Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

The above are not widely held beliefs by sane adults, so they do NOT qualify as reasonable by the criteria we've discussed.

Oh really? You don't think that there are sane people out there who are superstitious and believe in vampires and werewolves? Or witches?

What about fairies? You don't think that sane people can believe in fairies?

Except for maybe Yahweh, if by that you mean the jewish name for god.

I was unaware that there was any other Yahweh.

There is objective evidence against these claims so they do NOT qualify as reasonable by the criteria we've discussed.

Objective evidence against these claims? Beth, if you can do that you will revolutionise skepticism - or have you forgotten that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? We don't have proof against the existence of these phenomena, we have evidence in favour of alternate hypotheses. You cannot prove a negative - that's why the burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove existence and not the opposite.

These are, if I'm not mistaken, Hindu religious beliefs, so it seems appropriate to say that, yes, they may be considered reasonable by the critiera we've been discussing.

Reincarnation is an aspect of many religions aside from Hinduism, Buddhist and certain members of the Jewish faith for example.

I suppose at least you are consistent.

I'm often wrong. But you haven't convinced me that this is one of those occasions yet.

Well there's your first issue - you think I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. Beth, if that were to happen it would be an added bonus - I'm not arguing for your sake, I'm arguing for the sake of anyone else reading this discussion, so that they won't fall into the same logical flaws and fallacies as you do.

I must disagree. While not as good as objective repeatible evidence, I think it's better than making blind guesses, which is what you are claiming here.

It doesn't matter what you think because the evidence is against you.

It depends on the situation as to whether a blind guess will be as good as the testimony - if we are discussing the properties of a object known to exist then a large number of witnesses would likely converge upon a reasonable description of the object, though still unlikely to be entirely accurate and certainly far less useful than the actual prescence of the object. If we are discussing the existence of an object then anecdotal evidence is entirely useless. In our present discussion we are discussing the existence of god, not the colour of his beard - guess which category this falls under.

We discussed anecdotal evidence earlier in this thread. I provided several examples, which you rejected for various reasons. I didn't dispute your reasoning as I am not interested in discussing the various pros and cons of the use of anecdotal evidence right now. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the value of anecdotal evidence. My point is only that it's reasonable for people to make use of such evidence when nothing else is available. You make a subjective assessment of the value of such evidence as near zero. A reasonable person can disagree with that assessment and thus, arrive at a different conclusion.

No, a reasonable person cannot disagree with that assessment, because time and again anecdotal evidence has been shown to be unreliable. Homeopathy, bigfoot, acupuncture - you name it, the anecdotes still don't add up to data.

I phrased that badly. I'm trying to get across the idea that middle ground exists. One need not have blind faith OR reject entirely. I can listen and decide to withhold judgement until I feel more comfortable making a decision.

And how does one arrive at this middle ground from the skeptical null hypothesis (which is really all that atheism is)? What evidence, yes actual reliable evidence, have you personally seen that could shift you from that position?

That conclusion is an unverifiable probability estimate made based on a subjective evaluation of the evidence (you are giving anecdotal or testimonial evidence a weight of near zero) to conclude that the probability of the non-existance of god is 99.9999%. When you proclaim it as fact you are as arrogant as the theist who claims as fact the existance of god.

Arrogant? What is arrogant about saying, "I can't be 100% accurate, but in the absence of any reliable evidence and without the need for god as an explanatory hypothesis, I do not believe god exists."? Or, "Until such time as evidence is presented for the existence of god, I refuse to move from the null hypothesis?"

Suggesting that one should take the middle ground in the absence of any evidence is to commit the fallacy of the golden mean.

Not quite. I'm not saying you must accept such anecdotal evidence of god. I'm saying that it is a reasonable and rational choice to do so, and therefore, a skeptic can examine the evidence critically and rationally conclude something other than atheism.

And I'm saying that it is not reasonable and rational to do so. The difference is that I back up my claims with more than meaningless rhetoric and hand waving away examples I don't like.

We don't know whether god does or does not exist. Until we have established one conclusion or the other as fact, we have to go by some other criteria to decide whether testimony for the existance of god seems credible.

What do you think a fact is, Beth? Is there a requirement for 100% certainty for something to be a fact?

Multiple sane adults testifing to the similar experiences is not an unreasonable critiera for deciding their stories have some credibility. You may certainly argue for some other critiera if you like. But dismissing the testimony because you don't believe in god doesn't seem like an unbiased assessment of the evidence to me.

Beth, do you know what begging the question is?

You can't say that the adults are sane (or more accurately, that they can properly separate fantasy from reality) unless you know that god exists. If god exists then the adults are sane - which still doesn't mean we should accept their testimony, but is irrelevant because we already know that god exists anyway. If god doesn't exist then the adults do have trouble separating fantasy from reality and we definitely shouldn't accept their testimony.

Do you understand?

 

[Georg]

I meant the "you" only as the proverbial "one" in an example.

I thought so, but wanted to make sure.......no offense taken.

But as for your example, I think that may be one case where 'one' believes with at least a minimum of evidence.

One decides that a god is the only way to explain the Universe. Still, I can't buy that such a conclusion is the only thing that the person is considering.

If you were growing up and you concluded there is no way science is ever going to answer these questions. Then someone proposes the answer is magic. Fine, maybe without evidence you are going to believe in the proposed answer.

But what really happens is people grow up being told gods exist. They have all kinds of influences which shape those god beliefs. Then (taking the Deist believer) they see that all the evidence points to natural explanations for everything. No god is required. That person doesn't say god is the answer to the gaps. That person says maybe there is an undetectable god, perhaps one that made everything all at once to follow the natural path but doesn't interfere beyond that.

But say they decide 'god' is an explanation for the initiation of all things natural for the reasons you describe. That decision would never have occurred had the person not been given all the 'evidence' which earlier on convinced them a 'god' was the best explanation for the existence of the Universe.

I think it boils down to either accepting the rationalization one is believing without evidence, or doubting the claim and concluding the rationalization is the person's way of denying the blind spot, the inconsistency, the exception, being made. They can't let go of god so they construct a god that can't be tested to fit into the natural universe. If the evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of gods, just change the god.

I still do not agree, especially with the sentence of your post that I bolded.
Gods were invented independently in a lot of different cultures as an explanation for things that could not be explained otherwise at that time (thunder, sun etc.). This seems to be an indicator for humans desperately looking for something to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Of course nowadays the gaps for the gods to hide get pretty small, but as long as science can´t explain how the whole stuff got going, or whatever initiated the big bang, some people will use the deities as an explanation. That does not rule out your explanation (invalid evidence etc.) though. I just doubt it is the right one for every believer, and I still hold it possible for people to come to the gods conclusion by other means than indoctrination or other bad evidence like hallucinations. I personally am not happy with the “we don´t know yet” as well, but that is all there is to say at the moment. Hopefully science will find out a bit more about that stuff before I die. I´m so damn nosy.

 

[Beth]

Oh really? You don't think that there are sane people out there who are superstitious and believe in vampires and werewolves? Or witches?

What about fairies? You don't think that sane people can believe in fairies?

With the exception of witches (which was not on your original list and which do exist, whether or not they have any supernatural powers is another issue), those are not widely held beliefs in the present day.

I was unaware that there was any other Yahweh.

Okay, you can move Yahweh to the section of the list with Vishnu and Kali.

Objective evidence against these claims? Beth, if you can do that you will revolutionise skepticism - or have you forgotten that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? We don't have proof against the existence of these phenomena, we have evidence in favour of alternate hypotheses. You cannot prove a negative - that's why the burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove existence and not the opposite.

This part of the list was for things that make specific claims which can be, and have been, tested. Does it prove definitely for all time and in all places that such things are not real? No. But we do have objective evidence that they don't work when tested. You can, by the way, support the non-existance of certain specific gods with similar evidence. But we have been discussing skeptics who believe in gods that are untestable. So I think it is reasonable to separate out these types of claims.

Well there's your first issue - you think I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. Beth, if that were to happen it would be an added bonus - I'm not arguing for your sake, I'm arguing for the sake of anyone else reading this discussion, so that they won't fall into the same logical flaws and fallacies as you do.

Oh dear. My apologies. I was thought that because you were addressing my posts, you were talking to me. Personally, I think anyone who writes for lurkers is delusional. What objective proof do you have for their existance? Isn't your position that the skeptic must take as the null hypothesis the non-existance of entities that are not perceivable to us in any fashion? Sure, lurkers might exist, but why believe in something who's existance makes no noticable difference whether it exists or not?

It doesn't matter what you think because the evidence is against you.

This doesn't indicate that testimonial evidence is never better than a blind guess, though it's a long article and I did not read it thoroughly. Certainly, there are situations where it is no better, but I don't think nor does your link prove that testimonial evidence is never better than blind chance.

It depends on the situation as to whether a blind guess will be as good as the testimony - if we are discussing the properties of a object known to exist then a large number of witnesses would likely converge upon a reasonable description of the object, though still unlikely to be entirely accurate and certainly far less useful than the actual prescence of the object.

Ah, so we agree that testimonial evidence can be better than blind chance in some situations?

If we are discussing the existence of an object then anecdotal evidence is entirely useless. In our present discussion we are discussing the existence of god, not the colour of his beard - guess which category this falls under.

Now you are making a subjective assessment of the value of anecdotal evidence in discussing the perception of the existance of non-material things. Certainly, you have a valid point. My point is that since your assessment is subjective it's reasonable to expect that other people will assess such evidence differently and come to different conclusions.

No, a reasonable person cannot disagree with that assessment, because time and again anecdotal evidence has been shown to be unreliable.

This is what I mean by arrogance. I'm not saying your assessment is wrong, only that it is subjective and other people can hold different opinions about it.

Homeopathy, bigfoot, acupuncture - you name it, the anecdotes still don't add up to data.

Oh, they are data. They aren't very good data for analysis purposes and they certainly aren't proof. I agree that anecdotes are weak evidence. But even such weak evidence for those things is still better that the evidence for the IPU.

And how does one arrive at this middle ground from the skeptical null hypothesis (which is really all that atheism is)? What evidence, yes actual reliable evidence, have you personally seen that could shift you from that position?

I don't agree that a skeptic is required use non-existance as the null hypothesis. I think all a skeptic is required to do is acknowledge that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, that does not imply that it is true.

If you set the null hypothesis to be that no gods exist and you fail to reject the null, that does not imply that no gods exist. If you set the null hypothesis to be that god exists and fail to reject it, that doesn't imply god exists.

It seems to me that all you can ask of a skeptics is to acknowledge the weakness of their position when they have failed to reject the null.

Arrogant? What is arrogant about saying, "I can't be 100% accurate, but in the absence of any reliable evidence and without the need for god as an explanatory hypothesis, I do not believe god exists."? Or, "Until such time as evidence is presented for the existence of god, I refuse to move from the null hypothesis?"

That isn't arrogance. It's the claim that your position is the only reasonable one that is arrogant. See above.

Suggesting that one should take the middle ground in the absence of any evidence is to commit the fallacy of the golden mean.

I'm not suggesting that one should take the middle ground, I'm only suggesting that it exists.

And I'm saying that it is not reasonable and rational to do so. The difference is that I back up my claims with more than meaningless rhetoric and hand waving away examples I don't like.

Really? That's interesting, because I think that a fairly accurate description of your reaction to my examples of the usefulness of anecdotal data.

Beth, do you know what begging the question is?

Isn't that the one about making the answer you are defending an assumption in your response? You know, like assuming god doesn't exist and then assuming people who talk to god and get answers are delusional because god does not exist and therefore, their testimony regarding the existance of god is invalid because they are delusional? But perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong fallacy. Is that the one you meant?

 

[Lonewulf]

With the exception of witches (which was not on your original list and which do exist, whether or not they have any supernatural powers is another issue), those are not widely held beliefs in the present day.

If personal testimony is to be considered evidence, why is the time period in which it was experienced the indicator as to whether or not it can be considered evidence or not?

 

[Bluefire]

The answer to the OP:s question should be the same as the answer to a question that went : "Should Skeptics, by definition, be "Adowserists?" eg. should a skeptic lack belief in dowsing (or contact with the dead, or crystals etc...)

Religion / god is not special in this regard, and should not be treated specially.

Either you say "No, what matters is not specific beliefs but how one approaches facts...", but then you must open the doors to "skeptics" that profess belief in dowsing.

Or you say "Yes, given the status of the evidence of this claim, it is not reasonable to claim to be a skeptic and believe in this." Where "this" is dowsing or belief in god/religion.

Personally I think that fundamentally, skepticism is not a set of beliefs, but a method. But I also think that there really is no realistic way for a informed "skeptic" that applies this method to end up with a belief in dowsing or god.

So my answer is that the dowser and religious person is not excluded by DEFINITION (eg. a specific belief is not included in the definition of skepticism). But excluded practically, because by the facts, ending up with such a belief requires methodology excluded by skepticism.

 

[articulett]

The answer to the OP:s question should be the same as the answer to a question that went : "Should Skeptics, by definition, be "Adowserists?" eg. should a skeptic lack belief in dowsing (or contact with the dead, or crystals etc...)

Religion / god is not special in this regard, and should not be treated specially.

Either you say "No, what matters is not specific beliefs but how one approaches facts...", but then you must open the doors to "skeptics" that profess belief in dowsing.

Or you say "Yes, given the status of the evidence of this claim, it is not reasonable to claim to be a skeptic and believe in this." Where "this" is dowsing or belief in god/religion.

Personally I think that fundamentally, skepticism is not a set of beliefs, but a method. But I also think that there really is no realistic way for a informed "skeptic" that applies this method to end up with a belief in dowsing or god.

So my answer is that the dowser and religious person is not excluded by DEFINITION (eg. a specific belief is not included in the definition of skepticism). But excluded practically, because by the facts, ending up with such a belief requires methodology excluded by skepticism.

Well written--and I agree.

If one holds a belief in an entity or force that has not been shown to exist and that can't be measured in any replicable way... then that is not skeptical. Feelings exist. There is no evidence that gods do just as there is no evidence that demons do. Believing in one is as illogical as belief in the other since that which is used as "evidence" is of similar quality. Beth waves away old beliefs... but she ignores demons and Satan. She ignores them because she knows that all the evidence people use for god can also be used to claim Satan exists or demons exist. The notion that people are possessed is the caliber of proof Beth uses as evidence of God.

But a skeptic should be able to see why claims about one are as invalid as claims about the other. All testimony involves confirmation bias of an inculcated belief that evolves readily when people seek to explain that which they don't understand. They are beliefs reinvented by culture after culture.

I want to know why Beth or anyone would consider a belief in a god or gods as more rational than a belief in Satan or demons. Aren't these equal kinds of beliefs based on similar kinds of testimony and evidence? Would Beth expect a skeptic to believe in demons because they saw one or had an experience that affirmed the belief to them? And yet she does special pleading on behalf of god beliefs. She want us and herself to see them as more rational than demon belief--the evidence as more valid--

She is committing a logical fallacy and attempting to put down those who point it out by inferring it's their own biases and not hers that has her concluding the evidence for a gods existence is "rational" and somehow more logical than similar beliefs about demons.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....I still do not agree, especially with the sentence of your post that I bolded.
Gods were invented independently in a lot of different cultures as an explanation for things that could not be explained otherwise at that time (thunder, sun etc.). This seems to be an indicator for humans desperately looking for something to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Of course nowadays the gaps for the gods to hide get pretty small, but as long as science can´t explain how the whole stuff got going, or whatever initiated the big bang, some people will use the deities as an explanation. That does not rule out your explanation (invalid evidence etc.) though. I just doubt it is the right one for every believer, and I still hold it possible for people to come to the gods conclusion by other means than indoctrination or other bad evidence like hallucinations. I personally am not happy with the “we don´t know yet” as well, but that is all there is to say at the moment. Hopefully science will find out a bit more about that stuff before I die. I´m so damn nosy.

Getting to your last points first....

I think you may mean "curious" rather than "nosy". Nosy refers to wanting to know people's business, curious refers to wanting to know about everything.

When you say you are not happy with the "we don't know yet", do you think simply adding "magic did it" really changes that?

As far as gods being invented by all cultures separately, that goes back to the alternative explanation better explains that fact than the existence of real gods explains it. I can see your interpretation and what you are saying. You are saying such a conclusion is logical in the absence of evidence. But the fact all cultures came up with god beliefs is actually evidence I hypothesize some of the skeptical believers (Deists) are actually using when they claim they believe without evidence.

I would also challenge your assumptions. You are assuming god is inserted to explain "no evidence". I would conclude god is inserted only after falsely interpreting events as having a causal relationship. In other words you are saying god gets inserted when we run out of ideas. I say god is inserted when we misinterpret evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The answer to the OP:s question should be the same as the answer to a question that went : "Should Skeptics, by definition, be "Adowserists?" eg. should a skeptic lack belief in dowsing (or contact with the dead, or crystals etc...)

Religion / god is not special in this regard, and should not be treated specially.

Either you say "No, what matters is not specific beliefs but how one approaches facts...", but then you must open the doors to "skeptics" that profess belief in dowsing.

Or you say "Yes, given the status of the evidence of this claim, it is not reasonable to claim to be a skeptic and believe in this." Where "this" is dowsing or belief in god/religion.

Personally I think that fundamentally, skepticism is not a set of beliefs, but a method. But I also think that there really is no realistic way for a informed "skeptic" that applies this method to end up with a belief in dowsing or god.

So my answer is that the dowser and religious person is not excluded by DEFINITION (eg. a specific belief is not included in the definition of skepticism). But excluded practically, because by the facts, ending up with such a belief requires methodology excluded by skepticism.

Ditto, this is also how I would put it.

Those of us not making the exception for god beliefs can see such beliefs are supported with evidence of the same quality as woo beliefs are supported. Those making the exception for god beliefs are going to great lengths to describe god in ways that supposedly make their specific god beliefs an exception to woo beliefs.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ditto, this is also how I would put it.

Those of us not making the exception for god beliefs can see such beliefs are supported with evidence of the same quality as woo beliefs are supported. Those making the exception for god beliefs are going to great lengths to describe god in ways that supposedly make their specific god beliefs an exception to woo beliefs.

Do the people in the latter group claim evidence of their god beliefs?

If they don't, then your juxtaposition of the two groups is unfair, misleading, and utterly wrong.

 

[articulett]

Do the people in the latter group claim evidence of their god beliefs?

If they don't, then your juxtaposition of the two groups is unfair, misleading, and utterly wrong.

No it's not Claus. It's the same. If statements about god are illogical when "Satan" or demons are substituted for "god" then the statement is equally illogical about god. If the evidence people use to believe in a god is on par with the evidence that people use to believe in demons or Satan, then the beliefs are equally "unskeptical"--"irrational". There is no logical reason to believe in invisible entities or disembodied consciousness (or divine powers) of any sort-- therefore, all evidence for such beliefs are of equal caliber... and if one believes in one (god), there is no "reason" to disbelieve in any of them.

If you disbelieve in demons or find that skeptics should be "a-demoninsts", then you are being hypocritical or using special pleading if you don't think they should also be a-theists. All reasons humans have for being skeptical of demons are the exact same reasons that most skeptics have for being skeptical of gods, aren't they? I cannot imagine how belief in one is more skeptical than belief in the other. Skepticgirl is right. If you think she's wrong you show why belief in a god is more skeptical or logical then a belief in demons or divining powers or Satan or the powers of Sylvia Browne. You show why claims or feelings about god deserve more respect from those who call themselves skeptics then claims and feelings about demons or reincarnation or ESP. And then find someone who agrees with you. Otherwise, you are just being argumentative without making a point-- yet again while pretending to speak for people who don't consider you to be speaking for them. You are putting down people who make a whole lot more sense than you while pretending to be the JREF skepticsim vigilante.

 

[CFLarsen]

No it's not Claus. It's the same. If statements about god are illogical when "Satan" or demons are substituted for "god" then the statement is equally illogical about god.

I'm not saying otherwise.

If the evidence people use to believe in a god is on par with the evidence that people use to believe in demons or Satan, then the beliefs are equally "unskeptical"--"irrational".

I'm not saying otherwise.

There is no logical reason to believe in invisible entities or disembodied consciousness (or divine powers) of any sort-- therefore, all evidence for such beliefs are of equal caliber... and if one believes in one (god), there is no "reason" to disbelieve in any of them.

It all comes down to what evidence is claimed for these gods. If no evidence is claimed, then

If you disbelieve in demons or find that skeptics should be "a-demoninsts", then you are being hypocritical or using special pleading if you don't think they should also be a-theists.

See above.

All reasons humans have for being skeptical of demons are the exact same reasons that most skeptics have for being skeptical of gods, aren't they?

No. And that's where you and skeptigirl go wrong. You cannot equate the non-evidential reasons people have for believing in gods/demons/whatever with evidence-based claims.

I cannot imagine how belief in one is more skeptical than belief in the other.

The first three words explain why. You cannot imagine why some would believe in a non-evidential god. But that doesn't make their beliefs any less real, valid or reasonable.

Skepticgirl is right. If you think she's wrong you show why belief in a god is more skeptical or logical then a belief in demons or divining powers or Satan or the powers of Sylvia Browne. You show why claims or feelings about god deserve more respect from those who call themselves skeptics then claims and feelings about demons or reincarnation or ESP. And then find someone who agrees with you.

Why don't you pay attention to what I am saying?

Is the god claimed to be evidential or not?

If it isn't, then you cannot equate that belief with a belief in an evidential demon, divining powers (obviously evidential) or the powers of Sylvia Browne (also evidential).

Otherwise, you are just being argumentative without making a point-- yet again while pretending to speak for people who don't consider you to be speaking for them. You are putting down people who make a whole lot more sense than you while pretending to be the JREF skepticsim vigilante.

I don't pretend to speak for people. I look at what they claim - if they claim anything at all.

You should do the same: Listen to what people are actually saying - and not what you want them to say.

 

[articulett]

You called skepticgirl utterly wrong. She's not. She's apparently saying what you are saying...

We're talking about beliefs... and what one might expect a skeptics positions and reasoning to be if they were using their skepticism to derive at conclusions about gods. It's not about what anyone is claiming. We all know that we can address claims. The question is about belief... If a skeptic believes in gods and not in demons, it doesn't seem that there can be a logical (skeptical) reason for this being the case. They are therefore using their skepticism selectively in order to keep certain beliefs from scrutiny. That appears to be a fact... the fact that Skeptic girl and others are trying to convey. She is not wrong about that fact.

Skeptics who believe in gods appear not to be applying their skeptical inquiry to those gods that they do to claims of similar caliber. From my perspective they are more interested in supporting the truth they've come to believe rather than finding out the truth that is the same for everyone.

Yes... we all agree that so long as no claims are made, we can't subject beliefs to skeptical scrutiny. But when one asserts a belief then that, itself, is a claim subject to scrutiny. A skeptic wants to know why a person believes something as well as whether that something has validity or relevance to them. If a person believes for illogical reasons then that is useful information about how people fool themselves... if a person believes something for a logical reason, then we may benefit from understanding that belief further... if the belief is more akin to a feeling or an opinion, then that is useful information too-- the notion that some people find a belief in a god comforting is useful information-- concluding that there is a good reason to believe in that god is fallacious however.

You've accused skeptic girl of saying something wrong and misleading when I see that she appears to be saying what you are saying... though I have a hard time understanding exactly what it is you are saying. How is it you imagine skepticgirl is wrong? I think she's exactly right. What people claim is not her point. Her point is that skeptics who believe in god(s) seem to be applying skepticism with a bias. To be consistent, a skeptic would treat a belief in god as a belief in demons and give the evidence in favor of such a belief equal weight.

Do you think skeptics by definition should be a-demonists? Whatever your answer is and whatever reasons you use should apply equally to whether skeptics by definition should be a-theists, correct? If not, why not? This would be true whether claims are made or not--correct?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do the people in the latter group claim evidence of their god beliefs?

If they don't, then your juxtaposition of the two groups is unfair, misleading, and utterly wrong.

So because one doesn't have insight into their beliefs, or because one makes a claim of denial of using evidence, I must draw my conclusion based on their claims?

I think not.

 

[articulett]

So because one doesn't have insight into their beliefs, or because one makes a claim of denial of using evidence, I must draw my conclusion based on their claims?

I think not.

Exactly. You do not need to know why a person believes as they do to make the conclusion that the belief is illogical. If the kinds of things said in support of certain beliefs can be said in support of known woo-- then it's safe to conclude that such beliefs fall in the same category. I think all claims about invisible forms of consciousness-- are equally fallacious-- because there is no evidence that any such entities exist and lots of evidence that humans are prone to believing in such things anyhow to explain that which they don't understand or which they've been indoctrinated to believe. I understand why people believe... I used to believe. I also understand why most skeptics don't... why the reasons most skeptics disbelieve in demons are the exact same reasons most skeptics disbelieve in gods.

 

[CFLarsen]

You called skepticgirl utterly wrong. She's not. She's apparently saying what you are saying...

We're talking about beliefs... and what one might expect a skeptics positions and reasoning to be if they were using their skepticism to derive at conclusions about gods. It's not about what anyone is claiming. We all know that we can address claims. The question is about belief... If a skeptic believes in gods and not in demons, it doesn't seem that there can be a logical (skeptical) reason for this being the case. They are therefore using their skepticism selectively in order to keep certain beliefs from scrutiny. That appears to be a fact... the fact that Skeptic girl and others are trying to convey. She is not wrong about that fact.

Skeptics who believe in gods appear not to be applying their skeptical inquiry to those gods that they do to claims of similar caliber. From my perspective they are more interested in supporting the truth they've come to believe rather than finding out the truth that is the same for everyone.

No, they are not using their skepticism selectively, because they are not claiming evidence of their beliefs.

Yes... we all agree that so long as no claims are made, we can't subject beliefs to skeptical scrutiny. But when one asserts a belief then that, itself, is a claim subject to scrutiny. A skeptic wants to know why a person believes something as well as whether that something has validity or relevance to them. If a person believes for illogical reasons then that is useful information about how people fool themselves... if a person believes something for a logical reason, then we may benefit from understanding that belief further... if the belief is more akin to a feeling or an opinion, then that is useful information too-- the notion that some people find a belief in a god comforting is useful information-- concluding that there is a good reason to believe in that god is fallacious however.

Give an example of a "logical reason", and one that is not.

You've accused skeptic girl of saying something wrong and misleading when I see that she appears to be saying what you are saying... though I have a hard time understanding exactly what it is you are saying. How is it you imagine skepticgirl is wrong? I think she's exactly right. What people claim is not her point. Her point is that skeptics who believe in god(s) seem to be applying skepticism with a bias. To be consistent, a skeptic would treat a belief in god as a belief in demons and give the evidence in favor of such a belief equal weight.

Do you think skeptics by definition should be a-demonists? Whatever your answer is and whatever reasons you use should apply equally to whether skeptics by definition should be a-theists, correct? If not, why not? This would be true whether claims are made or not--correct?

Again: Why don't you read what I say? I answered your question in post #891. I am not saying that skeptics should treat beliefs about demons any different than beliefs about gods - if evidence is claimed.

Make all the arguments you like, but have the courtesy of reading the responses you get.

So because one doesn't have insight into their beliefs, or because one makes a claim of denial of using evidence, I must draw my conclusion based on their claims?

I think not.

1) How the heck do you know when you have "insight" into someone's beliefs?

2) What do you mean, "claim of denial of using evidence"?

 

[schlitt]

I believe god's real name is Sandy.

As a Skeptic, I do not need any evidence for this, because it is un-testable and I am not claiming any evidence.

God = Sandy

Finally we know his real name... I’m glad I figured it out. Skepticism really does work!

 

[qayak]

I believe god's real name is Sandy.

As a Skeptic, I do not need any evidence for this, because it is un-testable and I am not claiming any evidence.

God = Sandy

Finally we know his real name... I’m glad I figured it out. Skepticism really does work!

Better read up on skepticism, you are completely wrong. When there is no evidence, a skeptic says, "I don't know what god's name is!"

A believer would make up a name and claim to "know" through some irrational line of reasoning or divine insight.

So, how long have you dreamed of becoming a skeptic?

 

[Lonewulf]

Better read up on skepticism, you are completely wrong. When there is no evidence, a skeptic says, "I don't know what god's name is!"

A believer would make up a name and claim to "know" through some irrational line of reasoning or divine insight.

So, how long have you dreamed of becoming a skeptic?

Er...

I'm not sure if you're joking here, but you do realize that schlitt wasn't being serious, right?

 

[schlitt]

Better read up on skepticism, you are completely wrong. When there is no evidence, a skeptic says, "I don't know what god's name is!"

A believer would make up a name and claim to "know" through some irrational line of reasoning or divine insight.

So, how long have you dreamed of becoming a skeptic?

Say it aint so!

 

[qayak]

Er...

I'm not sure if you're joking here, but you do realize that schlitt wasn't being serious, right?

I'm a skeptic, do you have any evidence that they weren't serious?

And if our conversation goes like this:

Me: "How do you know they are a skeptic?"

You: "Because they told me and skeptics don't lie!"

Well, I will just have to come over there and slap the ever loving crap out of you!