Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[ponderingturtle]

The more you keep talking about "letting people in," the more you're proving my point.

So you don't see any value in classifications and terminology then? Then why care?

You just seem to be being very obnoxious and entirely ignoring the substance of peoples arguments.

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

Not that I expect any kind of real answer.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

I thought it was the person who came in here and presumed that the OP speaks for us all. That person has declared those who don't understand how you can hold untennable beliefs and be a skeptic to be arrogant.

That person would appear to be like a nimrod.

 

[JoeEllison]

And that's all I have to say about it.

Care to reconsider this part?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

What strawman? There are people with those beliefs.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Wrong!

Cleon doesn't seem interested in having a conversation. He appears to be interested in making declarations.

 

[-Fran-]

Care to reconsider this part?

You probably totally misunderstood that and are creating a strawman to attack as you speak

 

[-Fran-]

Cleon doesn't seem interested in having a conversation. He appears to be interested in making declarations.

It seems so. I may have misunderstood him, but it was an honest mistake in that case (and I am still not convinced I actually did misunderstand, though I am unsure ) and not an attempt to make a strawman. But I guess that when I say he's wrong about me, that doesn't carry the same weight as when he says I am wrong about him.

And yes, he has declared that we can not raise questions about this thing, that's clear.

 

[CFLarsen]

The mere existence of such a deity is by definition supernatural.

But they don't claim the existence of such a deity.

But if they realise that, how can they be said to actually believe it?

Why not?

Remember the scene in "Contact"?

[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.
Source

Get it?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It seems so. I may have misunderstood him, but it was an honest mistake in that case (and I am still not convinced I actually did misunderstand, though I am unsure ) and not an attempt to make a strawman. But I guess that when I say he's wrong about me, that doesn't carry the same weight as when he says I am wrong about him.

And yes, he has declared that we can not raise questions about this thing, that's clear.

Perhaps he blessed with a superior intellect, or just indignation. He has declared himself to be a skeptic, and Hal as well. Based on that assertion, he argues that it is therefore possible to be a skeptic and a theist.

To be fair, Hal is a deist in the most restrictive sense. There's precious little to examine about the claim of deism. Assuming Cleon's religious belief is of the same stripe, then the argument that one can be both a theist and skeptic has legs in his case.

Still, ain't no one perfect. I'm sure there are things I believe which are bunk. However, I agree with you that it's very odd to watch people with one religious belief critically and skeptically examine someone else's beliefs. It's a little kooky to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you don't see any value in classifications and terminology then? Then why care?

You just seem to be being very obnoxious and entirely ignoring the substance of peoples arguments.

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

The Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species.

So, no, they are not skeptical. They are not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species.

So, no, they are not skeptical. They are not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

It was a question dirrected to Cleon.

 

[Fnord]

I am one of those "people who admit that their religious faith is not based on logic, reason, or evidence," and yet I also apply skepticism in my day-to-day life.

Sorry ... I just can't shake off my faith in the existance of the eternal Über-being commonly known as "God." It wasn't reasoned in, and it won't be reasoned out.

Maybe you should petition to have membership in JREF and websites like it open to only those people who will openly state that their beiliefs are humanistic, naturalistic, and totally secular; thus turning JREF and websites like it into Atheists-Only organizations.

Good Luck!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Maybe you should petition to have membership in JREF and websites like it open to only those people who will openly state that their beiliefs are humanistic, naturalistic, and totally secular; thus turning JREF and websites like it into Atheists-Only organizations.

That's a horrible idea! We should put a stop to it right away. Who proposed such a terrible - oh, you did. As a strawman. Joy.

 

[CFLarsen]

It was a question dirrected to Cleon.

Did you want an answer to your question, or did you want to pick a fight with a particular person?

 

[-Fran-]

Perhaps he blessed with a superior intellect, or just indignation. He has declared himself to be a skeptic, and Hal as well. Based on that assertion, he argues that it is therefore possible to be a skeptic and a theist.

To be fair, Hal is a deist in the most restrictive sense. There's precious little to examine about the claim of deism. Assuming Cleon's religious belief is of the same stripe, then the argument that one can be both a theist and skeptic has legs in his case.

Still, ain't no one perfect. I'm sure there are things I believe which are bunk. However, I agree with you that it's very odd to watch people with one religious belief critically and skeptically examine someone else's beliefs. It's a little kooky to me.

Yes, I agree, I've believed things as well that turned out to be bunk, and I probably think I know things now as well that is really bunk, only I haven't heard about it yet. However, when I do realize it is bunk, I discard those things. That's what it is about to me, not being perfect from the get go.

And yes, the last you say is what is puzzling to me, and I have merely stated here that, just as you, I find that a bit kooky. I think that all of us that do wonder about this are not arrogant in the least, and in no way have we said we think that people like Cleon should not go to TAM, work for spreading reason, and all the other things he mentioned. Why on earth would we say that?

As I understood it, this (the OP and all) isn't about what theistic skeptics should or should not do, they are free to do what they want, and personally I think many of them do a lot of good here (as I said before) but that it is essentially about the very definition of the word 'skeptic' and what that entails. That discussing this generates a reaction such as Cleon's does come of as a wee bit defensive to me. And for no reason, he doesn't have to defend the way he is, because it is not under attack. And he has not replied to those who really raised some valid questions about his first post in this thread.

My personal definition of the word skeptic makes it incompatible with religious beliefs of any kind, though I have said that I am unsure as to what the "official" definition really is, and I have therefore not declared anything about how others should think and act.

 

[rocketdodger]

Skepticism is the process of using evidence based inquiry to assess claims. A skeptic is a person who does this. How is "the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic?"

Because they use evidence based inquiry to assess claims.

It just so happens that the amount of evidence they consider satisfactory before making their assessment is on par with "someone told me so" or "I saw it in a book." That doesn't change the fact that they are still using evidence based assessment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps he blessed with a superior intellect, or just indignation. He has declared himself to be a skeptic, and Hal as well. Based on that assertion, he argues that it is therefore possible to be a skeptic and a theist.

To be fair, Hal is a deist in the most restrictive sense. There's precious little to examine about the claim of deism. Assuming Cleon's religious belief is of the same stripe, then the argument that one can be both a theist and skeptic has legs in his case.

But as I have tried to point out, you can have a creationist belief that leaves the same amount to examine as deism or any other religious belief. Not all creationist beliefs require believing in any thing that can be tested to disprove it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But as I have tried to point out, you can have a creationist belief that leaves the same amount to examine as deism or any other religious belief. Not all creationist beliefs require believing in any thing that can be tested to disprove it.

You mean "Last Thursdayism," for example? That's true enough. Still, can any such sophistry be examined critically?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Did you want an answer to your question, or did you want to pick a fight with a particular person?

You have not been making arguments in this thread about how some of the poster in this thread are in no position to decide what a skeptic is or is not, and how excluding groups from the definition is bad.

Cleon seems to think letting some theistic beliefs in while keeping others that make an equal number of testable predictions out is perfectly acceptable. And it making arguments about people not having the authority to decide who is and who is not a skeptic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You mean "Last Thursdayism," for example? That's true enough. Still, can any such sophistry be examined critically?

No, and that is the point. There are many beliefs that you can not prove or disprove, many of them very very similar to woo woo beliefs that being worded slightly differently can be disproven. I do not see why some beliefs in this class exclude you from being a skeptic while others do not. And it seems everyone has beliefs in this class.