Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[amb]

ambnp, where did you get this figure?

I think that Dawkins said something like this, but I'd like to know where the actual figure came from...

Yes Dawkins did mention that. The figures are from the membership files and questioning the distinguished ladies and gentlemen. Personally, I'm surprised that 10% still have some kind of faith.

It's completely reversed in the general population of the USA.

 

[Belz...]

Frustums of reason like these are understandable, although yours are tiresome, it isn't anything new either, read about 17'th and 18'th century Europe. You're also referring to classes of Jinn, they are invisible to humans but prevalent throughout history, culture and mythology; particularly artwork and ritual. They exist in a different medium and it isn't a common part of human experience at all to encounter them.

Ergo, they don't exist.

You are bickering. Superstition throughout the world shares identical cross-cultural commonalities - that's the only evidence.

The only thing it is evidence of is that humans across the globe think alike and woo alike.

 

[Beth]

Another thing that's widespread throughout cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination

Any questions?

Yes. The link to Mass hallucination goes to the page on mass hysteria. Not quite the same. Are there any actual verified cases of mass hallucinations?

 

[Mobyseven]

Claus is on ignore, but I couldn't resist the urge to check out that last post of his...

In regards to the point about mathematicians...I don't know what it is, but for some reason the mathematicians I know seem to be a whole lot more woo than other scientists (though as to whether mathematics is actually science...we'll leave that to another thread). I know it's not right to extrapolate from such a small sample group, but has anyone else noticed a similar trend? I know a maths major, who was also my logic tutor, who strongly advocates homeopathy. Other mathematicians in my life have shown a significant amount of woo too.

it makes me feel all dirty wanting to be one of them...

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes. The link to Mass hallucination goes to the page on mass hysteria. Not quite the same. Are there any actual verified cases of mass hallucinations?

It's kinda funny how religious nuts, or those that support religious nuts, will have a tendency of ignoring everything else and focus the one thing they might actually have a point in, and then use that to justify ludicrous claims such as "demons exist!"

Okay, I'll admit, I'm having trouble digging up with anything that supports "mass hallucinations" (not sure what you define that as anyways... apparently it's not a group of people that can show symptoms of a disease without actually having one...)

But it doesn't matter. Other things influence believe in demons and the supernatural.


Personal hallucination (are you going to suggest that they don't exist?), Bandwagon Effect, Hysteria (and mass hysteria), and Groupthink.

And like I said before, just because different cultures hold a concept, does not make that concept true. Multiple groups thought the sun revolved around the Earth. Does that make them right?

Answer:




No.

Occam's Razor is on my side here. What's more plausible? That there are demons, spiritual things, an astral plane, and all sorts of ghosts and goblins that can't be measured or observed by ANY instrument known to man...

...Or that maybe, just maybe, sleep paralysis, personal hallucination, groupthink, and a species that has an amazing track record of getting most things about the universe wrong when they first guess about things, managed to believe in similar things?

I'd also want to add that it's amazing how many cultures believe in the supernatural, when this supposed supernatural is completely undetectable except for some random, chaotic method that seems indistinguishable from hallucination. And, I might add, seems to get the appearance thing wrong. Japanese Oni do not look the same as Christian Demons. And... ironically... all of these supernatural and inhuman things, often look much like humans. Just like aliens tend to look humanoid. And just like gods tend to look humanoid. Hmm........... wonder why?

And those that don't look like humans, either represent elements here on Earth that we're all familiar with (fire, water, earth, air, the sun, etc.) but yet, surprisingly, never quasars, distant objects, pulsars, or "Dark Matter" (whatever that stuff is, if it is stuff). Or they tend to represent animals on Earth. Or they're a mix; a man made of fire, a man with the scales of a snake, or a man with fur, or a woman with fur, or a man with claws.

Hardly impressive for supposedly non-Earthly inhuman, non-normal creatures. I've seen weirder things in biology textbooks than I've ever seen in mythology... and many of these weird discoveries that seem unlike anything we've ever even imagined, are things that humans were never even capable of experiencing.

Hmmm......... makes you think. Unless you're a woo, that is.

 

[Beth]

Okay, I'll admit, I'm having trouble digging up with anything that supports "mass hallucinations" (not sure what you define that as anyways... apparently it's not a group of people that can show symptoms of a disease without actually having one...)

I would consider a mass hallucination to be multiple people having the same hallucination at the same time rather than multiple individuals having similar individual hallucinations. I'm curious to know if such an event has ever been verified. I'll assume not for now.

Personal hallucination (are you going to suggest that they don't exist?)

No. Nor did I suggest that mass hallucination don't exist. I simply asked for verification that mass hallucinations do exist. After all, the page you linked to doesn't say anything about them. Or should I just take your word for it that such things happen?

 

[Lonewulf]

Or should I just take your word for it that such things happen?

Considering that I pretty much retracted my claim by saying that I can't find anything to verify it, this comment comes off as snarky.

Which is forgiven, as my posting style kinda asks for it...

I dunno, though. Isn't your body telling you that you develop symptoms of the same disease as other people similar to a mass hallucination? Or is hallucination only perceptual? Mass Hysteria certainly seems close enough...

 

[Beth]

Considering that I pretty much retracted my claim by saying that I can't find anything to verify it, this comment comes off as snarky.

Which is forgiven, as my posting style kinda asks for it...

Thanks. I did add the smiley, my way of trying to indicate it was an attempt at humor. I'm sorry if it came across as snarky.

I dunno, though. Isn't your body telling you that you develop symptoms of the same disease as other people similar to a mass hallucination? Or is hallucination only perceptual?

Yes, I think hallucination is only perceptual. At least I can't think of any non-perceptual hallucinations. But perhaps you could supply an example that my imagination doesn't come up.

Mass Hysteria certainly seems close enough...

Mass hysteria wouldn't be similiar unless it happens to a bunch of people in the same place and at the same time. I'm only aware of one documented case of mass hysteria that happened to the same people in the same place and that turned out to be a previously unknown objective phenomena, not hysteria at all. But, if there are instances of verified mass hysteria happening to many people at the same time and place, that would be very close.

 

[Darat]

Bunch of posts moved to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[SirPhilip]

Considering that I pretty much retracted my claim by saying that I can't find anything to verify it, this comment comes off as snarky. Which is forgiven, as my posting style kinda asks for it...I dunno, though. Isn't your body telling you that you develop symptoms of the same disease as other people similar to a mass hallucination? Or is hallucination only perceptual? Mass Hysteria certainly seems close enough...

Assuming you didn't timidly abort, this is sound reasoning. It's what is called a 'grandiosity gap': the gap between superstition (as a placeword, uncommon events we'll use) and common experience, which is most visible now between Islamic societies and the developed world and influences global politics. The reality is that world events are driven by belief in uncommon significant events cultures hold as important.

 

[SirPhilip]

Touring The Vatican Museum

Mass hysteria wouldn't be similiar unless it happens to a bunch of people in the same place and at the same time. I'm only aware of one documented case of mass hysteria that happened to the same people in the same place and that turned out to be a previously unknown objective phenomena, not hysteria at all. But, if there are instances of verified mass hysteria happening to many people at the same time and place, that would be very close.

Themes in artwork actually repeat across cultures. Someone so inclined could write elaborately it's nonsense, noise as opposed to signal, and make nothing but sense. It's why reconciling it is so difficult, but if do, you see the world in a different way. Profoundly conflicted due to the gap existing - Dawkins has tackled it's negative impact head-on among others, but not so when you understand why that is.

 

[Lonewulf]

Mass hysteria wouldn't be similiar unless it happens to a bunch of people in the same place and at the same time. I'm only aware of one documented case of mass hysteria that happened to the same people in the same place and that turned out to be a previously unknown objective phenomena, not hysteria at all. But, if there are instances of verified mass hysteria happening to many people at the same time and place, that would be very close.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/collective-hysteria.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2001_July_16/ai_77057810

Some 1,100 students, both boys and girls, at Puchong Perdana National School in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur had gathered in the school field for a weekly Monday assembly at 7.30 a.m. when suddenly a 15-year-old girl started screaming, then collapsed.

This led to a chain reaction.

The rest of the students ran to the their class rooms in panic when at least 30 girls began acting violently, throwing objects and screaming.

Done.

Can I have a cookie?

Here's a tip: Next time someone links to something, it's a smart idea to actually read it.

 

[Beth]

http://health.howstuffworks.com/collective-hysteria.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2001_July_16/ai_77057810

Interesting, but the first was not quite what I meant - i.e. the illnesses did not all occur at the same time, but eventually spread to 600 out of 3600 girls . The diagnosis of mass hysteria is used because they couldn't find any other cause for the illnesses, not because hysteria was positively diagnosed.

The second article is closer in that all the kids were acting up at the same time and in reaction to the same stimulus, but we aren't talking about a hallucination or even an illness here, but more of a classic hysteria - screaming and throwing things (presumably unable to stop themselves).

I find it interesting that both example were of schoolgirls. I don't suppose you know of any examples of adults of both sexes suffering from such a malady?

Done.

Can I have a cookie?

Sure. What's your favorite? Peanut butter? Chocolate Chip? Oatmeal? Go ahead, have several. Virtual cookies only have virtual calories.

 

[Lonewulf]

The second article is closer in that all the kids were acting up at the same time and in reaction to the same stimulus, but we aren't talking about a hallucination or even an illness here, but more of a classic hysteria - screaming and throwing things (presumably unable to stop themselves).

I find it interesting that both example were of schoolgirls. I don't suppose you know of any examples of adults of both sexes suffering from such a malady?

Beth, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. I knew you would dismiss it out of hand as soon as you heard it without even bothering going out and doing your own research.

I'm not interesting in continuing this conversation. Goodbye.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Wow, "Gross misrepresentation", they only surveyed the top members. Maybe a skewed sample, maybe not, but even so it would be consistent with the statement the data supported, that the more you know in science, the less likely you are to believe in gods.

And it was 72% no belief and 21% at least doubt. I don't think you can call that a "gross misrepresentation". BTW, this data supports my post in the other thread that the more modern the society, the less theistic their beliefs (with some exceptions).

The 'top' scientists polled WERE the National Academy, not the top scientists IN the National Academy. The Academy is a prestigous body of scientists who are consulted on national policy, simply being a member makes you a top scientist. As I recall, about 500 responded to the survey out of (I think) 1800 members, which is a pretty good sample of that group, although no doubt somewhat self-selecting, for patience and helpfulness I would think rather than for a particular religous stance.

 

[Beth]

Beth, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. I knew you would dismiss it out of hand as soon as you heard it without even bothering going out and doing your own research.

I'm not interesting in continuing this conversation. Goodbye.

As you wish, but I haven't dismissed it out of hand. It appears that mass hysteria of schoolchildren is a documented occurrence and I'm not denying that. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

 

[Lonewulf]

As you wish, but I haven't dismissed it out of hand.

It seemed like it.

Though I'll admit that the first link did not discuss an event that fit your definition, and I will respond to your comment (which you seem to have edited? Not sure why, that didn't really offend me) about the whole "snarky" thing:

You were right, I was being needlessly snarky. I apologize for that; shouldn't have criticized you for doing something I was doing myself.

Another thing, though, Beth.

I find it interesting that both example were of schoolgirls. I don't suppose you know of any examples of adults of both sexes suffering from such a malady?

I'm not sure about males, but I did hear about a case of mass hysteria in the Holy Roman Empire, with nuns in convents. They believed that they were being possessed by the souls of "evil" animals (they believed that animals such as wolves and cats could do that)... one nun started meowing, and then everyone in the room started to emulate her, and the next thing you know, it's spread all over.

I'm not sure how to do a search for that: If anyone can find an article to link to, that would be great.

It seems to come up when people are put into a situation where they're encouraged to conform, and things tend to be rather... monotonous (I mean, a convent is the most boring you can live, IMO). You get a bunch of people that will embrace new things entirely, and are encouraged to conform to the behavior of everyone else around them, and things like mass hysteria tend to become a lot more common.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not as clear-cut as that. While there is a clear correlation between very high education and lack of belief in god, mathematicians are almost three times as likely to believe in God than biologists.

It depends on the level of scientific training, but also what field you are in.

None of this refutes the actual underpinning of the premise I stated and that is the more educated one is, especially in science fields, the more you come to see all god beliefs are equally woo. As society moves toward modernity, god beliefs fade. It may be two steps forward, one back. It may be mathematicians (assuming your unreferenced data is correct) and Americans are aberrantly bucking the trend, but the trend exists overall, nonetheless.

I think I can call articulett's claim "gross misrepresentation". Don't you?

No. Why would I say it wasn't if I meant otherwise? You are nit picking where it matters not.

How can it not be relevant? Here we have the most famous deist skeptic, and you think it is irrelevant how he got to his credo consolans?

You can't just dismiss the examples that destroy your argument.

Your question isn't relevant. You think it is, but I've explained over and over why it isn't. My answer holds, your question wasn't relevant and therefore no answer was needed.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
You can't even form a couple of sentences to explain how you define skepticism?....

You seriously don't see the irony in this request? You, Mr 'two word quiper' who just spent 4 pages arguing nonsense in the thread on the meteorite spattered mammoths instead of clarifying a single question, have the gall to gripe that I won't repeat something which I discussed repeatedly in a 40 page thread? No Claus, I will not waste my time on your inability to simply give up that I am not convinced by your arguments on this matter.

 

[CFLarsen]

None of this refutes the actual underpinning of the premise I stated and that is the more educated one is, especially in science fields, the more you come to see all god beliefs are equally woo. As society moves toward modernity, god beliefs fade. It may be two steps forward, one back. It may be mathematicians (assuming your unreferenced data is correct) and Americans are aberrantly bucking the trend, but the trend exists overall, nonetheless.

You can't jump to that conclusion from the data. The data only says what some of the NAS members replied.

Do you think it is possible that people began an education in the science fields because they didn't believe in god in the first place?

No. Why would I say it wasn't if I meant otherwise? You are nit picking where it matters not.

So, you don't think that a statement like articulett's

"yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not"

believe in god, when the real number is 20% lower....is misrepresentation?

What would you call misrepresentation, then?

Your question isn't relevant. You think it is, but I've explained over and over why it isn't. My answer holds, your question wasn't relevant and therefore no answer was needed.

Here's why you don't think it is "relevant": It destroys your argument. It is possible to have a Credo Consolans without relying on evidence or previous experience.

You seriously don't see the irony in this request? You, Mr 'two word quiper' who just spent 4 pages arguing nonsense in the thread on the meteorite spattered mammoths instead of clarifying a single question, have the gall to gripe that I won't repeat something which I discussed repeatedly in a 40 page thread? No Claus, I will not waste my time on your inability to simply give up that I am not convinced by your arguments on this matter.

My, you do carry grudges...

 

[Egg]

You can't jump to that conclusion from the data. The data only says what some of the NAS members replied.

Do you think it is possible that people began an education in the science fields because they didn't believe in god in the first place?

The survey was sent to 517 members, 55% of which replied. NAS claim approx 2100 members. So, we've actually only got around 10% of the total members who are known to be atheists, 3% agnostic and 1% believers . We don't have the data for over 85% of the members.

I think it's pretty hard to draw any significant conclusions. Aside from the possibility you state here about reasons for going into science fields, there's also a question of whether scientists with some kind of god belief might want to keep that to themselves for fear of bias from other scientists in reviewing their work or selections for various nominations. Presumably, if the surveys were sent to the individuals, they may well not have been entirely anonymous.