Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely incorrect. a skeptic would be agnostic. People of the scientific persuasionare always quick to ask "give me prooof that there is a god?". Any question asking for proof of a god would have to base their question on disproving or proving a god based on a mainstream religion, but it is impossible to prove if any conceivable god does or does not exist. I blush for both Atheists, who are just as deluded in there belief, and relgious types equally.
 
Danai said:
Absolutely incorrect. a skeptic would be agnostic. People of the scientific persuasionare always quick to ask "give me prooof that there is a god?". Any question asking for proof of a god would have to base their question on disproving or proving a god based on a mainstream religion, but it is impossible to prove if any conceivable god does or does not exist. I blush for both Atheists, who are just as deluded in there belief, and relgious types equally.
Click to expand...

You haven't been following the thread, have you ?

There is no evidence that any God exists. It is therefore safe to assume that none exists. Agnosticism and atheism are both reasonable assumptions.
 
Danai said:
Absolutely incorrect. a skeptic would be agnostic. People of the scientific persuasionare always quick to ask "give me prooof that there is a god?". Any question asking for proof of a god would have to base their question on disproving or proving a god based on a mainstream religion, but it is impossible to prove if any conceivable god does or does not exist. I blush for both Atheists, who are just as deluded in there belief, and relgious types equally.
Click to expand...

Do you blush for a-fairyists, a-astrologists, and those who don't believe in demons too?

Do you blush for those that don't understand that theism and gnostism are not part of the same spectrum? How about those who think agnosticism is some middle ground between theism and atheism?
 
Danai said:
Absolutely incorrect. a skeptic would be agnostic. People of the scientific persuasionare always quick to ask "give me prooof that there is a god?". Any question asking for proof of a god would have to base their question on disproving or proving a god based on a mainstream religion, but it is impossible to prove if any conceivable god does or does not exist. I blush for both Atheists, who are just as deluded in there belief, and relgious types equally.
Click to expand...

You haven't paid even the slightest bit of attention to anything that's been said, have you?

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. There is no middle ground between theism and atheism - if you do not believe in god, you are an atheist. That's the damn definition. Agnosticism relates not to god, but to knowledge - it is the opposite of gnosticism. One can be a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. One cannot simply be 'agnostic' - it is a nonsense term when used colloquially, as it describes a position that does not actually exist.
 
Exactly, yet I have talked to people who are skeptical about most things supernatural, yet still believe there may be a god up there. Point out the contradiction, and most times, they simply cannot accept that the universe has no need of a designer.

Sorry, this is meant for mobyseven.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
No, and I still don't understand what he meant by that.
Click to expand...

Nothing sinister, just that I'm under the impression from reading (and enjoying) many of Articuletts posts that she is a strong feminist. If I am wrong, fine, I don't have any desire to start digging up quotes.
 
Marcus said:
Nothing sinister, just that I'm under the impression from reading (and enjoying) many of Articuletts posts that she is a strong feminist. If I am wrong, fine, I don't have any desire to start digging up quotes.
Click to expand...
Whether Articullet has ever burned her bra is of no concern to us.
As long as she posts as she has always done, and will not suffer fools lightly. Her posts are never dull, and always makes sense. What more can she do?
 
ambnp said:
Exactly, yet I have talked to people who are skeptical about most things supernatural, yet still believe there may be a god up there. Point out the contradiction, and most times, they simply cannot accept that the universe has no need of a designer.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Two words: Special pleading. Never were they more appropriate.
 
skeptigirl said:
Yes (to the OP question)

I know it is not the view of everyone, especially since it doesn't help convert the non-skeptics, but I see no rational way to put one set of god beliefs in a special category.
Click to expand...

I'd like to ask you about this.

What role do you think non-atheists have at TAM? Do you think that non-atheists should attend TAM at all?

If so, for what purpose? To mock them for not being skeptics? To be converted?

If not, how is that not having a conference where only people of a certain (non)belief are welcome?
 
What you talk of is the english translation of "a gnosis" from latin, which does mean "without knowledge", but has come to also mean the philoshophical standpoint. Its meaning today is not entirely literal.


Well agnostism, to me, is the position that the question is unanswerable, you dont have to favour either side by adding theism or athesm. I have the general feeling that something is up there, but we will never know, but the fact that i beleive there is something beyond this life, does not make me an agnostic theist, because i dont beleive such a god to of any theism. I dont reject thiesm, i dont reject atheism, my beleive is that each side can be equally humane, and equally threatening, and that we will never know the answer. if that rules out theism and atheism, what is left but agnosticism.
 
Last edited:
Right, but there is only one truth. Either there is "something up there" (whatever that means) or there isn't. And so far there is no objective evidence to say there is. However many of those who think there is-- are certain that they know the nature of that something and what he (it's usually a he) wants and thinks and did and does. That's disturbing... especially when they think he knows how I should be. There's something very arrogant about those telling me how I should be because the invisible creator of the universe said so-- they've elevated their banal opinion to a level of magical importance while blinding themselves to my equally valid opinion of them and their god.

Big deal... you think there is something up there... so does every believer... and some are pretty darn certain they're talking to him --and since you believe in such thing you have no reason to assert that they are not talking to him... since he appears to communicate in ways that are "undetectable" to outside observers.

I don't believe in any divine truths, and so anyone claiming to talk to an invisible entity is delusional until there is evidence to show such an entity can exist.
 
Last edited:
Danai said:
What you talk of is the english translation of "a gnosis" from latin, which does mean "without knowledge", but has come to also mean the philoshophical standpoint. Its meaning today is not entirely literal.


Well agnostism, to me, is the position that the question is unanswerable, you dont have to favour either side by adding theism or athesm. I have the general feeling that something is up there, but we will never know, but the fact that i beleive there is something beyond this life, does not make me an agnostic theist, because i dont beleive such a god to of any theism. I dont reject thiesm, i dont reject atheism, my beleive is that each side can be equally humane, and equally threatening, and that we will never know the answer. if that rules out theism and atheism, what is left but agnosticism.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm talking about is the actual meaning of words as they are used in philosophy. Agnosticism is not the position that the question is unanswerable - it may be the position that the question can never be answered, but it also may be the position that we don't yet know the answer.

The problem with 'agnosticism' as it is used commonly (and incorrectly) is that it is a nonsense position. A position of non-belief is not a position one has to actively maintain, whereas a position of belief is one that must be actively maintained. 'Agnosticism' as it is used commonly as some middle ground is nonsense - it is the assertion ~p & ~~p ("I don't believe in god, but I don't not believe in god."), which is a logical contradiction.

It is a very simply dichotomy, and not a false dichotomy: If you believe in god, you are a theist. If you do not believe in god, you are an atheist. You do not have to assert atheism to be an atheist - you simply have to lack a belief in god.

The test for atheism is very simple. If you cannot truthfully assert, "I believe in god," then you are an atheist.
 
CFLarsen said:
I'd like to ask you about this.

What role do you think non-atheists have at TAM? Do you think that non-atheists should attend TAM at all?

If so, for what purpose? To mock them for not being skeptics? To be converted?

If not, how is that not having a conference where only people of a certain (non)belief are welcome?
Click to expand...
Ever been to a physic convention? Where the place is full of mediums, astrologers, fortune telling, UFO nutters and contactees, OOBErs, crystals, aromatherapy, and many other weirdos. Most of these people look the part, their spaced out man. Men as well as women, you can smell the marijuana as soon as you walk into wherever it's held. I along with a friend who half believes these weirdos could not believe the naivety of the public attending these places. I knew it was time for me to scatter when the 'friend' started a conversation with a person who claimed she was abducted aboard a spaceship from some planet in the constellation of Sagittarius.
The point is I went along for a laugh. A theist would probabley attend TAM to try and convert some unfortunate person who is unlucky enough to cop a bible bashing. :)
 
Most religions lay out a set of precepts-things people have to do, and claim that these insrtuctions were given by a god or gods. For example Hammurabi of Babylon, in the second mille. bc, was handed to him by the god Marduk, or at lest so he said, a code of law. That he was successful, is because he claimed it as a revelation of a god. Had he said, this is what I believe we ought to do he would not have been as successful even though he was king of Babylon. Saying God says you should do this made all the difference.
Is it not likely that in earlier times, in less sophisticated circumstances, those who wished to impose a certain set of behavioural tenets claimed that they had been handed them by a god or gods?
 
I imagine non atheists have the same interests in going to TAM as everyone else who is there... in fact, unless they tell people that they are theists, how would we know or why would we care what they believe. Why would it be relevant to TAM? Is Claus inferring that we should treat some supernatural beliefs differently than others?

Certainly those who believe in astrology are welcome at TAM too... but if they proffer their woo as truths, they'll be prodded and probed and mocked... As long as you don't expect to have your beliefs respected just because they're "true for you" anymore than your love of Opera should be respected... I can't imagine it would be a problem!

The problem comes when believers want their own "personal truths" treated as objective truths or something worthy of special respect without providing evidence as to why that should be so. Plenty of believers of different sorts apparently attend TAM... if they feel like their beliefs aren't respected, maybe it's time for them to ask themselves whether their beliefs are respect worthy? If they are true, does it matter if we find them wooish? If they aren't true, might it not be a good thing to examine why they are so attached to such beliefs... Should some woo get special treatment because "god" is attached?

What harm comes from being incredulous towards supposed divine knowledge or claims of supernatural powers? If it's true, it should be able to withstand scrutiny, and if it's not, it is dishonest to protect it from investigation, isn't it?

My lack of belief or opinion about skepticism should have no bearing on someone else's comfort level with their belief-- unless that belief is in danger. My opinion should not affect someone else's "role" in regards to TAM, and if it does, it might be a fabulous idea for them to ask themselves why. Sure, nobody likes to feel like a woo-- especially woos. But it's not my job to prop up delusions because they make other people feel good. And if they aren't delusions, then my thinking they are should have no affect on reality. I can't make god disappear by not believing in one. I can't make myself believe in something for which there is no evidence at all. I can admire and respect people without respecting the supernatural things they believe in. It would behoove people of faith to separate critics of their beliefs from criticism of them. And it would do all skeptics good to learn to separate opinions from facts and preferences from judgments... and to learn how the mind misperceives in the process of perceiving and interpreting reality.

I don't find theists as a group particularly welcoming to atheists, and I resent being expect to provide an especially warm welcome to them because they've managed to believe in some higher power or magical mystery. I have never received deference or respect for my inability to make sense of their assorted nebulous beliefs--just scorn, judgment, contempt, pity, and accusations of arrogance. I presume most skeptics are non believers unless they make an issue of it. In my real world most people seem to presume I believe in whatever magic they believe in and readily vilify me should they find out I don't. I am giddy to find myself amongst a more sensible crowd at TAM. I don't require anyone to be like me-- but I feel damn glad not to have to defer to "belief in belief"-- faith.

If a theist is upset or bothered by my viewpoints it's up to them to explain to me why. Neither I nor they need a vigilante go-between--especially one who puts words in my mouth and whom many find as more off-putting than me. I don't determine peoples roles or comfort levels at TAM and I don't proselytize nor demand that people not believe in god. I just attend like everyone else and enjoy the majority of people there immensely.

I think that believers are as welcome at TAM as I, a non believer am welcome at other educational conventions. I would imagine it's irrelevant unless someone makes their belief an issue... the same as my lack of belief is seldom an issue. TAM is the one place where the tables are turned and the faithful aren't catered to in the way that they've come to expect-- it's good for them to see how minorities feel on occasion.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
I imagine non atheists have the same interests in going to TAM as everyone else who is there... in fact, unless they tell people that they are theists, how would we know or why would we care what they believe. Why would it be relevant to TAM? Is Claus inferring that we should treat some supernatural beliefs differently than others?
Click to expand...

It is relevant because you and skeptigirl has argued that skeptics must be atheists - otherwise, they are not skeptics.

articulett said:
Certainly those who believe in astrology are welcome at TAM too... but if they proffer their woo as truths, they'll be prodded and probed and mocked... As long as you don't expect to have your beliefs respected just because they're "true for you" anymore than your love of Opera should be respected... I can't imagine it would be a problem!

The problem comes when believers want their own "personal truths" treated as objective truths or something worthy of special respect without providing evidence as to why that should be so. Plenty of believers of different sorts apparently attend TAM... if they feel like their beliefs aren't respected, maybe it's time for them to ask themselves whether their beliefs are respect worthy? If they are true, does it matter if we find them wooish? If they aren't true, might it not be a good thing to examine why they are so attached to such beliefs... Should some woo get special treatment because "god" is attached?

What harm comes from being incredulous towards supposed divine knowledge or claims of supernatural powers? If it's true, it should be able to withstand scrutiny, and if it's not, it is dishonest to protect it from investigation, isn't it?

My lack of belief or opinion about skepticism should have no bearing on someone else's comfort level with their belief-- unless that belief is in danger. My opinion should not affect someone else's "role" in regards to TAM, and if it does, it might be a fabulous idea for them to ask themselves why. Sure, nobody likes to feel like a woo-- especially woos. But it's not my job to prop up delusions because they make other people feel good. And if they aren't delusions, then my thinking they are should have no affect on reality. I can't make god disappear by not believing in one. I can't make myself believe in something for which there is no evidence at all. I can admire and respect people without respecting the supernatural things they believe in. It would behoove people of faith to separate critics of their beliefs from criticism of them. And it would do all skeptics good to learn to separate opinions from facts and preferences from judgments... and to learn how the mind misperceives in the process of perceiving and interpreting reality.

I don't find theists as a group particularly welcoming to atheists, and I resent being expect to provide an especially warm welcome to them because they've managed to believe in some higher power or magical mystery. I have never received deference or respect for my inability to make sense of their assorted nebulous beliefs--just scorn, judgment, contempt, pity, and accusations of arrogance. I presume most skeptics are non believers unless they make an issue of it. In my real world most people seem to presume I believe in whatever magic they believe in and readily vilify me should they find out I don't. I am giddy to find myself amongst a more sensible crowd at TAM. I don't require anyone to be like me-- but I feel damn glad not to have to defer to "belief in belief"-- faith.

If a theist is upset or bothered by my viewpoints it's up to them to explain to me why. Neither I nor they need a vigilante go-between--especially one who puts words in my mouth and whom many find as more off-putting than me. I don't determine peoples roles or comfort levels at TAM and I don't proselytize nor demand that people not believe in god. I just attend like everyone else and enjoy the majority of people there immensely.
Click to expand...

A long rant about what wasn't asked. Nobody is asking you to defer to anything at TAM.

articulett said:
I think that believers are as welcome at TAM as I, a non believer am welcome at other educational conventions. I would imagine it's irrelevant unless someone makes their belief an issue... the same as my lack of belief is seldom an issue. TAM is the one place where the tables are turned and the faithful aren't catered to in the way that they've come to expect-- it's good for them to see how minorities feel on occasion.
Click to expand...

Although you didn't answer the question, we did learn something: At TAM, you are going to treat non-atheists the way you feel you have been treated by non-atheists elsewhere.

TAM will be even more interesting than usual.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom