Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but almost everyone contributes in some way, shape, or form. Not everyone needs to be a 1337 programmer.

I didn't say that they where worthless, just not equal.

It is a position based on evidence if the law actually does treat them as equal. Then it's easy enough to say, "They are equal in the eyes of the law". There, done.

Of course, the law doesn't tend to actually work that way, but that's the ideal...

But why is that better than treating some different than others in a dirrect fashion based on their traits(not the general pointless racial groupings people are fond of)

 

[The Atheist]

I see that as personally inconsistent (up to them) and condescending (on the part of atheist sceptics). Sort of like saying, there there, you can believe in your emotional crutch as long as it's rendered externally impotent by not actually having any impact on the real world.



Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

Nominated - brilliantly put.

Myself, I find that I have more in common with liberal christians than skeptics.

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

Sorry mate, but your analogy is bollocks. Any comparison of belief in a metaphysical entity with belief in an actual person just won't make sense.

"Skeptic" is precisely the same as "christian" in classification terms, and if you doubt that, try to make a hat which fits all christians.

It's clearly like "black", one can self-identify as "black", but when that one gits down to da 'hood wid ma bruddas in Manurewa (real place, btw) or turns up at the Mataatua Marae, he'd better be able to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

Was dead right. But even "rationality" doesn't fit - I've got a couple of christian buddies who will gladly expose how much more rational they are than me.

Devastating counter-argument.

What counter argument were you looking for? You made a statement about your beliefs and I said you're welcome to them. Just as my five-year old is entitled to a belief in Santa, you're entitled to your beliefs. If you want to argue about them, start a thread.

 

[Yoink]

What counter argument were you looking for? You made a statement about your beliefs and I said you're welcome to them. Just as my five-year old is entitled to a belief in Santa, you're entitled to your beliefs. If you want to argue about them, start a thread.

Seriously? You think that a belief in the real existence of the world is of exactly the same type as a belief in Santa? And you see no troubling implications for your argument in admitting that?

 

[Apology]

What does that have to do with the availability of rationality? I wasn't aware it is rationed somehow.

They can be as rational as they want - but nobody should claim rationality for instances where they aren't being rational.

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

 

[-Fran-]

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

I understand what you are saying, and I certainly don't think theists should be driven away, and things like that. But! We must be able to discuss these things, and to be honest, some don't seem to need much to feel they have been insulted, and driven away. All we did above in this thread for example was to say that we couldn't make it go together in our minds how one can be a theist and a skeptic (the way we define skeptic) and not see it as an inconsistency - and Cleon and fnord reacted with calling us arrogant, and made it sound as if we thought they shouldn't be here, and told us to "deal with it" (ie their existance here). Why would we have to deal with it when there's nothing to deal with? Most of us have no problems with them whatsoever. But we merely pointing out that there is in fact an inconsisteny equalled an insult and an attempt to drive them away - apparently

I personally agree with you fully, many of them do good, and I think it is good for the whole of this forum to have such diversity among its members, but really, they have to grow thicker skin than that, and accept that things like this can and will and should be discussed.

 

[GreNME]

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise) and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

 

[-Fran-]

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise)

I know, you have said it several times, and I have no reason not to believe you.

and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

I don't agree with any of this. I don't think anyone here said any such things, I certainly didn't. And I do think it is about growing thicker skin, if pointing out a percieved inconsistency creates such reactions as Cleon's for example.

 

[Apology]

If I were Fnord and Cleon, I would interpret this thread as saying that some posters felt I was too stupid or delusional to be a true skeptic, and that I was unwelcome by those posters on this forum.

That's pretty much what the posters on the other forum said about the JREF. I'd describe their demographic as "college students". That website also has a rather high atheist population and sometimes non-atheist members feel disenfranchised.

I understand the dichotomy being discussed: it seems only natural that after one debunks ghosts, psychics, and Bigfoot, one's thoughts would turn to the great Sky-Daddy and begin to doubt. I had sort of the opposite effect in my life: I never believed in the Sky-Daddy, and came to doubt the rest of it later, so I also don't understand how they maintain the dichotomy. However, I'm sure that they do, and I'm sure that their efforts help us.

It also helps to have sympathetic moles in the churches to help support some of our less radical, non-atheistic ideas, like stem cell research. Fnord has a whole captive audience to keep away from Novus Spiritus and Sylvia Browne. His contribution goes a long way further than mine does.

 

[-Fran-]

If I were Fnord and Cleon, I would interpret this thread as saying that some posters felt I was too stupid or delusional to be a true skeptic, and that I was unwelcome by those posters on this forum.

And if I were them I wouldn't!

That's pretty much what the posters on the other forum said about the JREF. I'd describe their demographic as "college students". That website also has a rather high atheist population and sometimes non-atheist members feel disenfranchised.

You are surely right, I haven't read that forum, so I can't say. I speak for myself here, and how I percieve this thread.

I understand the dichotomy being discussed: it seems only natural that after one debunks ghosts, psychics, and Bigfoot, one's thoughts would turn to the great Sky-Daddy and begin to doubt. I had sort of the opposite effect in my life: I never believed in the Sky-Daddy, and came to doubt the rest of it later, so I also don't understand how they maintain the dichotomy. However, I'm sure that they do, and I'm sure that their efforts help us.

It's obvious that they do maintain the dichotomy. Why can't we discuss it? If someone wants to discuss something/anything here on JREF we should think about how we discuss it, yes, and there are always room for improvement in the 'how' here on this thread, as well as in all threads. But should we really refrain alltogether from discussing things because it may be seen as controversial by some members, and because we need them so much that it's not worth the risk to maybe anger, or even only annoy them? Personally I don't think so.

It also helps to have sympathetic moles in the churches to help support some of our less radical, non-atheistic ideas, like stem cell research. Fnord has a whole captive audience to keep away from Novus Spiritus and Sylvia Browne. His contribution goes a long way further than mine does.

I have never disputed that they do good. I still want to be able to discuss whatever I want.

 

[GreNME]

I don't agree with any of this. I don't think anyone here said any such things, I certainly didn't. And I do think it is about growing thicker skin, if pointing out a percieved inconsistency creates such reactions as Cleon's for example.

You don't get it: it isn't about whether you agree or not. The fact that you and others are giving off that impression is evidenced in that I and others have stated that is the impression we are getting. So, either it's every person who stops and says "hey, you're being awfully arrogant and not open to discourse" who is making the mistake of constantly getting that impression, or it just might possibly be that some of you need to work on your delivery.

You go ahead and think what you want, though. I'm sure it's everyone else.

 

[-Fran-]

You don't get it: it isn't about whether you agree or not. The fact that you and others are giving off that impression is evidenced in that I and others have stated that is the impression we are getting. So, either it's every person who stops and says "hey, you're being awfully arrogant and not open to discourse" who is making the mistake of constantly getting that impression, or it just might possibly be that some of you need to work on your delivery.

You go ahead and think what you want, though. I'm sure it's everyone else.

I see. And your impressions are more true than others, why? Others have also "evidenced" that they do not get that impression.

 

[Apology]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

 

[CFLarsen]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

Evidence?






Yeah.....that's what it comes down to.

 

[-Fran-]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

I understand, and I believe you, and I really don't mean to be confrontational here, but I have to ask this. Could it be that only the fact that some of us question their beliefs is enough for them to not feel welcome? And if so, is it not kind of expected that skeptics on a skeptic forum does question beliefs? I agree some are unnecessarily harsh with it sometimes, but would you agree that in some cases it can't even be done in the nicest of ways before they feel insulted? And can we really not even question the beliefs of those who are here on the forum to question beliefs themselves (other beliefs than their own, that is)?

 

[Yoink]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

I agree that people don't have to be dicks about it, but there's no way that somebody who by definition holds a belief that is unsupported by evidence will not feel themselves to be challenged on a skepticism site. Suggesting that skeptics are all very well but that they shouldn't challenge beliefs that are unsupported by evidence is rather like saying that Christians would be fine if it wasn't for that silly belief in God. I would hope that an atheist would be met politely on a Religious Belief discussion site, but would also expect that atheist to be challenged--the same applies here.

 

[Apology]

Evidence?






Yeah.....that's what it comes down to.

Would it help if I linked you to posts by other anonymous posters on another anonymous message board?

I don't think so.

 

[CFLarsen]

Would it help if I linked you to posts by other anonymous posters on another anonymous message board?

I don't think so.

You can try, but....

What would that prove about how non-atheists in general experience their "welcome" here?

And, why would anyone - non-atheists and otherwise - expect all people on this message board being in perfect agreement on everything?

 

[The Atheist]

Seriously? You think that a belief in the real existence of the world is of exactly the same type as a belief in Santa? And you see no troubling implications for your argument in admitting that?

You need to go back and read my answer, then ask me a question about it rather than asking about something I didn't say.

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

Regardless of the level of anti-theism here, they will only find problems if they go looking for them.

There are sufficient christian posters here who don't try to argue their beliefs with the right-wingers to nullify your findings. Just as a hardline atheist will ultimately be ignored or banned in a christian forum, a christian here either fits in or ships out. Find out what those ex-members did to attract such attacks that they left is my advice.

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise) and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

I think you're wrong. I belong to a christian forum which shares some members with JREF as well and it doesn't have a bad reputation at all - even despite my presence! That should be sufficient evidence to the contrary. They all know that I think they're deluded and it doesn't bother them a bit. They just laugh and call me Saulus. I think it's more to do with worldliness and brains than thick skin - those who are genuinely comfortable with their faith see my comments as laughable, the ones who aren't go on the defensive.

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

It's not supposed to be easy.

If they were allowed to come and spout their gibberish uninterrupted, we'd be full of pages discussing John 10:13. Some, like KuriousKathy come in and try to tell us all that the bible is true, page by page and she is rightly scorned.

Myriad comes in and explains his faith and is a bloody legend around here.


(c) Darth Rotor: It's all in the presentation.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Inside your head is a brain. Everything you experience is an electrochemical reaction inside your brain, including the emergent thing we call a "mind." Your feelings are pulses of electrical potential and chemicals flitting across synapse gaps. Your mind is merely a property of your entirely physical brain.

While it is possible that your senses are lying to you and that you are merely a brain in a jar, or that Master Gui is a butterfly dreaming he is a man, or there is an invisible magical god who does nothing and cannot be detected, I will not waste my time on such things. I am an empirical skeptic not a philosophical skeptic. If there is no evidence for something I do not accept it as a fact.

 

[-Fran-]

And, why would anyone - non-atheists and otherwise - expect all people on this message board being in perfect agreement on everything?

I would agree, that will never happen. Besides, I don't see people flocking to defend astrologers and psychics like this when they come here with their beliefs, and are being questioned. We are to be civil to all, yes, but we can be pretty straighforward, even harsh, and rather tough in our questioning of their beliefs (and yes, their actual beliefs are also frequently questioned, they are not fair game only if they claim to have proof of them). We seldom hear any protests about questioning them, only if we go too far in how we do it. But theists, especially if they help us question the psychics and the astrologists and the dowsers and so on.. they should get a free pass? Why? Atheists don't get a free pass here either, for that matter, they are often questioned about their "beliefs" as many will have it. Annoys me rather much sometimes, I know I have to take it though, if I want to be here.

Is the actual purpose of this forum, by the way, to join atheists and theists in a fight against a common enemy? That's not my impression of the JREF forum. I thought it was a free discussion forum, where we can question anything.