Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Bob Blaylock]

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

If people apply that definition to skepticism, it seems impossible to truthfully come to any true belief in any god(s) since doing that would violate what being a skeptic is, because if they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion that any god(s) exist.

Any thoughts?

I'm a latecomer to this thread, and I confess to not having taken the time to read much beyond the original post. I hope you'll excuse me if any or all of my points have already been made.

I regard myself as a fairly skeptical individual, and I would define skepticism as an unwillingness to blindly accept anything as truth until given good reason to believe that it is true. I think most of you would agree with me so far on this definition, would you not?

However, lack of proof that something is true is never proof that it is false.

We may not have proof that there is a God, but we also do not have proof that there is not. It seems to me, that lacking any solid evidence of some form, the only rational position for a skeptic to take would be that of an agnostic, not atheist.

Now, as it happens, I am not an atheist nor an agnostic. And here is where I am sure I part company with most of you. It seems that most of you will only acknowledge hard science as proof that anything is true or false.

There are experiences that I have had that convince me of the existence of a God, of his influence in my life, and of the truth of a particular set of beliefs and practices regarding him, and of the correctness of a religious organization based n this set of beliefs and practices. These experiences are not scientific or logical in nature, and I do not believe that there is any way that I can usefully describe or express them to others, especially to skeptics of the sort that I think most of you to be. Nevertheless, though I also consider myself to be very scientifically-inclined, these experiences to me are no less real than the hardest of scientific evidence; and I cannot deny what these experiences have shown me.

As a result of these experiences, I know that there is a God. Without these experiences, I would be an agnostic. I could never be an atheist because I cannot know what there may or may not be beyond what I am able to observe. If there is a God, he may or may not choose to make his existence known to any of us; as he has certainly done with me. If there were no God, there would be know way for any of us to know for certain that there was no God; for all any could know, he might simply not be choosing to make his existence known.

 

[amb]

Bob. I bet you were brought up in a christian family. God thoughts were ingrained in your young mind. I don't blame you for your beliefs. There is still a lot of the world around us that science has as YET no answer for, that may explain your experiences. But remember that what is not yet discovered, will be so sooner or later and the gap that your god is now living in, will in future shrink even further.

 

[articulett]

Bob,

Are you agnostic about demons? Astrological influences? Xenu? We can't prove them false either.

If something is true and it exists... it's usually pretty easy to prove it. All woo beliefs... including the ones you don't share are built on exactly the kind of "evidence" you use to believe in your god.

Sure it doesn't make your god untrue... but the same argument goes for demons and psychic powers and conspiracy theories and homeopathy. All woo believers use the notion that if science can't explain something or disprove something, then their woo must be true. It's no more true for god than it is for Thetans... really.

Are you agnostic about whether we are in a matrix? We can never know for sure... it's not falsifiable. But there is no reason to assume that anything is true or that something exists... until there is evidence to justify such a position... and not the kind of evidence that any woo or delusional person or average person using confirmation bias would use.

There is no evidence that any kind of consciousness CAN exist without a brain. Sure, we can't know for certain that one cannot. But until there is evidence actual evidence that consciousness can exist without a material brain, I don't "believe in" such things--not gods or souls or ghosts or demons or thetans or psychic powers or prophets or gurus or divine truths or angels or Xenu. None of them. They are all built on the premise that consciousness can exist absent a brain and nobody over the eons has come up with any measurable, replicable evidence as to how this can be so. To believe it is so without such evidence is not skeptical... and it is the premise of every religion. The logical fallacy every woo makes is to accept such premises as true and then fill in their beliefs with "signs" that this is so.

Yes, many nontheists consider themselves skeptical. Most people probably do. But most people who identify themselves as skeptics are skeptical of god claims as well us others built on similar shaky foundations. They are as skeptical of gods as they are of demons... as they are of fairies... They don't use invisible forms of consciousness for explanations for anything... they'd rather not know an answer (agnosticism) than believe a lie. But agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. Most atheists are agnostics as well. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god... just like you lack a belief in Zeus.... agnosticism is the position that we can never know for sure because god or other invisible entities could always be playing tricks so that we can't detect them in any way. This is true. But it doesn't make god more likely than demons. It doesn't make some version of some god more likely to exist than no god.

 

[NonCleverName]

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

Because gods/goddesses are primitive interpretations of reality. Why hold on to the belief in deities when it's known they are man-made? Give me one good reason to believe that there is even a slight chance that Zeus, Jehovah, or Vishnu exists.

 

[NonCleverName]

However, lack of proof that something is true is never proof that it is false.

There is lack of proof of all professed gods/goddesses. Are you agonstic about other gods?

We may not have proof that there is a God, but we also do not have proof that there is not. It seems to me, that lacking any solid evidence of some form, the only rational position for a skeptic to take would be that of an agnostic, not atheist.

Now, as it happens, I am not an atheist nor an agnostic. And here is where I am sure I part company with most of you. It seems that most of you will only acknowledge hard science as proof that anything is true or false.

There are experiences that I have had that convince me of the existence of a God, of his influence in my life, and of the truth of a particular set of beliefs and practices regarding him, and of the correctness of a religious organization based n this set of beliefs and practices. These experiences are not scientific or logical in nature, and I do not believe that there is any way that I can usefully describe or express them to others, especially to skeptics of the sort that I think most of you to be. Nevertheless, though I also consider myself to be very scientifically-inclined, these experiences to me are no less real than the hardest of scientific evidence; and I cannot deny what these experiences have shown me.

As a result of these experiences, I know that there is a God. Without these experiences, I would be an agnostic. I could never be an atheist because I cannot know what there may or may not be beyond what I am able to observe. If there is a God, he may or may not choose to make his existence known to any of us; as he has certainly done with me. If there were no God, there would be know way for any of us to know for certain that there was no God; for all any could know, he might simply not be choosing to make his existence known.

What do you make of the stories of experiences people have had from Indian and Muslim cultures? Do you believe them to be false?

Exactly what was this experience you had that caused you to believe in a god? What god do you believe in?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bob,

Are you agnostic about demons? Astrological influences? Xenu? We can't prove them false either.

If something is true and it exists... it's usually pretty easy to prove it. All woo beliefs... including the ones you don't share are built on exactly the kind of "evidence" you use to believe in your god.

Sure it doesn't make your god untrue... but the same argument goes for demons and psychic powers and conspiracy theories and homeopathy. All woo believers use the notion that if science can't explain something or disprove something, then their woo must be true. It's no more true for god than it is for Thetans... really.

Are you agnostic about whether we are in a matrix? We can never know for sure... it's not falsifiable. But there is no reason to assume that anything is true or that something exists... until there is evidence to justify such a position... and not the kind of evidence that any woo or delusional person or average person using confirmation bias would use.

There is no evidence that any kind of consciousness CAN exist without a brain. Sure, we can't know for certain that one cannot. But until there is evidence actual evidence that consciousness can exist without a material brain, I don't "believe in" such things--not gods or souls or ghosts or demons or thetans or psychic powers or prophets or gurus or divine truths or angels or Xenu. None of them. They are all built on the premise that consciousness can exist absent a brain and nobody over the eons has come up with any measurable, replicable evidence as to how this can be so. To believe it is so without such evidence is not skeptical... and it is the premise of every religion. The logical fallacy every woo makes is to accept such premises as true and then fill in their beliefs with "signs" that this is so.

Yes, many nontheists consider themselves skeptical. Most people probably do. But most people who identify themselves as skeptics are skeptical of god claims as well us others built on similar shaky foundations. They are as skeptical of gods as they are of demons... as they are of fairies... They don't use invisible forms of consciousness for explanations for anything... they'd rather not know an answer (agnosticism) than believe a lie. But agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. Most atheists are agnostics as well. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god... just like you lack a belief in Zeus.... agnosticism is the position that we can never know for sure because god or other invisible entities could always be playing tricks so that we can't detect them in any way. This is true. But it doesn't make god more likely than demons. It doesn't make some version of some god more likely to exist than no god.

Not so long now.

 

[amb]

All supernatural beliefs are at best built on very shaky foundations. Thruout human history, not one supernatural event can be proved beyond any doubt that it took place in real time and space. Every claim otherwise has been proved a hoax, mistaken observation of a phenomenon of nature or just wish fulfilment. The wounds of Christ are a perfect example. Not one stigmata when looked at with scientific and open minds has been prove reliable. Most have faked it, one or two have had such strong religious faith that they have caused the phenomenon themselves by sheer mind power.
what gives it away is the way palm wounds are described. Any person with a slight knowledge of medical biology will tell you that a nail through the palm will not hold the weight of a human body, it would soon rip through the flesh. The nail in Crucifixions was nailed through the wrist, not the palm, yet all stigmatics have the wound in the palm.

 

[articulett]

I don't even believe that anyone created stigmata through sheer mind power.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't even believe that anyone created stigmata through sheer mind power.

Why not?

 

[amb]

I've read of such a case or two long ago. My memory of the event is very hazy. But I seem to recall that a young girl in her teens in the southern part of Italy [where else]
Used to get the wounds of christ in her hands, forehead and feet including the wound to her side where the spear was supposed to have pierced christ. Just as described in the gospels, a dead give away. The local doctors could not explain this phenomenon except that her beliefs must have been so strong as to cause these wounds to appear through sheer will power alone. I also think she more than likely caused these wounds herself while no one was looking.

 

[articulett]

Yeah... I bet she could "will" her stigmata when being tested for the MDC. There are some abrasive agents people use and then they keep the wounds open...

Just because doctors don't know how it was done doesn't mean she "willed" it any more than it means it's a miracle from god.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah... I bet she could "will" her stigmata when being tested for the MDC. There are some abrasive agents people use and then they keep the wounds open...

Just because doctors don't know how it was done doesn't mean she "willed" it any more than it means it's a miracle from god.

Stigmata aren't just open wounds:

Stigmata are bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus.
...
Some stigmatics feel the pain of wounds with no external marks; these are referred to as invisible stigmata.
Source

Do your homework.

 

[amb]

The brain is still not fully understood. That's it capable of curing an inoperable cancer that will kill the patient, has been proven in more than one case where the patient has gone into complete remmission by meditation alone.

 

[Rasmus]

The brain is still not fully understood. That's it capable of curing an inoperable cancer that will kill the patient, has been proven in more than one case where the patient has gone into complete remmission by meditation alone.

How did they prove that the meditation caused the remission?

 

[articulett]

See that's the problem... sometimes cancer will go into remission for unknown reasons... some cancers frequently go into remission... people attribute the remission to whatever they believe caused it.... just as lottery winners will believe they won the lottery because they prayed to god or had good karma or wore their lucky socks or didn't step on a crack...

If people who meditate were more likely to go into remission than people who prayed or people who used homeopathy, then you could say it was more than a placebo effect or that the meditation willed the cancer away... but it doesn't mean it is so... it just makes people for whom it doesn't work feel like they didn't meditate right or pray hard enough or do the right mix of mumbo jumbo...

I don't believe that meditation can cause remission. I know that expectations of being healed (the placebo effect) can enhance curing of many illnesses... but I don't think cancer is one one of them.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

what gives it away is the way palm wounds are described. Any person with a slight knowledge of medical biology will tell you that a nail through the palm will not hold the weight of a human body, it would soon rip through the flesh. The nail in Crucifixions was nailed through the wrist, not the palm, yet all stigmatics have the wound in the palm.

Some instances have shown that the ankle spikes, glute perch, and even some rope support could have allowed the palms to be used.

However, yes, the cases seem to simply follow traditional iconography.
Interestingly, when the crucified jr depiction became popular in the 1400's, stigmatas suddenly appeared.

If Barbet is correct, that about 88 lbs. will tear through the hands, it is possible that individuals up to 225 lbs. (by extrapolation), can be nailed through the palms with the upright without tearing through if both feet are secured to the stipes either directly or with one foot on top of the other. I am, however, quite skeptical with Barbet’s experiment because amputations of arms are exceedingly rare and are primarily reserved for instances of gangrene due to obstruction of the vascular supply by disease or from severe traumatic circumstances. In such cases, the ischemic tissues would offer less resistance than normal tissues and should tear through the hands at a lower force than through the normal tissues. If this assumption is true, then individuals even in excess of 225 lbs. could be nailed through the palms without tearing through.

The presence of the wound image in the wrist area on the Shroud should not be used to support authenticity using the argument that the palms could not support the weight of the body, per se because crucifixions were performed in many different ways ( 8 ). According to Blinzler ( 3 ) and Hewitt

( 7 ) and quoted by Hengel in his scholarly book on crucifixion ( 6 ) it was the rule in Roman times to nail the victim both by the hands and feet. This was done through the palms, with and without rope supports, through the wrists, through the forearm between the radius and ulna bones, by ropes alone [ this was the exception according to Fulda ( 4 ) as quoted by Hengel ( 6 ) ] and in unintended regions of the hand if there is intensive struggling.

http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/ex...n_crucifix.htm

 

[amb]

How did they prove that the meditation caused the remission?

What else? Certainly not praying! And subjects did not try anything else.
The cases I heard about the patient was an atheist in one case, and non-religious in another. Whether they prayed secretly is a another matter.
But I strongly doubt it.

 

[amb]

See that's the problem... sometimes cancer will go into remission for unknown reasons... some cancers frequently go into remission... people attribute the remission to whatever they believe caused it.... just as lottery winners will believe they won the lottery because they prayed to god or had good karma or wore their lucky socks or didn't step on a crack...

If people who meditate were more likely to go into remission than people who prayed or people who used homeopathy, then you could say it was more than a placebo effect or that the meditation willed the cancer away... but it doesn't mean it is so... it just makes people for whom it doesn't work feel like they didn't meditate right or pray hard enough or do the right mix of mumbo jumbo...

I don't believe that meditation can cause remission. I know that expectations of being healed (the placebo effect) can enhance curing of many illnesses... but I don't think cancer is one one of them.

But that's exactly my point. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool.
How often when drug companies are testing a new drug the patients receiving a sugar tablet or whatever, sometimes up to 30% claim their medication has helped. So before a new medication is released, the results have to be above 70% beneficial.

 

[articulett]

But that's exactly my point. The placebo effect is a very powerful tool.
How often when drug companies are testing a new drug the patients receiving a sugar tablet or whatever, sometimes up to 30% claim their medication has helped. So before a new medication is released, the results have to be above 70% beneficial.

no...double blind tests would have to show that the drug is more affective than the placebo.... and then you'd subtract the difference to show what could be attributed to the drug... the adverse affects would be subject to a similar analysis. That's how we tease out what can be due to the placebo, chance, and everything that has nothing to do with the drug.

The placebo effect and psychology is pretty powerful. I doubt it's powerful enough to create "stigmata" and would be skeptical of any claims where someone suggested it was so. We see the placebo affect when we compare the placebo group to a control group of similar patients who had no treatment at all.

 

[Rasmus]

What else?

Ah, but you made the claim. So it is your job to show that it couldn't have been something else. Not mine.

Articulett's post on control groups should give you a hint. It is not enough - no, it's not only "not enough", it's simply nothing to point at a few people who meditated and got better.

What you will have to do is show at lots and lots and lots of people who did meditate and just as many people who didn't meditate. And then you need to show that those who meditated got better sooner, for longer or more often than those who didn't.

Certainly not praying! And subjects did not try anything else.

See above.

They didn't try anything else? So the whole time, they weren't eating, breathing, walking, moving or taking showers?

The cases I heard about the patient was an atheist in one case, and non-religious in another.

You "heard" of all of two cases? Wow. That's just so impressing. And you think that in all the world one couldn't find people who got better without meditation? I would doubt that ...

Whether they prayed secretly is a another matter.
But I strongly doubt it.

It doesn't matter, seeing how you don't have a case to make.