Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Then don't you think it'd be better not to just DECIDE which parts are metaphors ?

Sorry Belz, but I think it's impossible to DECIDE something without DECIDING.

You can DECIDE to believe what someone else tells you or you can check for yourself and then DECIDE. No matter what, you have to DECIDE. You could even DECIDE to not come to a conclusion just yet. (That's mainly what I end up doing. My commentary on the entire Bible would probably be to short for your tastes. Mainly it would be - STILL DECIDING)

 

[Belz...]

Sorry Belz, but I think it's impossible to DECIDE something without DECIDING.

You can DECIDE to believe what someone else tells you or you can check for yourself and then DECIDE. No matter what, you have to DECIDE. You could even DECIDE to not come to a conclusion just yet. (That's mainly what I end up doing. My commentary on the entire Bible would probably be to short for your tastes. Mainly it would be - STILL DECIDING)

I'm not talking about deciding arbitrarily, which is what you do. I'm talking about determining something from the evidence.

How can we determine, objectively, what parts are metaphorical and what parts aren't, since you admit that is an important determination ?

 

[GeeMack]

Nope. Sorry, never claimed I have anything that I could use to prove anything.

Nope. Sorry, lying for Jesus, again. (Changing my "determine the existence of" into your "prove anything" is another example of your dishonesty. But I digress...) You claimed the ability to compare the size of your imaginary pal against the size of others', and inferred that the results of your comparison supported its existence. In this thread you said things such as...

• Post #377: "I scrutinize God all the time and all it does is make him bigger."
  
  
• Post #444: "I suppose if they had a God that was bigger than mine is already I might be interested in learning more. I don't want to bother with any idea of God that's less."
  
  
• Post #685: "I personally compare them to the God I currently worship to decide these kind of things. If the other god is less, then I keep what I have. If it's the same, there is not conflict. If it is more, then probably God is bigger than I thought."

To make an honest comparison of size, with any objectivity, one needs a scale for making the measurements, a scale that produces the same results when measured by other people. When asked to clarify your comments by explaining your objective method, or to acknowledge that you have no such method, you ignored the question (or dishonestly stated that you had answered). And you are doing it again in this thread with my questions, Mobyseven's, and Belz's, among others. Your ignorance (ignoring the relevant concerns) seems to demonstrate a lack of courage, a lack of sincerity in your faith.

Wrong - I was asked about how I determine literal and metaphorical NOT truth from crap. And then I did give some methods one could use. You don't have to, or you can come up with your own.

Nope. Wrong, again. (Oh, and your slithery little game of balking at semantics rather than addressing the issue, your dishonesty, is transparent.) The concern was with your objectivity in sorting truth from crap, literal from metaphorical, valid from invalid, fiction from fact, historical from mythological, etc. Either you do have an objective method for making your comparisons, or you do not. You were asked to explain how you objectively sort the pieces and parts of your Bible, or to admit that you are not objective about it. For some reason you can't simply and honestly do either.

Anyway, this tangent doesn't seem to be speaking to the original issue of the thread, but perhaps it is in a way. It demonstrates that at least one theist, ACS, although he obviously wants to consider himself a skeptic, certainly is not one.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

It sounds like all theists are saying that they get their morals from a higher source--but they are clearly doing what you are doing--cherry picking their "morals" from what they want to be true in the whatever book or translation or religion they've been inculcated with.

The irony in that is that these morals from a "higher source" are simply morals from "less scientifically advanced" hominids from two (or more) millennia ago.

Apprantely, those morals are superior to modern day morals.

 

[Mobyseven]

It appears your really asking about factual - how do you determine which parts are factual. Is this correct?

Yes. That is the question I would like you to answer now.

I don't really think I can adequately answer until I understand what you are meaning by literal. Because it is sounding like you are wanting to know what I take as historical or something. That's a bit different then something being simply literal. Jesus said many things and (regardless of if it was historically factual whether He said the words in that exact order) what he said could still be literal or metaphorical.

I want to know which parts of the bible you take literally - I'm not sure how much more clearly I can ask. What parts of the bible are meant literally, as opposed to being figurative or metaphorical?

 

[amb]

Sorry Belz, but I think it's impossible to DECIDE something without DECIDING.

You can DECIDE to believe what someone else tells you or you can check for yourself and then DECIDE. No matter what, you have to DECIDE. You could even DECIDE to not come to a conclusion just yet. (That's mainly what I end up doing. My commentary on the entire Bible would probably be to short for your tastes. Mainly it would be - STILL DECIDING)

Still deciding?
What is there to decide? After all the discussion here you're still deciding?

You cannot pick and choose which parts suit you, you either believe the whole shebang or you don't. You cannot take the middle ground as you appear to do when it comes to scripture inspired by God.
In other words, what you're saying is you don't trust the inspired word of God.?
I think your problem is you can't let go of you're precious bible even though you think it may be ''suspect'' and only suitable as an ancient book of literature. Nothing more.

Angelo

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Still deciding?
What is there to decide? After all the discussion here you're still deciding?

You cannot pick and choose which parts suit you, you either believe the whole shebang or you don't. You cannot take the middle ground as you appear to do when it comes to scripture inspired by God.
In other words, what you're saying is you don't trust the inspired word of God.?
I think your problem is you can't let go of you're precious bible even though you think it may be ''suspect'' and only suitable as an ancient book of literature. Nothing more.

Angelo

Hmmm .... very enlightening. Thanks.

 

[dglas]

It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

What?
This is a joke, right?
Is it possible that someone who wants to be considered a skeptic accepts limits on the scope of inquiry?

Sorry for being late to this, but when I saw that piece of fluffy nonsense....

To answer the initial question, if god is defined such that it does not admit of verification/refutation, then a skeptic MUST be agnostic, by definition, recognizing that the question is unresolvable in terms of empirical verification.


However, if a claim to knowledge is being made about a god or gods, then the skeptic is well within the scope of legitimate skeptical inquiry to challenge the claim to knowledge. It is not the definition of skeptic that then drives one to atheism, but the concept of faith that does as faith is an inflexible assertion of knowledge not subject to verification/refutation, an affirmation of the unconfirmable. This is really quite simple and shouldn't (one wouldn't expect it to) cause anyone any real mental strain unless they're desperately clutching at straws...

Skepticism is about claims to knowledge, by definition. Any claims to knowledge. Any. No special exceptions or exemptions. No puppy-dog eyes.

What advances we have made, in terms of human efficacy, have been made because we have chosen to refuse to limit the scope of inquiry. We are done with the sacred. It has consistently failed us, every step of the way. Worse, it has hobbled us, just as it is hobbling the thinking of modern day so-called skeptics seeking to undermine the simplest, most pivotal, defining concept at the heart of skepticism - the eschewing of certainty.

It is truly astonishing (though not surprising) the kinds of mental/emotional acrobatics undertaken by those who want to weasel out of inexorable conclusions just to prop up personal desires. Worse are those who allow the scope of their inquiry to be limited by delusions, however "cleverly" stipulated. Even more ridiculous, however, is the permitting of the redefinition of skepticism so that it allows for whole realms of nonsense no longer subject to scrutiny.

There is no faith-based limits to skeptical inquiry. The idea is simply absurd, incoherent, self-contradictory.

There is a rot near the heart of the JREF, and it is undermining integrities - such as they are...

But then, I'm an atheist, and the JREF is not an atheist organization. It is not merely neutral with regard to atheism/theism, it makes a special point of publicly declaring it is not an atheist organization. The rot eats away...

 

[articulett]

Fabulously written dglas... I agree.

I don't mind that JREF isn't an "atheist organization"... I think of skepticism as encompassing much more... we are not technically an "anti astrology" organization or an anti anything organization... However, since skepticism is the opposite of faith, I certainly don't find skeptics of faith being very skeptical in regards to whatever it is they have faith in. Sure, people can believe whatever they want... but there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason for believing in immaterial entities, and it's certainly something most skeptics would not be "proud" of. Nor should it get any special coddling from skeptics who lack the quirk.

 

[Henners]

Fabulously written dglas... I agree.

I don't mind that JREF isn't an "atheist organization"... I think of skepticism as encompassing much more... we are not technically an "anti astrology" organization or an anti anything organization... However, since skepticism is the opposite of faith, I certainly don't find skeptics of faith being very skeptical in regards to whatever it is they have faith in. Sure, people can believe whatever they want... but there doesn't seem to be a coherent reason for believing in immaterial entities, and it's certainly something most skeptics would not be "proud" of. Nor should it get any special coddling from skeptics who lack the quirk.

Atheist = anti?

Shurely shum mishtake.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But then, I'm an atheist, and the JREF is not an atheist organization. It is not merely neutral with regard to atheism/theism, it makes a special point of publicly declaring it is not an atheist organization. The rot eats away...

Stop misrepresenting the purpose behind my thread dglas. I thought only the Christers had a martyr complex.

 

[CFLarsen]

What?
This is a joke, right?
...
There is a rot near the heart of the JREF, and it is undermining integrities - such as they are...

But then, I'm an atheist, and the JREF is not an atheist organization. It is not merely neutral with regard to atheism/theism, it makes a special point of publicly declaring it is not an atheist organization. The rot eats away...

It's not particularly JREF. Look at what Shermer says:

There is today a burgeoning group of people calling themselves skeptics — scientists, engineers, physicians, lawyers, professors and teachers, and the intellectually curious from all walks of life — who conduct investigations, hold monthly meetings and annual conferences, and provide the media and general public with natural explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena.
...
It is also important to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions; they give usages. For a listener to understand a speaker, and for a reader to follow a writer, important words must be defined with semantic precision for communication to be successful. What I mean by skeptic is the second usage above: “One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry.” And by rational: “A statement of some fact employed as an argument to justify or condemn some act, prove or disprove some assertion, idea, or belief.” But these usages leave out one important component: the goal of reason and rationality. The ultimate end to thinking is to understand cause-and-effect relationships in the world around us. The goal is to know the universe, the world, and ourselves. Since rationality is the most reliable means of thinking, a rational skeptic may be defined as:

One who questions the validity of particular claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality.

In other words, skeptics are from Missouri — the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.”
Source

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:

Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think.
Discover Skepticism

Read both articles very carefully.

Do you understand why you are wrong?

 

[amb]

Sceptic according to a dictionary is as follows.
''Person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs.''

 

[Darat]

Sceptic according to a dictionary is as follows.
''Person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs.''

Which is a great little definition - what I've seen a lot of in this thread is people with a wide variety of beliefs wishing to add their beliefs to what it means to say "I'm a sceptic". So we see people wanting to attach their atheism/theism/deism/meism to the label "sceptic" and declaring all the rest non-true Scotsmen.

If you genuinely question things and use the best tools available to you to form your conclusions and that's a reiterative process then you are "a" skeptic because you are being skeptical. That does not mean you have to be able to support every single one of your opinions and beliefs with evidence and rationality - my preferences in reading material are not "skeptical", my liking for my pets is not "skeptical" but on the whole I, and most people who know me, would say that I am a sceptical person.


Personally I find it in the end to be futile exercise as I've never yet met anyone who can be can be defined by a simple label. ETA: And by the way that is what the JREF means by saying it is not an atheist organisation.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oy. Back to the OP again - and we'd come so far!

No, skeptics should not by definition be atheists. They should not by definition be opposed to astrology or bigfoot either. These things are not a part of the definition of skepticism.

 

[CFLarsen]

Skepticism is about claims to knowledge, by definition. Any claims to knowledge. Any. No special exceptions or exemptions. No puppy-dog eyes.
...
There is no faith-based limits to skeptical inquiry. The idea is simply absurd, incoherent, self-contradictory.

Let's test that, shall we?

Which political platform is the most rational?

Which presidential candidate should Americans vote for, because (s)he is the most rational?

 

[amb]

Oy. Back to the OP again - and we'd come so far!

No, skeptics should not by definition be atheists. They should not by definition be opposed to astrology or bigfoot either. These things are not a part of the definition of skepticism.

Agreed. Because you may be skeptical of UFOs, does not mean you doubt the existence of big foot, or Cinderella, or even little red riding hood.

 

[Darat]

Let's test that, shall we?

Which political platform is the most rational?

Which presidential candidate should Americans vote for, because (s)he is the most rational?

Cannot be answered without you setting your premises i.e. what you mean by "rational.

 

[articulett]

Atheist = anti?

Shurely shum mishtake.

People seem to hear it that way... it just means a lack of belief in gods... JREF isn't an a-astrologist or a-crystal healing organization but we don't have words for those terms. Yet most members, by virtue of skepticism (using tools such as Occam's razor) are in fact a-theists as well as a-astrologists.

I am aware that the meaning of "a" is not "anti"... and yet, when one lacks a belief in a god, they are perceived as being anti theism. I consider myself both... as well as agnostic-- I can't know if invisible undetectable entities exist-- and neither can anyone else though some seem certain that they "know" that they do via some subjective means. Moreover, they seem to "know" what this thing (or these things) wants and what it does or did and so forth. I am opposed to people proffering faith based notions as truths or even the notion that faith is a good way to "know" something. Faith is the opposite of skepticism... maybe "anti-skepticism" if you will.

It's not a-skeptic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stop misrepresenting the purpose behind my thread dglas. I thought only the Christers had a martyr complex.

A persecution complex would seem to include thinking a post in reply to someone else was really directed at you. Or did I miss something?