• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A most excellent commentary

Seconded. I'd like to hear more about Hal's religious views too. Perhaps he'll debate them here?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Seconded. I'd like to hear more about Hal's religious views too. Perhaps he'll debate them here?
Click to expand...
Probably a bad idea. As primary administrator for the forum, he mostly stays above the fray and I think that's wise.

Besides, we'd rip him to shreds. :p
 
For my part, let me say that Hal has expressed a concept that is difficult to express, namely, that one can be a skeptic without being an atheist. The flip side to that notion is that one may hold a religious faith without flushing one's reason down the toilet.
 
Brown said:
The flip side to that notion is that one may hold a religious faith without flushing one's reason down the toilet.
Click to expand...

That's something I found impossible during my religious period. I found my faith was always at odds with my reason, and that's why I abandoned it.

I think AP has a good point though - Hal needs to stay above the fray.
 
Brown said:
For my part, let me say that Hal has expressed a concept that is difficult to express, namely, that one can be a skeptic without being an atheist. The flip side to that notion is that one may hold a religious faith without flushing one's reason down the toilet.
Click to expand...

I personally dont believe someone can be a true skeptic, and still have religous beliefs. At what point do paranormal beliefs beceom religous beliefs? It still a fundamentally irrational belief. Ive heard people say they believe in astrology, in ghosts, in whatever, but they still consider themselves 'a skeptic'. Even someone that believes in most woo-woo things will be skeptically of somethings (unless they are totallly gulable). Therefore, I put people that say they are skeptics but believe in God into the same cateroy as people that say they are skeptics but believe in horoscopes etc.
 
"Therefore, I put people that say they are skeptics but believe in God into the same cateroy as people that say they are skeptics but believe in horoscopes etc."

I agree 100%. The religious merely aren't skeptical of their own claims.
 
Hal is not a lost cause

A Theist is nearly the opposite of an Atheist.
A Deist is nearly the same as an Atheist.

regards,
BillyJoe
 
Re: Hal is not a lost cause

BillyJoe said:
A Deist is nearly the same as an Atheist.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's really true, although some people certainly do equate deism with atheism.

Thomas Paine wrote "The Age of Reason: Part I" as an explanation of deism. It is a profoundly religious work, emphasizing the view that the Divine is best discovered through science and nature, rather than through revelation, miracle or mystery. Teddy Roosevelt, however, famously referred to Paine as a "filthy atheist."
 
Re: Re: Hal is not a lost cause

Brown said:

Thomas Paine wrote "The Age of Reason: Part I" as an explanation of deism. It is a profoundly religious work, emphasizing the view that the Divine is best discovered through science and nature, rather than through revelation, miracle or mystery. Teddy Roosevelt, however, famously referred to Paine as a "filthy atheist."
Click to expand...
Are there grounds for that viewpoint? I personally don't know anything about Payne's personal hygeine.
 
Re: Re: Hal is not a lost cause

Brown said:
I'm not sure that's really true, although some people certainly do equate deism with atheism.
Click to expand...
Well, after the big bang, they seem to be pretty well satisfied with each other. :)
 
It is quite possible to be an Atheist, without being a skepic.

I know lots of people that are only atheists for rebellious purposes, and have little care for the skeptical side of atheism
 
It is quite possible to be an Atheist, without being a skepic.

Yes, like ignorance.... never hearing of gods. Newborn babies are atheist.

I know lots of people that are only atheists for rebellious purposes, and have little care for the skeptical side of atheism

I thought we were talking about being skeptical and not being atheist. My skepticism includes being skeptical of god claims. Some feel that god is a "sacred cow".
 

Newborn babies are atheist.
Click to expand...


Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

Perhaps an atheist organization should expand its membership base in that case.

Sincerely,

S. H.
 
Military intelligence.

If one can be atheist, but not a sceptic, (which I would agree is possible), then is it possible to be sceptic , but not an atheist?

Clearly, yes in the case of a rational agnostic who does not accept the negative evidence as adequate.He is sceptical of the sceptics.
Clearly , yes, in the case of someone who neither knows, cares, nor wishes to waste time on the issue. It is not compulsory to hold an opinion on the existence of gods. One may be a Republican without thinking George W.Bush is a good president.

But what about the third case? To be a sceptic who believes in a god or gods?
This would seem inconsistent, but only if the existence of a god is seen as a testable hypothesis. If it is simply a matter of opinion, then how can there be a difficulty? I may be a sceptic and believe that Communism is an inherently more moral system than capitalism (I don't). I may believe that milk chocolate is better than plain. Does this invalidate my views on flying saucers?
If so, how?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:


Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

Perhaps an atheist organization should expand its membership base in that case.

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]
Click to expand...

Your feeble attempt at wit is noted.

Atheist organizations are just that, clubs which happen to have atheists as members.

While newborn babies are atheist, they do not have the capacity to actively join a club. No, including unwilling members into their clubs is a church tactic, not an atheist one.
 
Soapy Sam said:

But what about the third case? To be a sceptic who believes in a god or gods?
This would seem inconsistent, but only if the existence of a god is seen as a testable hypothesis.

There is an equivocation fallacy being performed here. Skepticism does not involve, or have anything to do with "testable hypothesis." In fact, many of these things we are skeptical of are untestable and unfalsifiable. This is why we are skeptical about them. God is just another paranormal claim, another ghost story, another myth. If one is to be consistent, and call themselves "true skeptic", they must recognize that gods are just more paranormal claims.

If it is simply a matter of opinion, then how can there be a difficulty?

It's not a matter of opinion, the claim that there is a god is a claim about the nature of the universe.. it is a scientific claim, it is a claim that cannot be validated. It is a claim of supernatural occurance.

I may be a sceptic and believe that Communism is an inherently more moral system than capitalism (I don't). I may believe that milk chocolate is better than plain. Does this invalidate my views on flying saucers?
If so, how?

You are comparing value judgements to paranormal claims. Claims of gods are not the same as opinions of your favorite color. You are attempting to place god on a plane of being a value-judgement, when it really IS just another flying saucer type of claim.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom