• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How to spot a rookie skeptic

Another rookie move is to assume that debunking one idea cannot be done without promoting a different one.
There's actually research on this. It's been found that debunking one idea without promoting a different one is actually less effective. You need to provide something when you take something away, or you are less likely to persuade them.
 
Link?!
(It may be less effective, but sometimes you yourself don't know the correct answer. You just know that the one you debunked is wrong. And isn't that an important part of skepticism?)
 
Last edited:
Link?!
(It may be less effective, but sometimes you yourself don't know the correct answer. You just know that the one you debunked is wrong. And isn't that an important part of skepticism?)
It was covered as a news item on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast a couple of months ago, so I don't have a specific link. You could always hunt through the show notes if you're interested. And yes, knowing that something is wrong is one part of the process, but if you want to dislodge someone else's false belief (which is another part of the process) it works better if you have the correct information available to replace the incorrect information with.
 
It was covered as a news item on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast a couple of months ago, so I don't have a specific link. You could always hunt through the show notes if you're interested. And yes, knowing that something is wrong is one part of the process, but if you want to dislodge someone else's false belief (which is another part of the process) it works better if you have the correct information available to replace the incorrect information with.

Perhaps that really is the difference between a "skeptic" and lots of other people - a skeptic can live with uncertainty without having to have an explanation?
 
At least, it's probably one of the differences. For instance, how exactly did the universe begin? Or life? We don't know exactly, but nothing seems to indicate that an intelligent creator did it. So the God 'hypothesis' wins every time if you prefer to believe in certainty instead of accepting uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps that really is the difference between a "skeptic" and lots of other people - a skeptic can live with uncertainty without having to have an explanation?
Yes.
"I don't know.", is a perfectly reasonable answer.
As well as a perfectly comfortable state of mind.
 
Just saying that it's fine to be skeptical about God's existence, but the minute you express certainty about his existence or non-existence you are not being skeptical, you are expressing faith in something that is unknowable.

Congratulations on actually answering the OP by using yourself as an example.
 
Also, you can deconvert from Xianity and jolly well keep other pre-existing woo. Just stopping believing in one woo, doesn't mean one suddenly drops all of them. E.g., I know one guy who's totally not into religion any more, but still believes that the world is run by some cabal of people so rich, that they're not even on the Top X lists of the richest people. Apparently they slid right off the list UPWARDS.

A whole lot of the time, when someone deconverts from one demonstrably incorrect belief they previously held to really strongly, a sort of mental domino effect kicks in, and over time "everything" is fair game for serious reconsideration. There are exceptions, but I think what I just described is more average than not. It's the first one that's "painful", and everything
else is kinda small potatoes after that.

Re: the super rich who might not show up on the top 10 lists, is it actually impossible that some fantastically wealthy, "rich as Bill Gates" type people hide most of their wealth in the sort of anonymous shell companies described here?
https://thinkprogress.org/delaware-...wn-on-anonymous-shell-companies-7f52c5f08f32/

I honestly have no idea and don't really care, but it's not "believes in reptilians" implausible-sounding to me.
 
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Just saying that it's fine to be skeptical about God's existence, but the minute you express certainty about his existence or non-existence you are not being skeptical, you are expressing faith in something that is unknowable.



Congratulations on actually answering the OP by using yourself as an example.


Sorry Belz. Wrong. Brainster has it right.
 
It was reported here that a rookie skeptic will mock the silly clueless conspiracy theories
 
What are some of the habits of a rookie skeptic?

Does he call out every logical fallacy he sees?
No, that was CFLarsen, and he was no rookie.

I think they make sweeping assumptions about individuals.
Attacking persons when you no longer bother to mine for facts is rather popular among the experienced forumers too.

Is he reflexively anti-government
I don't know about anti-, but probably skeptical of the politically motivated and always biassed information distributed by any politician anywhere.

As I have said before, if a real god does genuinely exist, then they already know exactly what kind of evidence that they need to present to me in order to convince me that they are real. Their evidence will be perfect and indisputable.
This makes sense, but what comes to God of the NT, he "chose to proclaim a folly, so that the wise of this world would find it silly and not believe". Figure out what might be the motive for that.

Another rookie move is to assume that debunking one idea cannot be done without promoting a different one.
On the other hand, nothing is cheaper and easier than opposing an idea without any evidence on your behalf, and without having any clue about the topic under discussion. I prefer to take the policy of reminding an opponent that claiming something to be false without telling what is right is useless, and stands a good chance of being ignored on my behalf.

Just saying that it's fine to be skeptical about God's existence, but the minute you express certainty about his existence or non-existence you are not being skeptical, you are expressing faith in something that is unknowable.
Congratulations on actually answering the OP by using yourself as an example.
This does not indicate a rookie either. My perception is that skeptics don't routinely start as agnostics and end up as atheists. Many (such as myself) remain as agnostics to the bitter end.
 
Last edited:
No, that was CFLarsen, and he was no rookie.


Attacking persons when you no longer bother to mine for facts is rather popular among the experienced forumers too.


I don't know about anti-, but probably skeptical of the politically motivated and always biassed information distributed by any politician anywhere.


This makes sense, but what comes to God of the NT, he "chose to proclaim a folly, so that the wise of this world would find it silly and not believe". Figure out what might be the motive for that.


On the other hand, nothing is cheaper and easier than opposing an idea without any evidence on your behalf, and without having any clue about the topic under discussion. I prefer to take the policy of reminding an opponent that claiming something to be false without telling what is right is useless, and stands a good chance of being ignored on my behalf.



This does not indicate a rookie either. My perception is that skeptics don't routinely start as agnostics and end up as atheists. Many (such as myself) remain as agnostics to the bitter end.

Which of the gods people actually worship and claim to believe in do you believe in?
 
Which of the gods people actually worship and claim to believe in do you believe in?
Agnostics don't believe in gods, but they bother to acknowledge that we don't have evidence against the existence of gods.
 
Checking also the obvious counterpart of your link ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

... it becomes apparent that agnosticism is a vague concept that applies to majority of religious people too. Not many humans firmly believe that they know everything about their religion, the unknown and unseen is ever present in religious experience, for obvious reasons.

Agnostic atheism is what I wanted to refer to earlier with the concept agnosticism.
 
Agnostic atheism is what I wanted to refer to earlier with the concept agnosticism.

That's what I figured. I call myself an atheist, because my lack of belief in deities is...significant, you could say. But at the end of the day, philosophically I'm with Descartes on the whole:


Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

...thing, so technically, I'm an agnostic atheist.
 
Agnostics don't believe in gods, but they bother to acknowledge that we don't have evidence against the existence of gods.
To make sure I'm clear, you don't believe in any of the gods religious people claim they believe in? If so then as much as you may not like it you are an atheist. The "a" signifies that you are not a theist I.e. don't belive in a god.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom