Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

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

No, they haven't. Rather dishonest of you to be throwing out that old number when it's been pointed out to you and clarified a number of times that that is not the case, isn't it?

 

[amb]

The words atheist and agnostic have totally disparate origins. But I believe it's a question of guts. is it more socially acceptable to be an agnostic than an atheist. While the two philosophies overlap to a considerable degree, atheism, it seems represents a more specific and firmly held position than agnosticism, which, in current usage, can mean a hundred different things.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Articulet and other non-theists here articulates postion. I prefer the term rationalist to agnostic,although I am both,in that rationalists cannot be theists.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Heg griggs!

Where you been hanging?

Quit being a stranger.

 

[amb]

Articulet and other non-theists here articulates postion. I prefer the term rationalist to agnostic,although I am both,in that rationalists cannot be theists.

You really can't be an agnostic either, in reality. Rational thinking rules out the biblical god for ever. Agnostics are of the opinion that 'they just don't know'. you ask yourself, if this god is so powerful that he can create the whole shebang, then surely he could have left us a clue for his existence in nature. Not some questionable book claimed by some to BE his revelation to mankind. In other words; a god powerful enough to hide all credible evidence of his own existence doesn't sound credible.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.

You might want to explore parts of this forum you've apparently been avoiding because there are a number people who post here that your first sentence applies to.

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.

Spoken like someone who has never attended a TAM or knows what happens there.

 

[amb]

You might want to explore parts of this forum you've apparently been avoiding because there are a number people who post here that your first sentence applies to.

Spoken like someone who has never attended a TAM or knows what happens there.

No I never had the pleasure. If it's ever held here in W. Australia. I will be the first person in line. I won't hold my breath as this city is one of the most isolated on Earth.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ugh, you're not going to go into an interminable, self-congratulatory diatribe like that at TAM 6 when you tell Shermer, Plait and Bidlack they're wimpy (or woo in the latter case) are you? Let me know in advance so I can schedule a drink run when I see you amble up to the mic during Q&A sessions.

No, they haven't. Rather dishonest of you to be throwing out that old number when it's been pointed out to you and clarified a number of times that that is not the case, isn't it?

B.S. This thread would not have gone on as long as it has if it were not for people who insist that in order to be a TrueTM skeptic, one must be an atheist. A number of people including skeptigirl and arti have asserted it and there's even a quote I can dig up where arti claims that the user ID "A Christian Skeptic" sounds like an oxymoron.

So, no, it's not dishonest of Claus to be pointing out something that is well backed by the facts based on what the militant atheist Orthodoxy crowd have been posting here for the last few years now.

No I never had the pleasure. If it's ever held here in W. Australia. I will be the first person in line. I won't hold my breath as this city is one of the most isolated on Earth.

Interesting then that you'd make such bold and confident predictions about what occured/would occur at multiple gatherings that you have not only not attendeded, seem to have no knowledge of or would attend unless it were in your back yard then.

Are you psychic?

 

[volatile]

"A Christian Skeptic" sounds like an oxymoron.

It does sound like an oxymoron, and its hardly "militant" to point this out. In fact, I'd like to add my name to the list of people who confidently and unapologetically say that it is an oxymoron. Even though there has been lots of energy expended, not one single theist has explained why it isn't.

We're all waiting.

 

[Mobyseven]

B.S. This thread would not have gone on as long as it has if it were not for people who insist that in order to be a TrueTM skeptic, one must be an atheist. A number of people including skeptigirl and arti have asserted it and there's even a quote I can dig up where arti claims that the user ID "A Christian Skeptic" sounds like an oxymoron.

Begging the question - this thread has gone for a long time, but not because people are insisting that in order to be a skeptic one has to be an atheist. Indeed, it has primarily been dragged out this long because every few pages someone brings that up as though it is what is being argued, and once again we all have to state that that's not our position. Yeah, "A Christian Skeptic" sounds like an oxymoron. So what? Are we to go around basing the opinions of those who disagree with us on what they say and the arguments they put forward, or on a piece of uncertain descriptive writing?

My position (and it seems to be reasonably common in this thread) is that if one is a skeptic, they should be an atheist. It is not that if one is a skeptic they must be an atheist, or that theists cannot be skeptics.

So, no, it's not dishonest of Claus to be pointing out something that is well backed by the facts based on what the militant atheist Orthodoxy crowd have been posting here for the last few years now.

Oh, for Ed's sake. Take your 'militant atheist Orthodoxy' b.s. and feed it to someone who's gullible enough to eat it. I'm not going to let you label me with that nonsense. For someone who gets all high and bloody mighty when Arti calls you an apologist, you sure do like throwing labels around yourself.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I never had the pleasure. If it's ever held here in W. Australia. I will be the first person in line. I won't hold my breath as this city is one of the most isolated on Earth.

There are people at TAM from all sorts of odd, remote places on Earth. We also have scholarships to help people attend.

It does sound like an oxymoron, and its hardly "militant" to point this out. In fact, I'd like to add my name to the list of people who confidently and unapologetically say that it is an oxymoron. Even though there has been lots of energy expended, not one single theist has explained why it isn't.

We're all waiting.

Look no further.

You can meet the author at TAM.

 

[amb]

Ugh, you're not going to go into an interminable, self-congratulatory diatribe like that at TAM 6 when you tell Shermer, Plait and Bidlack they're wimpy (or woo in the latter case) are you? Let me know in advance so I can schedule a drink run when I see you amble up to the mic during Q&A sessions.



B.S. This thread would not have gone on as long as it has if it were not for people who insist that in order to be a TrueTM skeptic, one must be an atheist. A number of people including skeptigirl and arti have asserted it and there's even a quote I can dig up where arti claims that the user ID "A Christian Skeptic" sounds like an oxymoron.

So, no, it's not dishonest of Claus to be pointing out something that is well backed by the facts based on what the militant atheist Orthodoxy crowd have been posting here for the last few years now.



Interesting then that you'd make such bold and confident predictions about what occured/would occur at multiple gatherings that you have not only not attendeded, seem to have no knowledge of or would attend unless it were in your back yard then.

Are you psychic?

Yes, I predict rain in your locality in the next 1-3 months, followed by some fine weather, and a full moon. You will soon eat of a beast of burdon, You will laugh and you will be sad in the next couple of weeks. Keep away from black cats in the next couple of days. And your long dead great grandma sends her regards.

 

[amb]

You cannot be a christian and skeptic at the same time. If a person is truly a skeptic, he/she would read a bible with skeptical eyes, and remove all the magic, and all the contradictions. You would be left with absolutely zilch. Therefore, non belief.

 

[CFLarsen]

You cannot be a christian and skeptic at the same time. If a person is truly a skeptic, he/she would read a bible with skeptical eyes, and remove all the magic, and all the contradictions. You would be left with absolutely zilch. Therefore, non belief.

"Absolutely zilch"?

Have you read the Bible?

 

[Mobyseven]

You cannot be a christian and skeptic at the same time. If a person is truly a skeptic, he/she would read a bible with skeptical eyes, and remove all the magic, and all the contradictions. You would be left with absolutely zilch. Therefore, non belief.

Okay, ambnp is one of the rare ones who is claiming one cannot be a skeptic and a Christian. He ain't exactly representative though, even in this thread.

 

[amb]

"Absolutely zilch"?

Have you read the Bible?

Cover to cover. When I was just a little brat with too many questions for my local priest
to answer logically and truethfully.

 

[CFLarsen]

Cover to cover. When I was just a little brat with too many questions for my local priest
to answer logically and truethfully.

Can you please explain what is so magical with these:

• You shall not murder.
  
• You shall not commit adultery.
  
• You shall not steal.
  
• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

?

 

[amb]

I fail to understand how a person can claim skeptecism, yet believe the absurd fables and magic that's contained in our so-called revelations, written when mankind still had the diapers of primitive understanding about the world around him, the laws of nature were not understood, neither were the laws of gravity, physics, ect, ect. Hell, even thunder scared the **** out of him.
I stand by my statement; you can not truly be a dinky di skeptic and still believe the crappola you find in the ''bible''.

 

[amb]

Can you please explain what is so magical with these:

• You shall not murder.
  
• You shall not commit adultery.
  
• You shall not steal.
  
• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

?

Nothing magical at all. You surely don't believe that without the bible we would still be savages do you? They are common sense rules to live by. Civilization would not be possible without rules to live by of some kind.
Man learned the hard way that you do onto others, as you would them do unto you. There is no revelation required by some deity for that to happen.
It happened naturally.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nothing magical at all. You surely don't believe that without the bible we would still be savages do you? They are common sense rules to live by. Civilization would not be possible without rules to live by of some kind.
Man learned the hard way that you do onto others, as you would them do unto you. There is no revelation required by some deity for that to happen.
It happened naturally.

So, not "absolutely zilch", then.