Are all sceptics materialists?

[Minoosh]

Given the near-uncountable number of historical events and number of people associated with them, it is quite unremarkable that we find coincidental dates among a few of them.

Yes, but American events are special.

 

[Reality Check]

Like Western scientists.

You are confusing religion with science, TheAdversary.
Scientists (whether Western, Eastern, Christian, Islamic, etc.) use the evidence that has been collected for centuries ad create theories to explain that evidence. They have a track record of changing theories when new evidence is provided. That is not a fantasy about "dogmatists".

The many religions around the world generally start with oral myths about the world, put them in books and stick to the books as dogma regardless of evidence for or against what the books contain.

 

[Reality Check]

I've already posted this on what I think the scientific theory of Islam is. It was a delight to me that it turned out to be the Shahada

TheAdversary, the Shahada is an oath as you know, not a scientific theory.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is this really how you want your posts to look?

Alternative hypothesis: He's using a third-party text editor of some sort, that parses whether he wants to or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

wrong place

 

[Emily's Cat]

they trump the observation that one man, Mohammed, conquered and stabilized a society all by himself

Here's where I see a disconnect.

Let's presume that it is 100% true that Mohammed conquered an entire society all by himself. This, however, does not imply 1) that he did it because Allah gave him special powers or 2) that Allah exists at all or 3) that the judeo-christian creation myth is in any fashion what actually happened. You're jumping from a thing that might very well be plausible, to a whole host of other things for which there's no evidence, nor any actual support.

Jesus might very well have been a real live person. He might very well have been born in Nazareth to parents named Joseph and Mary. That, however, does not imply that his mother spontaneously got knocked up by a ghost while remaining a virgin. Nor does it imply that Jesus was actually the earthly avatar of a deity. Nor does it imply that Jehova actually exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. And it certainly doesn't imply that there was a talking snake in a magical garden that tricked a poor dumb woman into eating a forbidden fruit thus dooming all of humanity to misery for eternity. None of those things follows from Jesus having been a real person.

to make it even more clear... Saint Nicholas might very well have been an actual, factual bishop of the early christian church. That doesn't in any fashion support the notion that a fat man in a red suit piles presents into a bottomless sleigh pulled by wingless flying reindeer who breaks into houses and leaves presents under a fancy tree once a year.

 

[luchog]

Let that sink in; people around the world play a sport requiring gear that science says doesn't exist. Could they all really be deluded? Perhaps they know things science doesn't? Or maybe there is transcendent truth there in the superposition of the real and the impossible. What could be more extraordinary and proof of something amazing and supernatural going on than that?

Er, no. Bad analogy. They are not playing the same sport, but a highly modified version of of it that doesn't include the equipment that is scientifically impossible.

There is no "transcendent truth", no "wand may be real after all, we just can't know" pointing to anything supernatural; only a whole lot of "we'll just do the part that is physically possible, and play 'lets' pretend' for the parts that aren't."

 

[luchog]

Several skeptic members here are not materialists.

That would be me.

However, I (and others like me) do make a hard distinction between claims of phenomena that should be testable and falsifiable using scientific principles (eg. faith healing, extrasensory perception, etc.); and those which are inherently unfalsifiable and a matter of faith (the existence of of a deity, life after death, etc.).

A materialist worldview would be that nothing exists that is not observable, either directly or indirectly, and everything can ultimately be explained as a property of an objective, physical reality that can be tested and falsified, within the limits of our individual senses and the tools we have access to.

 

[Steve001]

That would be me.

However, I (and others like me) do make a hard distinction between claims of phenomena that should be testable and falsifiable using scientific principles (eg. faith healing, extrasensory perception, etc.); and those which are inherently unfalsifiable and a matter of faith (the existence of of a deity, life after death, etc.).

A materialist worldview would be that nothing exists that is not observable, either directly or indirectly, and everything can ultimately be explained as a property of an objective, physical reality that can be tested and falsified, within the limits of our individual senses and the tools we have access to.

I like this explanation. I may use this and quote it when I need to.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Er, no. Bad analogy. They are not playing the same sport, but a highly modified version of of it that doesn't include the equipment that is scientifically impossible.

There is no "transcendent truth", no "wand may be real after all, we just can't know" pointing to anything supernatural; only a whole lot of "we'll just do the part that is physically possible, and play 'lets' pretend' for the parts that aren't."

Hmm. I was going for parody rather than analogy.