Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

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.

It could be that whatever she had spontaneously goes in to remission with or without prayer. There is nothing to say the prayer caused the remission... only that the two are correlated in that they exist along the same time frame in the same person. Your argument confuses correlation with causation... it's the same method that Catholic church uses to canonize people. Sometimes after you pray to someone you get better... if it looks miraculous enough the Catholic will presume that the ghost answered the prayer. There's no control group that had nothing nor a placebo testing like comparing those who pray to Jesus with those who wish on a star. Plus the sample size is small... we expect to find people in the population who have seeming miracle remissions... and we can expect the will attribute this healing to prayer or meditation or good karma or novenas or something they did.

But to conclude that meditation can send cancer into remission from a sample size of two is like concluding that rabbits feet can cure cancer because you heard of someone who carried one and can't think of another explanation for their cure. It's an argument from incredulity as well as a confusion of correlation with causation. It's an unwarranted conclusion built on those two faulty premises. You and she believe that meditation has sent cancer into remission. No one can logically derive that belief from that evidence.

 

[amb]

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.



See above.

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

Jeeez, your quick to pounce aren't you? What was meant was they did not try any quackery like homeopath or snake oil or chiropractic ect. I don't believe the mumbo jumbo either. It's just something I read ages ago.
As far as I'm concerned, meditation probably has as much effect as drinking a glass of water.

 

[Georg]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, meditation probably has as much effect as drinking a glass of water.

Hmm......

 

[amb]

Hmm......

Hey. I'm just reporting what I read in some book ages ago. You are all shooting the messenger.

 

[amb]

The placebo effect is I repeat a very strong medicatin on it's own. When I was a lad and was a very naughty boy, more than a few times a girlfriend who would miss her monthly
would send both into a panic. The usual practice would be to get a friend who knew a friend who knew a pharmacist who would get hold of a sugar tablet that was supposed to bring on the girls menstruation. Of course the girl thought it was a tablet that aborted the fetus. 9 times out of ten, it worked. Of course we know now she was not pregnant in the first place. Just the placebo effect was enough to bring on her period. Mind over matter? No, of course not. There are people who claim they lost weight by meditation. I bet if you have a close look at them, you'd find they lost it by any other mean bar meditation.

 

[Georg]

Hey. I'm just reporting what I read in some book ages ago. You are all shooting the messenger.

No. You didn´t write "someone wrote in a book that it has been proven", you wrote that it has been proven. That´s not the same. But of course I accept your clarification.

 

[amb]

No. You didn´t write "someone wrote in a book that it has been proven", you wrote that it has been proven. That´s not the same. But of course I accept your clarification.

Yes your right. I left out the word ''claimed proof ''.
It's like the story doing the rounds of O.O.B.E.s of a patient who ''claimed '' to have floated out of the room and witnessed a tennis shoe on a window ledge. The patient even described the colour of this shoe.
I don't remember the procedure this patient underwent, but it was claimed that he died on the operating table because of complications of some sort.
Anyway, he was rescuiated, and claimed to have told the nurses and doctors of his experience of floating up to the ceiling and out the window while 'dead'.
An author who researched the story at the hospital found no trace of the nurse, doctors or even the patient himself. And no one in the whole hospital had ever heard of it. Thus, such are legends made.

 

[Rasmus]

The placebo effect is I repeat a very strong medicatin on it's own. When I was a lad and was a very naughty boy, more than a few times a girlfriend who would miss her monthly
would send both into a panic. The usual practice would be to get a friend who knew a friend who knew a pharmacist who would get hold of a sugar tablet that was supposed to bring on the girls menstruation. Of course the girl thought it was a tablet that aborted the fetus. 9 times out of ten, it worked. Of course we know now she was not pregnant in the first place. Just the placebo effect was enough to bring on her period. Mind over matter? No, of course not.

Same problem, though: No controll group. If the girls weren't pregnant their period would have come *sooner or later*. You'll get more worried the more you are in the *later* phase, and only then will someone bring out the magic sugar pill. And, lo and behold, the girl has her period. Of course she does, since it's already "later". Without a control group you can't say if it would have been even later without the pill, though.

There are people who claim they lost weight by meditation. I bet if you have a close look at them, you'd find they lost it by any other mean bar meditation.

Depends ... would they snack whilst meditating?

And, yeah, you didn't say you you were only the messenger - else I would have pounced on the originator...

 

[amb]

Ha, that's the reason they probably lost some weight. While they are meditating, their not using their mouths to gobble down snacks laden with fat like biscuits. And probably after finishing felt guilty if they headed for the fridge or pantry cupboard.
I still think meditating is the same as a placebo, with sometimes the same effect.

 

[Memento_mori]

a rose is a petunia

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

What a good question, indeed. I don't find any consistent way to predict who will and who won't "believe" something. I think that's what makes people so very interesting. For me, when my fridge stops working and I can't explain why or fix it, I am tempted to blame a higher power, that is, until it mysteriously starts making ice again. What I do admit is from time to time in my life, stuff happens that would appear to be spontaneous or have no rational explanation and I am tempted to file it under the cosmic mystery directory. It is kind of a temporary category I use until I feel I can file it more appropriately. I think even people who have a belief in god can be skeptical about things that other believers that for granted, so I suppose those that fall under either category are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That being said, I think either label is an unfortunate over simplification of the condition of life. I'd like to be capable of only believing what can be proven absolutely, but I fear that by missing out on facts that would prove some hypothesis, I may end up stuck with "the earth is flat" mentality. I suppose what I really believe is that there are plenty of things I may never understand at all and the same goes for everyone else ( more than likely ).
Perhaps belief in something creates that thing subjectively, even if it does not exist for you and me. Perhaps the opposite is true as well, a rejection of something unloads it from the subjective reality of the person in question. This then becomes a very tangled web which questions the sanity of anyone who would believe or disbelieve anything that could not be objectively experienced. So, yeah, by definition, it is likely a skeptic would be an atheist, but we all know that just isn't the case. I blame Noah Webster.
What can be known is limited by what one can experience, that makes us all skeptics. I think we need a better word or a better definition. I'll vote for pragmatist.

 

[Limbo]

Of course someone can be a skeptic and believe in god. A skeptic can even believe in all sorts of woo, and remain a skeptic. It just means that the amount of evidence they desire before they agree with something is at a lower threshold than others.

I think the idea of a 'threshold' is an important one. A personal threshold of "sufficient evidence". Why is evidence for X sufficient for one, when it isn't for another?

Is your threshold too high? Too low? How do you know? What do you measure against? Peers?

Is it a "feeling" that you get when your threshold is just right? Goldilocks?

To what degree is ones personal threshold influenced by social factors? By people you happen to respect? By the media? By pop-culture? By science? By childhood experiences? Etc.

 

[articulett]

I think it's absolutely safe to consider all invisible entities-- from gods to ghosts to thetans to incubi-- products of human imagination. And if one of them is a real "thing" we have no way to distinguish it from the fakes or delusions or the mythological.

As both a scientist and a skeptic I am well aware of how the information amasses once there becomes a tool for gathering more evidence. Look at the history of DNA, for example.

As a skeptic you can just presume it's all woo secure in the knowledge that should there be any reason to explore any of it as possibly true-- we will all know about it very quickly... the information is bound to "go viral" and allow scientists to begin honing such knowledge for our own benefit.

I expect most other skeptics to feel this way. Some don't, but my presumption if the person I am talking to has called themselves a skeptic... they don't believe that consciousness can exist absent a brain anymore than they believe in thetans or astrology or psychic powers. It's all woo. Eons of belief-- not an iota of evidence.

 

[amb]

Isn't humorous how they go on and on with their weird beliefs, Xenu et all. With not one small percentage of zero to back up any claims whatsoever? The very idea of mind existing ''sens'' brain is pure wishful thinking. We would all like to think otherwise, but what good is living a lie. We have to live for the moment. We may not get a chance to live for tomorrow. For tomorrow could mean oblivion.

 

[articulett]

Yes, all theisms are built on a faulty premise in the first place... the idea that consciousness can exist absent a brain.

Who wouldn't love to see evidence that it can--real evidence--measurable evidence.

How exciting would that be? We could begin to hone knowledge in that area. But to believe your delusions represent reality...? If there is no way to distinguish the invisible entities you believe in from "imaginary friends", then it's safe to treat them as such, and I've never heard of a good reason to do otherwise. Has anyone?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

If there is no way to distinguish the invisible entities you believe in from "imaginary friends", then it's safe to treat them as such, and I've never heard of a good reason to do otherwise. Has anyone?

A good reason?

Negative.

(...though I've heard plenty of crappy ones)

 

[articulett]

And why should we be sensitive regarding what people "believe" on a skeptics forum? If people don't want us to dis their beliefs or opinions, then they should keep them to themselves. If they feel offended that I find their beliefs silly, then they need to ask themselves why. I presume everyone posts here to subject their beliefs and opinions to skeptical scrutiny and to enjoy being in a community of like minded people. Until you let me know otherwise, I presume you are like me in this regard. I like being able to presume this about people, and if I shouldn't presume this on a skeptics forum, I'd like to know why. ITRW, I presume everyone is a believer and try not to "blend in" so as not to upset the irrational.

I don't want to worry about "hurting feelings" of people who aren't worried about hurting mine. I don't want to care about the opinions of people who don't even ask me if I have one.

Yes, I presume that if you are a skeptic, that you are an atheist. If you don't like me presuming this than you need to tell me why. But don't expect me to respect your beliefs the way you do... and don't expect me to respect your opinions on the subject more than you respect mine. I can respect you without believing the crazy stuff you believe or sharing the same opinion as you, and I hope you can do the same for me. There is only one reality and we can understand more about it by working together and not assuming there is some higher truth out there that someone has accessed via subjective something or other.

 

[CFLarsen]

And why should we be sensitive regarding what people "believe" on a skeptics forum? If people don't want us to dis their beliefs or opinions, then they should keep them to themselves. If they feel offended that I find their beliefs silly, then they need to ask themselves why. I presume everyone posts here to subject their beliefs and opinions to skeptical scrutiny and to enjoy being in a community of like minded people. Until you let me know otherwise, I presume you are like me in this regard. I like being able to presume this about people, and if I shouldn't presume this on a skeptics forum, I'd like to know why. ITRW, I presume everyone is a believer and try not to "blend in" so as not to upset the irrational.

Spinoza's Dictum

Skeptics have the very human tendency to relish debunking what we already believe to be nonsense. It is fun to recognize other people's fallacious reasoning, but that's not the whole point. As skeptics and critical thinkers, we must move beyond our emotional responses because by understanding how others have gone wrong and how science is subject to social control and cultural influences, we can improve our understanding of how the world works. It is for this reason that it is so important for us to understand the history of both science and pseudoscience. If we see the larger picture of how these movements evolve and figure out how their thinking went wrong, we won't make the same mistakes. The seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza said it best: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
"Why People Believe Weird Things"

I don't want to worry about "hurting feelings" of people who aren't worried about hurting mine. I don't want to care about the opinions of people who don't even ask me if I have one.

Yes, I presume that if you are a skeptic, that you are an atheist. If you don't like me presuming this than you need to tell me why. But don't expect me to respect your beliefs the way you do... and don't expect me to respect your opinions on the subject more than you respect mine. I can respect you without believing the crazy stuff you believe or sharing the same opinion as you, and I hope you can do the same for me. There is only one reality and we can understand more about it by working together and not assuming there is some higher truth out there that someone has accessed via subjective something or other.

Soon. Very soon.

 

[articulett]

I live in a world where most people just assume that I believe as they do... others often put me in a position of implying an agreement or risk whatever judgment their faith has taught them to label nonbelievers with... where I'm forced to go along with the Santa notion or risk hurting feelings of people who don't care about my feelings. I am a risk to the thing they want so desperately to believe.

I think it's rather arrogant for believers to presume that everyone believes as they do... or that they've been given special knowledge because they have "faith" or whatever it is that allows them to believe they've stumbled upon or were born into "divine truths". If something is true, then my not believing it should have no affect on it. So clearly believers need others "approval" to prop up their belief... that is what churches are for... and all these appeals to god and "bless you" and so forth. And yet I don't see them extending the same courtesy to those whom they know believe things they don't believe in-- Scientology, Astrology, Psychic Powers, demon possession, creative visualization, wiccans. Those groups get their mental support amongst their own. Theists often assume that it's right or good to bleat out their faith-- ennobling or something. Why? And why shouldn't a skeptics group be a place where those who are skeptical about all such claims can gather among like minded individuals who we can assume see the world as they do... just as believers assume ITRW? --Where we are not put in this weird position where we must defer to someone's faith or risk "hurt feelings". These are grown ups... not children having their Santa delusion shattered, right?

Skeptics have no dogma or belief to prop up... so don't force us to prop up yours when we are gathered together. Just expect us to have as much respect for your belief as you have for our lack of it. That's fair. Nontheists are often forced to do this every day. In American it's on our money and in our pledge... whether we believe it or not. People always include us in their prayers or tell others that "we'll pray for you"... when this part of "we" doesn't believe in prayers. And you may as well wish on a star for me as pray for me as far as I'm concerned.

Believers don't want to be judged based on their faith, and yet they are the first to judge those who lack it. Believers want their faith and opinions respected, but they don't respect an atheist's lack of faith nor their feelings or opinions on this topic. I think it would be a better world if we could assume everyone was a non-believer unless or until they felt a need to make whatever it is they believe in known and can voice why it deserves special respect. I can't imagine anything being more fair and more neutral. To defer to one brand of faith means "choosing" one faith over others... and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for a skeptic to do so. All unsupported claims and opinions should be subject to the same scrutiny... whether voiced or unvoiced. It's the claim that is being dismissed, not the person. And people should not need others to "prop up" what is true. It's not a mark of bad character to be wrong or believe in wrong things... it might bruise your ego to be told that people suspect that of you, but that is something for you to ask yourself why about. If you have "divine truths" what does it matter that people think you are fooling yourself? Unless you are.

 

[CFLarsen]

Soon. Very soon.

 

[articulett]

I have Claus on ignore, so if anyone thinks he's saying something to me worth reading, you'll have to quote him. I never can find his point... so if he has one, please sum it up for me if you decide to quote him for my benefit.