Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[qayak]

Yep, sorry still confused on this one. Even with "scientific" in there I still don't see how this isn't a contradiction to the other point. "The Earth is not flat" we can conclude because we can see that the earth is spherical and logic tells us that it can't be spherical and flat. Why is the skeptical approach definitively saying "God does not exist" without any empirical evidence to back up such a claim? While this agrees with the statement: "The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic.", doesn't it contradict "It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show."?

No! There is a huge volume of evidence that shows there is no god controlling the universe and no need for one to. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the god idea. Science leaves room for new evidence coming to light so BOTH ideas are provisional running about 99.9% against a god and 0.1% for a god.

You suggest that we ignore all the evidence just to allow you to slip the existence of god in.The skeptical thing to do is to base your belief on the evidence which suggests strongly that there is no god.

 

[-Fran-]

No! There is a huge volume of evidence that shows there is no god controlling the universe and no need for one to. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the god idea. Science leaves room for new evidence coming to light so BOTH ideas are provisional running about 99.9% against a god and 0.1% for a god.

You suggest that we ignore all the evidence just to allow you to slip the existence of god in.The skeptical thing to do is to base your belief on the evidence which suggests strongly that there is no god.

I've seen many times that there is a sort of belief that when it comes to the question of god, we are still at square one and have no thinking, no studies, no reasoning about this behind us. All people are every time to start from 0 with this question, and so it's a good idea to assume there is a 50/50 on if god exists or not. As if all the evidence that has already been found that (just as you say) "there is no god controlling the universe and no need for one to", does not exist

 

[Mobyseven]

Should the word "empirical" be before your last use of the word "evidence"?

Yes.

Are you saying that you believe a belief based on anything other than empirical evidence is irrational?

When discussing the objective existence of an object, yes.

I'm using the word in roughly the same way you might say 'rational'. I just didn't want to get into a derail on the meaning of the word 'rational' and would like to avoid a similar derail on reasonable. A reasonable belief is one a reasonable adult might hold as opposed to say, a belief that is better described as a delusion held by a lunatic or a child's belief in their invisible friend. People on this forum have a tendence to equate belief in any sort of a god with delusions held by lunatics or a child's invisible friend. I'm arguing that a belief in god is not on a par with either of those, but as reasonable a stance as the atheists non-belief in god.

This is not a derail Beth, it's your entire argument. If you are going to say that it is 'reasonable' to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, you are going to have to explain your criteria for determining the reasonability of a belief.

What you have told me is not particularly useful - you say that, "A reasonable belief is one a reasonable adult might hold." How then, does one determine who a reasonable adult is? Would not a reasonable adult be defined as an adult who holds reasonable beliefs?

To me it seems you have this whole process back to front.

So I'll ask again - how does one determine what beliefs are reasonable to hold? For example, should the belief have some kind of evidence to support it? Should it be a belief held by a large number of people? Should a belief have evolved from a particular culture to be considered reasonable?

I just want to know what criteria you use to determine what a 'reasonable belief' is.

 

[Lonewulf]

Claiming that the existance of god is just as likely as the existance of an IPU or Santa Claus because the evidence for them is the same is NOT a good argument because it's not true.

Can you please point back to where you've proven this point, please?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence for God that couldn't also be applied to the IPU or Santa Clause.

Hell, Santa has plenty of movies on him. I see him at every street corner. I've seen children sat on his lap. There's more evidence for Santa than God.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Post 620. But please, Claus, read through the whole post first before you start misinterpreting my answers.

You don't need to start with character assassination. Wait for something to happen, before you complain about it.

It has already happened with your earlier replies to my points in this thread. By responding sentence by sentence before reading my comments in their entirety, you missed the points I was making.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Who is criticizing "what we want them to claim"? I don't get this one at all.

Deists do not claim evidence of their god. It is therefore wrong to criticize deists for claiming evidence of their god.

You are still missing the point. Just what is it Deists believe in? A god which does nothing yet they know it exists? One for which there never was any real evidence? It's impossible. Perhaps they do not recognize the evidence by which they have come to their conclusion. Anyone professing to believe in a god has some reason for believing. What is that reason? It is unreliable evidence and they are more than likely simply denying that source of their belief. Whether it is a "feeling" which they are choosing to call the reason or whether they label it as something else, it is, nonetheless the criteria they are using to decide. And that is by definition, 'evidence'. It also happens to be invalid or unreliable evidence by scientific standards. So rather than actually examining the unreliability of the evidence, one denies they are using any evidence.

I've had a similar discussion with people about morals. Science doesn't weigh moral values. What is going unrecognized here is the mind is indeed weighing moral decisions based on some criteria. Those criteria can be identified. And once you identify the criteria, science can weigh a decision based on those criteria. Because the process of evaluating the moral decision does not consciously identify the criteria one is using to decide, most people don't consciously recognize those criteria are there. Moral decisions are not made by magic, (though science doesn't have an inherent preference on what the decision should be.)

So here we have someone deciding to believe in a deity. On what basis did they make that decision? They didn't make it based on no evidence. That is impossible unless one tosses a coin and says I'll randomly decide to believe if it is heads and not believe if it is tails. But instead, the believer denies the fact they are accepting some evidence of some kind. Beth and others actually admit to the evidence, "People's subjective feeling". The people you are describing, Claus, make the claim they are not going by evidence. But they are going by evidence. And it is not valid evidence by scientific process standards. So instead of facing the fact they are using invalid evidence, many proclaim they are using no evidence. Some admit they are using invalid evidence and some, like Beth, believe the evidence to be valid. But the scientific process has rules of evidence. You may come to an alternate conclusion, but following a skeptical philosophy, you cannot make up your own rules of evidence.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Again with the two definitions. To my knowledge no one claims the god in their beliefs does nothing, certainly no formal religions claim this. So you can't test for the god as defined by science, but that is not the god defined by people. Science fit the god concept to untestable scientific principles. Science did not take god beliefs as they actually exist.

Deists - such as Hal - claim that the god of their beliefs does nothing.

And deists such as Hal are using some criteria to determine that belief. I would argue that criteria is not "no evidence", that criteria is invalid evidence.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
No one invents an astrology or psychic power definition which when defined as such, cannot be tested.

Of course. They need the "evidence" to persuade their victims.

You missed my point. By no one, I mean scientists. Scientists invented a god definition which could not be tested. That definition is not consistent with god definitions people use including Deists. Deists may claim they believe in a god that does nothing. But there is no more logic in that than believing in invisible pink unicorns. Does a Deist believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns which do nothing? Why not? What is the difference? Once you describe the difference, you no longer have "nothing".

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs and religions originated from people and not because people had real encounters with gods either now or in the past. Going beyond that claiming one cannot disprove gods therefore maintaining a god belief is still within the skeptical philosophy only works if you are merely saying you cannot prove the negative. But maintaining that belief as a legitimate belief, whether you claim it is because you don't need evidence or because you believe your evidence is internal in some way is not in keeping with the skeptical view of the world.

Why not? If they don't claim evidence?

Then they are simply denying the evidence they actually believe in. Because if you really had no evidence, you would have no reason to believe. With perhaps the exception of tossing the coin and saying heads, I believe, tails I don't.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
In the case of god beliefs, they are incompatible. Because science follows the evidence. It doesn't say well since you cannot prove the negative I am going to believe. There is no evidence for gods.

Deists don't claim there is. That's why Deism is compatible with skepticism.

Deists claim they don't need to support their belief. That is not the same as really not having any evidence. They have invalid evidence and don't want to look at that critically. Which is fine, but it is still a blind spot in their skepticism.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
This is great. But in reality, god beliefs are not handled quite so purely by skeptics. The two god definitions is an example.

If a god definition does not postulate evidence of the god, then skeptics have nothing to test.

And again, this is denial. They have evidence, it is invalid evidence. It amounts to excluding a portion of one's beliefs from skeptical inquiry.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
But the evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs are inventions of the human mind. To ignore that is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Nobody is ignoring this. But I don't see where the elephant even comes into the room.

The elephant is the evidence god beliefs are myths. In other words, when one only looks at the fact gods as defined by science are untestable, it leaves all the evidence that god beliefs are known to be myths out of the evaluation. And I do think we can safely say it is a myth that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Vishna statues drink milk, and that Zeus or Thor are up in the sky flinging lightning bolts at people on the ground.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
And just how is it you disprove invisible pink unicorns?
I said we can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

You said one disproves gods and invisible pink unicorns differently. I'm asking you to describe the difference.

 

[-Fran-]

Hell, Santa has plenty of movies on him. I see him at every street corner. I've seen children sat on his lap. There's more evidence for Santa than God.

Yeah, and... and he eats the milk and cookies you set out for him, right? I mean, who else could it be!??

 

[Egg]

Yep, sorry still confused on this one. Even with "scientific" in there I still don't see how this isn't a contradiction to the other point. "The Earth is not flat" we can conclude because we can see that the earth is spherical and logic tells us that it can't be spherical and flat. Why is the skeptical approach definitively saying "God does not exist" without any empirical evidence to back up such a claim? While this agrees with the statement: "The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic.", doesn't it contradict "It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show."?

No! There is a huge volume of evidence that shows there is no god controlling the universe and no need for one to. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the god idea. Science leaves room for new evidence coming to light so BOTH ideas are provisional running about 99.9% against a god and 0.1% for a god.

You suggest that we ignore all the evidence just to allow you to slip the existence of god in.The skeptical thing to do is to base your belief on the evidence which suggests strongly that there is no god.

Sorry, that's probably my fault for not making it clear that I was referring to CFLarsen's points from #620. The question is merely asking about whether these statements contradict, unless by "No!" you are saying that they don't in which case I could really use a decent explanation of why they don't.

As to your point, since we don't know how much an undefined god might be controlling the universe, nor in what form such control would take and what evidence we would expect to see, any conclusions as to a god's existence drawn from any empirical evidence we might have can only be speculative and subjective. In my opinion that would include assigning any kind of percentage to the probability.

If you or anyone else would like to present the evidence and logic which shows that view to be mistaken, I will certainly consider it. I'm not aware of such overwhelming evidence which could lead us to place an objective probability on god's existence, but there are many things I'm not aware of and I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

[Egg]

[*]The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

Actually to try to answer my own question, are you saying that the sceptical approach is that without evidence to say otherwise, we must assume that something unproven (or maybe currently unprovable) does not exist in the context of our reasoning in other areas? I'm guessing that is what the "provisional" is about, but I was thrown off by the flat earth comparison.

To put it another way, there no empirical reason to factor "god" into our equations. As Rumsfeld might call it "a known unknown", and one of many which needs to be put aside along with the "unknown unknowns" out of sheer practicality as much as anything else.

 

[qayak]

Sorry, that's probably my fault for not making it clear that I was referring to CFLarsen's points from #620. The question is merely asking about whether these statements contradict, unless by "No!" you are saying that they don't in which case I could really use a decent explanation of why they don't.

No, they do not contradict. A skeptic would indeed fence sit if there is no evidence, there is more than enough evidence on the issue of whether or not god exists for us to make a decision.

As to your point, since we don't know how much an undefined god might be controlling the universe, nor in what form such control would take and what evidence we would expect to see, any conclusions as to a god's existence drawn from any empirical evidence we might have can only be speculative and subjective. In my opinion that would include assigning any kind of percentage to the probability.

This is a simple logical fallacy on your part. You are cherry picking the evidence and only taking the bits that support your idea and disregarding all the rest. You would have to disregard everything that is known about the universe in order to suggest there is no empirical evidence for us to make a choice on.

The evidence proves that there is no need for a god for the universe to run exactly how it does and no need for a god to create the universe or the life we see in our small part of it.

If you or anyone else would like to present the evidence and logic which shows that view to be mistaken, I will certainly consider it. I'm not aware of such overwhelming evidence which could lead us to place an objective probability on god's existence, but there are many things I'm not aware of and I'd be happy to be corrected.

Scientific proof is based on probability. When the evidence becomes overwhelming in support of one idea, that idea is considered to be true. The evidence for the non-existence of god is overwhelming, so god probably does not exist.

The probability is decided by each individual examining the evidence. Of course, when the evidence is overwhelming, anyone with the slightest bit of honesty will come to the same conclusion.

 

[Georg]

The evidence for the non-existence of god is overwhelming, so god probably does exist.

Could it be that there is a "not" missing between "does" and "exist"? Otherwise I don´t understand the statement.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have a parameter "Whose music contains the most melodies which evoke emotion" or any type of thing you want to test for, you can determine which does, and you could relate that to what you consider to be "best". It is all relative to who is setting the parameters, and why.

Again, that would depend highly on what timeframe you had your eye on. If you look at today, you might find that the Moonlight Sonata will register high on that scale. On the other hand, very few people today would swoon hearing a recercar by Spinacino.

You can also evoke emotion in many ways: It can be the tune, or it can be the mood of the music. A Gregorian chant isn't much of a tune, but it can certainly create a mood.

Quite right, so you tell me how someone who believes something without evidence is employing skeptical methodology when taking on this belief?

I say they are not. While they may be skeptical in other facets of life, they are not applying the same skepticism in an instance where they adopt a belief with no evidence.

Since you clearly don't understand how evidence is pivotal in skepticism, I strongly suggest that you pick up some books on skepticism. Start with these three:

Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World

Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things

James Randi: Flim Flam!

It has already happened with your earlier replies to my points in this thread. By responding sentence by sentence before reading my comments in their entirety, you missed the points I was making.

Take a good long hard look at my response to you in post #680. You misunderstand me several times. I really don't think you should be pointing your finger at me - or other people - for misunderstanding.

You are still missing the point. Just what is it Deists believe in? A god which does nothing yet they know it exists? One for which there never was any real evidence? It's impossible. Perhaps they do not recognize the evidence by which they have come to their conclusion. Anyone professing to believe in a god has some reason for believing. What is that reason? It is unreliable evidence and they are more than likely simply denying that source of their belief. Whether it is a "feeling" which they are choosing to call the reason or whether they label it as something else, it is, nonetheless the criteria they are using to decide. And that is by definition, 'evidence'. It also happens to be invalid or unreliable evidence by scientific standards. So rather than actually examining the unreliability of the evidence, one denies they are using any evidence.

It's not impossible at all. Have you had an imaginary friend as a kid? Or known someone who had? What is the difference between having an imaginary friend and an imaginary god?

I've had a similar discussion with people about morals. Science doesn't weigh moral values. What is going unrecognized here is the mind is indeed weighing moral decisions based on some criteria. Those criteria can be identified. And once you identify the criteria, science can weigh a decision based on those criteria. Because the process of evaluating the moral decision does not consciously identify the criteria one is using to decide, most people don't consciously recognize those criteria are there. Moral decisions are not made by magic, (though science doesn't have an inherent preference on what the decision should be.)

So here we have someone deciding to believe in a deity. On what basis did they make that decision? They didn't make it based on no evidence. That is impossible unless one tosses a coin and says I'll randomly decide to believe if it is heads and not believe if it is tails. But instead, the believer denies the fact they are accepting some evidence of some kind. Beth and others actually admit to the evidence, "People's subjective feeling". The people you are describing, Claus, make the claim they are not going by evidence. But they are going by evidence. And it is not valid evidence by scientific process standards. So instead of facing the fact they are using invalid evidence, many proclaim they are using no evidence. Some admit they are using invalid evidence and some, like Beth, believe the evidence to be valid. But the scientific process has rules of evidence. You may come to an alternate conclusion, but following a skeptical philosophy, you cannot make up your own rules of evidence.

I don't make up my own rules of evidence, quite contrary.

And deists such as Hal are using some criteria to determine that belief. I would argue that criteria is not "no evidence", that criteria is invalid evidence.

What is this evidence you keep talking about?

You missed my point.

Or, you didn't explain it well enough.

By no one, I mean scientists. Scientists invented a god definition which could not be tested. That definition is not consistent with god definitions people use including Deists.

Scientists did not invent a god definition which could not be tested. They went with what was claimed by religious people.

Deists may claim they believe in a god that does nothing. But there is no more logic in that than believing in invisible pink unicorns. Does a Deist believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns which do nothing? Why not? What is the difference? Once you describe the difference, you no longer have "nothing".

Wait. Are you talking about evidence or logic, when you dismiss Deists this way?

Then they are simply denying the evidence they actually believe in. Because if you really had no evidence, you would have no reason to believe. With perhaps the exception of tossing the coin and saying heads, I believe, tails I don't.

Ultimately, your argument is an appeal to ignorance. You cannot imagine how some can believe without evidence, so they must simply deny the evidence they believe in.

Deists claim they don't need to support their belief. That is not the same as really not having any evidence. They have invalid evidence and don't want to look at that critically. Which is fine, but it is still a blind spot in their skepticism.

No, they don't. They don't claim they don't need to support their belief, because they don't claim they can support their belief.

And again, this is denial. They have evidence, it is invalid evidence. It amounts to excluding a portion of one's beliefs from skeptical inquiry.

Again, what is this evidence, be it as invalid as it is?

The elephant is the evidence god beliefs are myths. In other words, when one only looks at the fact gods as defined by science are untestable, it leaves all the evidence that god beliefs are known to be myths out of the evaluation. And I do think we can safely say it is a myth that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Vishna statues drink milk, and that Zeus or Thor are up in the sky flinging lightning bolts at people on the ground.

Unless you claim evidence of your beliefs, nobody is ignoring that god beliefs are myths.

You said one disproves gods and invisible pink unicorns differently. I'm asking you to describe the difference.

No, I didn't:

We can't disprove gods, exactly the same way we can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

How on Earth can you misread that so profoundly??

 

[Beth]

So I'll ask again - how does one determine what beliefs are reasonable to hold? For example, should the belief have some kind of evidence to support it?Should it be a belief held by a large number of people? Should a belief have evolved from a particular culture to be considered reasonable?

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Can you give an example of what you mean by a belief that has evolved from a particular culture?

I just want to know what criteria you use to determine what a 'reasonable belief' is.

A belief with evidence to support it is reasonable. A belief held by a large number of people is reasonable. I don't like to use the word 'should' with those descriptions because I don't think that 'reasonable' means it must have those qualities. but rather if it does have those qualities, I would consider it reasonable.

I like what egg wrote earlier. I think I'll use it: In addition to beliefs based on empirical evidence, I'd also include

opinions on logic, subjective reasoning and whatever other kinds of evidence might be available. I'd expect to find and feel just fine with others coming to a different opinion

 

[Beth]

Can you please point back to where you've proven this point, please?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence for God that couldn't also be applied to the IPU or Santa Clause.

Hell, Santa has plenty of movies on him. I see him at every street corner. I've seen children sat on his lap. There's more evidence for Santa than God.

I've answered this several times. That you don't find testimonial evidence and personal experience to be convincing evidence does not mean it isn't evidence. I'm sorry, but I"m not going to answer this question from you again.

You can discuss how it isn't convincing evidence all you want. It's still evidence. When you make the claim that the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for Santa Claus and the IPU, it isn't a convincing argument because it isn't true.

 

[Egg]

No, they do not contradict. A skeptic would indeed fence sit if there is no evidence, there is more than enough evidence on the issue of whether or not god exists for us to make a decision.

This is a simple logical fallacy on your part. You are cherry picking the evidence and only taking the bits that support your idea and disregarding all the rest. You would have to disregard everything that is known about the universe in order to suggest there is no empirical evidence for us to make a choice on.

The evidence proves that there is no need for a god for the universe to run exactly how it does and no need for a god to create the universe or the life we see in our small part of it.

I don't see how I'm cherry picking anything in the points I made. Perhaps you can explain how you came to that conclusion.

"No need for a god" is not the same as "no god" and last I heard there was still of lot of the workings of the universe that we're pretty clueless about, so I have to say I'm a little sceptical of your claim that "there is more than enough evidence on the issue of whether or not god exists for us to make a decision". If that's the conclusion you have come to from your own subjective reasoning, I don't have an issue with that, but you seem to be stating your position as fact.

 

[Lonewulf]

I've answered this several times. That you don't find testimonial evidence and personal experience to be convincing evidence does not mean it isn't evidence.

There is testimonial evidence and personal experience that Santa Clause exists, and it's just as prevalent as the so-called "evidence" that God exists.

I'm sorry, but I"m not going to answer this question from you again.

Then I'd consider your claim unsupported.

You can discuss how it isn't convincing evidence all you want. It's still evidence. When you make the claim that the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for Santa Claus and the IPU, it isn't a convincing argument because it isn't true.

And yet, you have yet to provide any so-called "evidence" for God that wouldn't also apply to Santa Clause or the IPU. I saw the IPU in a dream. Someone else says that they saw God in a vision. If you disbelieve my vision, you will have to disbelieve theirs as well; if you call me a liar, then they may as well be lying as well.

You have yet to demonstrate any evidence, testimonial or not, that cannot also be applied to the IPU or Santa Clause. You just hand-wave it away as "not equal", while then whining that I keep asking the same question. You accept a vision of God, but not my vision of the IPU. You are selectively targeting thanks to societal bias that's been ingrained in you, and you can't even tell it.

Oh well.

 

[karmicserenade]

CF Larson:

Well personally, I refer to my own version of spirituality, it does not fit the norm, I admit, but it is what gets me through my day Honestly it is a tough thing for me to describe, as it is something so personal....but hey I opened myself up to this, so what can I expect lol...

Again, I will say that it has helped me to feel at peace with the world (as much as humanly possible...) and has given me a sense of purpose....other than that I don't think I know what else to say about it Sorry I couldn't really be more informative on this one...but material evidence for spirituality is a tricky thing to produce as spirituality is not something you can fit into a box.

Peace out..

 

[CFLarsen]

CF Larson:

Well personally, I refer to my own version of spirituality, it does not fit the norm, I admit, but it is what gets me through my day Honestly it is a tough thing for me to describe, as it is something so personal....but hey I opened myself up to this, so what can I expect lol...

Again, I will say that it has helped me to feel at peace with the world (as much as humanly possible...) and has given me a sense of purpose....other than that I don't think I know what else to say about it Sorry I couldn't really be more informative on this one...but material evidence for spirituality is a tricky thing to produce as spirituality is not something you can fit into a box.

Peace out..

I'm not talking about material evidence for your spirituality (because you didn't claim any). I'm talking about what you experience, and how that is different from other emotions/sentiments/experiences.

Surely you can explain why what you call "serenity", "bliss" and "ease of stress" "true spirituality" is different from the aftermath of a good orgasm?

What "truths" have your spirituality given/shown you? "Serenity" is not a "truth", nor is "bliss".

 

[Beth]

There is testimonial evidence and personal experience that Santa Clause exists, and it's just as prevalent as the so-called "evidence" that God exists.

Really? How many sane adults have you come across that give credible testimoney for the existance of santa or the IPU? I'm not acquainted with any.

Then I'd consider your claim unsupported.

Okay. You can ignore my claims of testimonial evidence.

And yet, you have yet to provide any so-called "evidence" for God that wouldn't also apply to Santa Clause or the IPU.

Yes, if there was evidence of that nature for either of those, then such evidence would also apply. Unfortunately for your argument, as I said above, I have not met any sane adults willing to provide credible testimonial evidence for either of those.

I saw the IPU in a dream. Someone else says that they saw God in a vision. If you disbelieve my vision, you will have to disbelieve theirs as well; if you call me a liar, then they may as well be lying as well.

I am allowed to judge people differently. I may think this person is lying, that one mistaken, another truthful and accurate in their testimony. We all make such judgements all the time and different people will assess the credibility of testimonial evidence differently. Recall my example of sitting on a jury.

I'm afraid that I don't classify your testimony here as sincere. My apologies if I have offended you with this assessment and your claim that your vision of the IPU is something you truly believe in. I could be mistaken about that.

 

[Lonewulf]

Really? How many sane adults have you come across that give credible testimoney for the existance of santa or the IPU? I'm not acquainted with any.

So, if they support religion, they're sane. If they support a claim that you don't agree with, they're insane.

Go figure.

Nothing else to discuss, your mind is already made up.

 

[Egg]

Are you saying that you believe a belief based on anything other than empirical evidence is irrational?

When discussing the objective existence of an object, yes.

Aside from the obvious question: "what empirical evidence do you have for that belief?" (which you're more than welcome to have at go at answering, but I'm not really asking) where I'm not sure if I agree with your argument (or maybe your definition of rational) is in the question of subjective evidence. I'll try an example to explain.

A particular skeptic is strolling along the side of Loch Ness, when he very clearly sees a monster swimming in the water. He's aware that people have been known to hallucinate, but has no particular reason to doubt his eyes any more than at any other time, except for having the knowledge that nobody has produced empirical evidence for what he's just seen, even though they've tried.

Speaking to a couple of very trusted, sane friends, he finds out that both of them have also seen this monster on separate occasions, and they describe the monster pretty much as he saw it.

At this point, our skeptic has nothing but subjective personal experience and a small amount of testimonial evidence. Would he (1) therefore be irrational to believe that there is a monster in the loch and (2) not be able to claim the label "skeptic" any more if he did, because of the lack of any empirical evidence?

BTW I'm not trying to trap you here, I'm just trying to define what various posters here consider a skeptic is and how they should be expected to act and come to conclusions and still be called a skeptic - and of course what is and isn't irrational.