogant without realizing it...

I think the skeptical logical rational and critically-thinking view is when there is no evidence that a category of something exists (something supernatural--invisible and immeasurable that can only be detected subjectively)-- then you don't use that category of nothingness to explain anything... it can't be an answer. It's a fake answer--or indistinguishable from fake answers like delusions.

Bri wants to imagine that it's like considering the probability of life elsewhere. It's not. That is something that is based on measurable things we understand--god is based on the same things that unicorns and leprechauns and demons and psychics and astrology are based on.-- WOO. All of it is cut from the same woo-- the supernatural-- immeasurable things that are indistinguishable from the mythological.

If the theists and apologists could get on the same page it would help--but every woo is their own unique brand of woo arguing for their own nebulous concepts. You guys just seem to make sense with those who believe like you. But all the ones who don't believe in any of it (like me and most skeptics) sound like they agree on the same reality--the ones scientists explore--the rational objective universe. We'd all look at the evidence if there ever was any--but "signs" and feelings and "faith" and anecdote and amazing coincidences and prayers answered aren't signs of anything--except confirmation bias and noticing the hits. It's standard woo. It's the same as declaring a shizophrenic or epileptic to be possessed. It's the same kind of wrong inference.

 

[Lonewulf]

What's your belief about black holes?

If you're going to claim that "belief" in black holes is equivalent to, or just as logical as, "belief" in God, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to say good day, sir. There is nothing that can be reasonably discussed with you.

 

[articulett]

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!

But you picked some "supernatural" to "believe in" and not others. What made you pick that "magic" over the others--or is it just the faith you were indoctrinated with and convinced yourself of. You believe a certain myth or story about the universe that happens to align with the story you were taught in childhood. Certainly this is not different than what the North Koreans believe in regards to gods and so forth. They believe their leader IS god (or at least born of one) and all their books say so. How do you your god didn't start similarly? Have you even thought about the notion that you could be fooling yourself like those Muslims and Moonies-- or do you just assume you are as right as they assume they are? And how can anyone be right about the invisible and immeasurabe and imaginary (or identical to the imaginary.)

 

[articulett]

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

This is such a woo argument. Plug in demons and see how dishonest you sound. But it's the argument of every believer because it works on those made daft by faith..

Your lack of belief in Zeus is a belief!
Your lack of belief in Demons is a belief!
Your lack of belief in Santa is a belief!

See how silly you sound.

And there is a lack of evidence to support your opinion that not of these exist.

Duh. Imaginary things leave no measurable evidence.

Your loopiness is a game the woo play to help them keep the faith. Flog the woo who put this oft repeated theistic goobldy gook into your head.

Lack of a belief-- is a lack of a belief. Our lack of belief in a god is the same as your lack of belief in a fairy. You certainly don't have evidence support an opinion that fairies don't exist. So you should be an a-fairy-est, right?

Why don't you talk to Christian Skeptic... you sound a tad more skeptical than him and a tad less skeptical than Claus. On the Skeptic Woo meter you seem to lean woo.

 

[articulett]

If you're going to claim that "belief" in black holes is equivalent to, or just as logical as, "belief" in God, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to say good day, sir. There is nothing that can be reasonably discussed with you.

How can you say that? Jesus DIED FOR YOU!
(but it was premeditated by his dad who was really him)
(and he didn't really die... just had a bad day and a half and then "happily ever after"...)

But still...

 

[articulett]

How can choices be arbritrary and based on one book at the same time?

Would you please cite a "reliable source of information" for getting answers to questions like:

- What should I do?
- What can I hope for?
- What can I know?
- What's my role and man's role in this world?

Thanks
H

Sure. And I've got one. My brain. Theists make up an answer or get it from their myth. You can believe stuff all you want-- it doesn't make it true. I prefer the truth. And I prefer not to know something than to believe a lie. If you believe a lie too long, you need the lie... and your brain becomes impervious the facts.

The nice thing about the truth and reality is that it is always there to explore--and it stays the truth even when people don't believe. And skeptics, scientists, brilliant people, and the like-- amass the evidence and develop an increasing convergent understanding of our world... and there is not supernatural in sight. But lots of belief in woo. None ever shown to be true.

 

[articulett]

So, you're saying that you think that science is already supernatural, so you might as well believe in a god of your chosing as well?

No he's using the woo quantum mechanics and sciency references to prop up his god. Usually, it's the new agers that do this... but it can work with any woo. You show that something weird exists and then insert your woo as an explanation. Btw, Herzblut is a troll. He can get very testy and bizarre. You might want to ignore his posts.

 

[articulett]

Seconded. Claus dodging is getting more and more contrived, and embarassing.

I think he's trying to make his god rational-- the "my woo is true woo" version of obfuscation. Aren't all the believers. They must know that there is no more measurable evidence for their god their Allah or Xenu. But they don't want to think of the implications. It's funny. It's like they cannot let themselves understand the thing that takes Santa away from them.... so they hurl straw men, tu quoque, snide inferences, lame analogies and circular blather.

I always wonder if one woo recognizes the other woo as woo-- just not themselves. They don't seem to be on the same page. And the majority seems in agreement. All invisible immeasurable entities are products of the human imagination until evidence shows otherwise. And though our understanding of neurology etc is increasing-- no god is showing up--but a lot of fascinating information is being compiled which increasing shows the brain to be the source of consciousness. Our grandkids will laugh at what we used to believe.

 

[-Fran-]

I am having major problems here with connecting to the site. Pages don't download fully, and I have to keep re-load and re-load. Very annoying, and makes it hard to keep up and replying. Are anyone else having these troubles with the JREF today? Or is it just from my side? (Other sites works fine when I visit them.) Well, just a side note...

No he's using the woo quantum mechanics and sciency references to prop up his god. Usually, it's the new agers that do this... but it can work with any woo. You show that something weird exists and then insert your woo as an explanation.

Ahhh, yeah... I never understood why they think that is a good argument.

Btw, Herzblut is a troll. He can get very testy and bizarre. You might want to ignore his posts.

I've never seen him before, not what I can recall anyway, but what I have seen him write in this thread so far is already non-sensical enough, yeah.