Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Herzblut]

Frankly, yes. Even if you arrive at precisely the same conclusions after reassessment.

Right. Let me restate, please. I'm willing to justify secular humanism in a discussion but I see no way to change my attitude. Actually, I would respond with armed resistence to any serious attack against democracy and human rights in Germany.

Because all the evidence I have, from my own senses to observation of what scientists do to test the world, suggests that it is real. Supposing this objective reality, it makes sense to me to try my hardest given the available time and intellect possessed by me and those whose work I can read, hear, or see, to understand it as far as possible.

I actually also believe that accumulating scientific knowledge is a huge benefit for man. But evidence for this prediction can hardly be given.

I am also cautious when talking about "objective reality" because it's neither targeted nor required by science. Evidence is delivered for scientific theories about aspects of reality, never for reality "as is". No object can ever be observed "as is".

Science does not deliver any moral codes.

Knowledge-gain is certainly not the primary objective for every human being. Other goals like leading a happy life are equally important. If a certain belief set helps humans to cope with their life it's perfectly justified.

Herzblut

 

[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!

I never said that a lack of belief is a belief. What I did say was that A Christian Sceptic was correct in stating that Belz has a positive belief that there are no gods.

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.

I've been following the discussion somewhat, and I agree with some of what A Christian Sceptic has said and disagree with some of it. I also agree with some of what Claus has said and disagree with some of it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with who is more or less skeptical than who, nor that making such assessments as though there were really such thing as a "skeptic woo meter" is very useful towards advancing the discussion. It's possible that this "you're not a true skeptic" mentality is part of what's causing your inability to understand what Claus and others are saying. It is possible that among "true" skeptics there really is room for differing opinions.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And he failed. Mine isn't a belief. There IS NO EVIDENCE.

So now you contend that "lack of belief" is a belief ?

Perhaps the source of the misunderstanding is that an opinion IS a belief (specifically, it's a belief with no claim of positive knowledge). You claimed to have an opinion that no gods exist. You didn't claim to have no opinion whatsoever (which would be a lack of a belief).

-Bri

 

[Big Les]

I see where you're coming from, and I actually agree. I cannot give concrete/scientific/objective reasons why the worldview I hold is one worth holding to. And I take the point that this applies to the believer in god who does not make testable claims about that god (leaving aside all the nonsense about whether "believe" means that you believe your god exists or not).

I'm still not sure that I agree with the implication here that scepticism is an appropriate tool for examining beliefs themselves, where there is no available evidence. This is primarily because I see no reason for assuming that there even could be god, over and above literally any imaginative claim one cares to think of (Flying Spaghetti Monster, pink unicorn, invisible Doomsday Ocelot). If all that is believed about god is that he kicked off the big bang, what's the point in believing? Claus has answered that with "because it's comforting". Well, it would be comforting to believe all sorts of things for which there are no evidence. In fact, Shermer, though he is ambiguous about Deist-level god belief, goes to great lengths to point out that the main reason any true believer, including the "woos" that do harm in the real world, is for that very reason of comfort. I suppose I see it as hypocritical for a sceptic to tell others that they shouldn't believe in weird things, whilst believing in one themselves and refusing to acknowledge its baselessness.

Looking at it from the psychic-groupies' point of view, just because someone is astute enough not to claim that their personal "weird thing" has any current direct influence on reality, why should they get to keep believing, and the Spiritualist not?

I know, I know, the difference is the evidence, and the claims. It's just that when we go back and look at the basis, the impetus for god beliefs, we see that they are all the result of misinterpretations of aspects of the natural world which we can now explain using science. The belief itself, denuded of objective meaning, is all that's left.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

This is a side point, yet I see it come up over and over again.
That being the confounding of disbelief in a god(s) with a lack of belief. There is a subtle, but important difference.

A poster on another forum had an illuminating method of illustrating the distinction;

Thanks HghrSymmetry - I 100% agree. There is a difference.

A statement like "There is no God" or "There is a God" is a belief.

A statement like "I don't know if there is" or "I can't tell yet" is not a belief.

(well - I suppose technically it's a belief that you don't know or can't tell. But really - that's missing the point)

Whether you are an Athiest or a Thiest and since God cannot ever be proven or disproven all you can factually say is "According to all the evidence I have I believe _______". Then when you get new evidence you can choose to take that evidence and compare it to what you know and believe - your conclusions - and then adjust your beliefs accordingly.

If your an Athiest you might change your belief to become a Thiest. If you are a Thiest you might become an Athiest. Or you might toss those beliefs out altogether and say I don't know. In fact, according to some of the Athiests on this board they have already gone through this process - you were a Thiest and now are an Athiest.

This process is called scepticism.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

If all that is believed about god is that he kicked off the big bang, what's the point in believing? Claus has answered that with "because it's comforting". Well, it would be comforting to believe all sorts of things for which there are no evidence.

Big Les,

Apologies for probably further muddying the water if that's what this post does, but coming to the conclusion that there may be a god behind it all is different than doing anything else in relation to him - ie. following him, worshipping him, obeying, him, ignoring him, etc. This because simply coming to the conclusion he is there is different than knowing anything about him - which is what would tell you how to react to him. Such a discussion might be helpful between fellow believers (in his existence) but would be an awfully odd discussion to attempt between believers and non-believers.

I think that if I was to ever stop being a Christian I wouldn't be an Athiest. If I came to the conclusion that I can not know anything more about him other than he is there or if I didn't want to try to know anything more about him I would probably be something like an Apathetic Diest - he's there but so what.

 

[Belz...]

Just pay attention to what I say.

Considering what you just said, Shouldn't I just pay attention to what you don't say ?

Are they? Isn't politics mainly emotions?

Nice try. I was talking about something completely different. You just misunderstood. Just man up, Claus.

I'm curious: Have you absolutely no idea how your current government is doing?

Why would I care, and what does it have to do with what I claimed ?

No. Pay attention to what I say.

I did. You said skepticism cannot be applied to every subject. Now you say the opposite. So which is it ?

You can believe that a statement is true, without the statement referring to anything in existence.

Want to rethink it now?

Claus, the more I read your posts, the more I think you're confused about what I said.

Let's see:

1) Mr X believe in Y
2) Mr X believes that Y exists
3) Y exists

I'm saying that 1) and 2) are equivalent. For some reason, you seem to think that I'm saying that 1) and 3) are equivalent. I NEVER SAID THIS.

Sheesh....follow the posts, please!

You're making less and less sense. Most of your posts consist of you telling me to pay attention. More content, less rhetoric, please.

In which case they must understand what I say.

Touché.

What now ? YOU mis-paraphrased ME. I corrected YOU, and then you accused me of mis-paraphrasing YOU. YOU're the one who's not following.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps the source of the misunderstanding is that an opinion IS a belief (specifically, it's a belief with no claim of positive knowledge). You claimed to have an opinion that no gods exist. You didn't claim to have no opinion whatsoever (which would be a lack of a belief).

-Bri

Well, from my point of view a belief is faith-derived, not evidence-based.

But in the general sense, sure.

But then we'd have to distinguish between belief against/despite evidence (or lack thereof) and belief based on evidence.

Why bother when we can use different words ?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

A statement like "I don't know if there is" or "I can't tell yet" is not a belief.

That, and my other point is that the "typical" omnipotent/omniscient description of a supreme being is lacking a rigorous definition, is logically nonsensical, and self-contradictory.

Thus the question becomes meaningless and not open to acceptance or rejection.

It would be equivalent to someone asking..."do you beleive in.... y6#8*J+^SkS31/,``0-*?"

I would answer I neither beleive or disbelieve...I simply have a lack of belief because the attributes of the subject in question have no meaning.

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost

 

[SirPhilip]

You're STILL saying that people who hold, say, a belief in god, don't necessarily think that this god exists ???

He's right. In the Septuagint God wanted people to rectify nature and their own situation, and their relationship to him on their own. This is why he is absent from the human condition. This is difficult as well as a simplistic task, and was the point of religious practice. Fellowship among these is what the function of a church, and among monks, sect is.

 

[Bri]

Well, from my point of view a belief is faith-derived, not evidence-based.

Such beliefs are usually known as "faith-based beliefs" rather than just "beliefs" (which can include both faith-based and evidence-based beliefs). Like a faith-based belief, an opinion is generally not claimed to be fact although it may have some (non-definitive) evidence to back it up.

But then we'd have to distinguish between belief against/despite evidence (or lack thereof) and belief based on evidence.

Yes, which is exactly what this discussion is about. Specifically, your opinion that there are no gods is not based on evidence because you cannot provide evidence that no gods exist. You may be able to provide evidence that certain gods don't exist, but not that no gods exist.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

He's right. In the Septuagint God wanted people to rectify nature and their own situation, and their relationship to him on their own. This is why he is absent from the human condition. This is difficult as well as a simplistic task, and was the point of religious practice. Fellowship among these is what the function of a church, and among monks, sect is.

Er... what are you saying, exactly, and how does it relate to this discussion ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, which is exactly what this discussion is about. Specifically, your opinion that there are no gods is not based on evidence because you cannot provide evidence that no gods exist.

Obviously, since that would be proving a negative. Much more telling is the complete and utter absence of evidence that ANY gods exist.

You may be able to provide evidence that certain gods don't exist, but not that no gods exist.

That's not my burden of proof.

 

[CFLarsen]

Considering what you just said, Shouldn't I just pay attention to what you don't say ?



Nice try. I was talking about something completely different. You just misunderstood. Just man up, Claus.



Why would I care, and what does it have to do with what I claimed ?



I did. You said skepticism cannot be applied to every subject. Now you say the opposite. So which is it ?



Claus, the more I read your posts, the more I think you're confused about what I said.

Let's see:

1) Mr X believe in Y
2) Mr X believes that Y exists
3) Y exists

I'm saying that 1) and 2) are equivalent. For some reason, you seem to think that I'm saying that 1) and 3) are equivalent. I NEVER SAID THIS.



You're making less and less sense. Most of your posts consist of you telling me to pay attention. More content, less rhetoric, please.



Touché.



What now ? YOU mis-paraphrased ME. I corrected YOU, and then you accused me of mis-paraphrasing YOU. YOU're the one who's not following.

This leads nowhere.

 

[Steven Howard]

Wow.

You know what you did? You argued that spells work.

Yep, just say that something exists - and it does!

I said no such thing, and you know it.

You want to know about something, but refuse to look at reference works?

I said no such thing, and you know it.

Pardon me if I am unimpressed.

Right back atcha. I asked you a simple question. Rather than answer it, you replied with sarcasm, rhetorical questions, and bizarre non-sequiturs.

Please, stop with the silly games and just answer my question:

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?"

 

[Mobyseven]

Not necessarily. It could mean they don't know what the heck is going on yet and are still studying it. Nothing in science has to be proven to make my point just theoretically possible. see below.

They have ideas as to what is going on and they're still studying it, yes. So why would you bother bringing up something that isn't the actual science, but is an interpretation used to explain the counter-intuitive observations at the quantum level to non-physicists?

It's like when someone says that gravity 'is the thing that pulls you down to the earth'. It's a figure of speech used to explain the observation, but not the actual science.

I haven't yet.

You just did in your previous post:

*** 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)

The above is an example of getting the interpretation and the actual science confused. So please, step away from the quantum mechanics - you don't understand it, and you don't understand that you don't understand it.

I don't think it's a valid argument that's why I've never used it! Please read this entire thread since this discussion began. I have never once attempted to prove anything!

I have been reading the entire thread. I've been involved since near the start of the thread - though my position has changed since then based on giving the matter a bit more thought.

I think it's very disingenuous of you to say that you have never once attempted to prove anything...if you come to a discussion and engage in debate, you are by definition trying to prove something. Couching your arguments in weasel words won't stop them from being arguments - your huge list of 'weird science' before was followed by a piece of (fallacious) reasoning. You are advancing an argument, and therefore trying to argue in favour of a particular proposition.

But, if you are going to tell me a god can't be eternal, creating something out of nothing, be in two places at once, alter time, blah, blah, blah, everything I previously posted then I'm telling you at a minimum he could be or do these things without breaking any laws of physics. Why? Because things in the Universe already do that!

If you define 'god' as 'the universe' then yes, he could be eternal. The 'something out of nothing' gambit is a paradox, by the way - it's one of those things in science that scientists say, "That's what we see, but it can't be right given out understanding of physics. So either our understanding of physics is wrong, or our understanding of the big bang event is wrong."

If you define 'god' as 'the probability function of a subatomic particle' then yes god could to be 'in two places at once'.

If I define 'god' as 'a chair', then I could be sitting on god right now! Amazing, isn't it?

The point here is that if you're going to say god has these properties, you either have to explain how he can have these properties without breaking the laws of physics, or you have to define god as the laws of physics - which is not a particularly useful (or common) definition. Just because photons travel at the speed of light it doesn't mean that I can travel at the speed of light. If you're going to claim that god can travel at (or even near to) the speed of light, you're going to need to explain how that's possible, and you're going to need to support that assertion with evidence. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

You in this discussion asked me what in science I find convincing. I have never once stated anyone here has to believe anything - but an awful lot of you are telling me what to believe! I have never once said any of you can't be sceptics - but an awful lot of you tell me I can't!

Who here has said that you can't be a skeptic? Not me, that's for sure. Not Fran, because I'm reasonably sure that she agrees with me on the issue. I haven't seen articulett say that a theist can't be a skeptic, though feel free to point out to me if she has and I've missed it.

So c'mon, give us a shot. Tell me, who exactly has been oppressing you so, and telling you that you can't be a skeptic?

And please - stop with the silly I don't have a belief statements. I am using this definition of belief:
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

By these definitions you all have beliefs.

Well sure, but once again if I define 'belief' as 'breakfast' then I didn't have any beliefs this morning. We can all play the definition game.

 

[articulett]

How do you know? Only religious people kill their children?

You and your inane straw men, and tangential loaded questions.

What Andrea Yates did is perfectly rational if Christian Doctrine is true. If the point of life is to get to heaven and if all children automatically go to heaven, then she ensured that the people she loved most would live happily ever after and the cost of her own eternal damnation. But that wasn't a huge cost for her--she already thought she was going to hell because she didn't discipline her kids well enough and she thought that made them vulnerable to Satan. Yes, she was mentally ill... but she believed that god wouldn't give her more problems then she could handle-- so she went and had another baby though being told not to.

If her children are living happily ever after, then she was the one who ensured that at her own expense-- she was the one who loved those kids more than anyone else... home schooling them and trying to be a super mom while mental illness incapacitated her. Her life is hell because she really truly believed she sent them to the happy place in the sky and made sure they'd never ever end up in hell. I cannot believe how people learn to blind themselves to the horrible things done in the name of faith. And you exemplify this Claus. Apologist.

 

[Mobyseven]

If your an Athiest you might change your belief to become a Thiest. If you are a Thiest you might become an Athiest. Or you might toss those beliefs out altogether and say I don't know.

If you do not believe there is a god, you are an atheist by definition. It doesn't matter if you claim agnosticism or gnosticism - absence of a belief in god is atheism.

Well, from my point of view a belief is faith-derived, not evidence-based.

I would disagree - belief is a large category of which evidence based beliefs and faith based beliefs (being beliefs in the absence or in contradiction to evidence) are subcategories. I would say, however, that in order to believe in something, there has to be a hypothetical object to believe in. Belief must correspond to an object, and not to the absence of an object.

 

[articulett]

I never said that a lack of belief is a belief. What I did say was that A Christian Sceptic was correct in stating that Belz has a positive belief that there are no gods.

Yes... most of us do... if you mean that in the same way of you not having a positive belief that there are no fairies.

Whatever you want to call your feelings about fairies, sprites, the gods you don't believe in, and demons-- "a positive belief that there are not such things"... a "positive belief that these are all imaginary"... or nonbelief-- that's how we feel towards gods. Gods=Demons in regards to belief for most skeptics. Why? Because the evidence for both are the same. --Nonexistent but culturally indoctrinated and spread via culture. If you aren't told about such things, you don't believe in such things... if are you fill in the details with confabulation.