Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CFLarsen said:
It is possible to have a Credo Consolans without relying on evidence or previous experience.
Click to expand...

I don't think that she's said that it isn't possible. Moreover, using Gardner is not representative not only because he is one man, but because you have been talking about Deists, who do not claim a relationship with god, whereas Gardner does claim that this is possible.

I think "credo consolans", whilst the only gig in town for a sceptic wishing to maintain some semblance of religious belief, is pretty meaningless. It does nothing to advance our knowledge or understanding (individual or otherwise) of the world, does not posit any supernatural manifestations, and (if you believe Claus) it's admitted self-deception rather than some connection to an actual higher power - all things that the traditional god was supposed to be the way to, and all the result of fundamental misunderstandings re the natural world. Science renders all of this pointless, and so sceptics reject it. Take away all of that, and what's left for someone still wanting to believe? What's the difference between believing in this god, and none at all? Why even call it "god", and not "Dave"?

The god outlined in this thread is nothing more than a placebo created by the conscious mind to help numb the pain of existence.
 
Last edited:
Big Les said:
I don't think that she's said that it isn't possible. Moreover, using Gardner is not representative not only because he is one man, but because you have been talking about Deists, who do not claim a relationship with god, whereas Gardner does claim that this is possible.

I think "credo consolans", whilst the only gig in town for a sceptic wishing to maintain some semblance of religious belief, is pretty meaningless. It does nothing to advance our knowledge or understanding (individual or otherwise) of the world, does not posit any supernatural manifestations, and (if you believe Claus) it's admitted self-deception rather than some connection to an actual higher power - all things that the traditional god was supposed to be the way to, and all the result of fundamental misunderstandings re the natural world. Science renders all of this pointless, and so sceptics reject it. Take away all of that, and what's left for someone still wanting to believe? What's the difference between believing in this god, and none at all? Why even call it "god", and not "Dave"?

The god outlined in this thread is nothing more than a placebo created by the conscious mind to help numb the pain of existence.
Click to expand...
It may also be man's misunderstanding of the power of nature. Giving it a conscious mind, an identity. Primitive man must have been awed by the power of nature, all around him in earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses of the moon and sun.

Surely they thought, it is the gods who control this awesome power. Regards. Angelo
 
To be honest, I thought I'd covered that with "and all the result of fundamental misunderstandings re the natural world." It's come up earlier in the thread as well - skeptigirl argued that a Deist only comes to believe because of all of the debunked stuff that people used to believe. They've thrown out all of that, yet hung onto the comforting idea that even though all of the other stuff is nonsense, there might still be something behind it all.
 
Big Les said:
I don't think that she's said that it isn't possible. Moreover, using Gardner is not representative not only because he is one man, but because you have been talking about Deists, who do not claim a relationship with god, whereas Gardner does claim that this is possible.
Click to expand...

What the heck is a "relationship" with god?

Whatever it is, there is a difference between claiming a relationship with God and claiming that it is possible.

Big Les said:
I think "credo consolans", whilst the only gig in town for a sceptic wishing to maintain some semblance of religious belief, is pretty meaningless. It does nothing to advance our knowledge or understanding (individual or otherwise) of the world, does not posit any supernatural manifestations, and (if you believe Claus) it's admitted self-deception rather than some connection to an actual higher power - all things that the traditional god was supposed to be the way to, and all the result of fundamental misunderstandings re the natural world. Science renders all of this pointless, and so sceptics reject it. Take away all of that, and what's left for someone still wanting to believe? What's the difference between believing in this god, and none at all? Why even call it "god", and not "Dave"?

The god outlined in this thread is nothing more than a placebo created by the conscious mind to help numb the pain of existence.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But what is so unskeptical about that?
 
The great skeptic ,Martin Gardner,believes in God on faith, the I just say so of gullibiltiy!
It is a mere feeling to believe in God. Religion is a replaceable placebo1
 
Elementary School Phonics: Class In Session

MobySeven; said:
Ugh. Not only are you mixing up two movies
Click to expand...
(Brother Philip rests his forehead against his hand..) No no no, first you actually explain how, then "..you are mixing it up".

..you're also lying about what you originally said. You did not say, "...and neither cross the temple's seal more than seconds with the cup." You said, "...and neither cross the temple's seal with the cup." Which is incorrect.
Click to expand...
It's completely irrelevant. So what is your point (aside from writing the lamest nitpicking I've seen anyone attempt).

Thar be a troll, methinks.
Click to expand...
This is one or you have the reading comprehension of a second grader. The third option is a stressful week. Pick one.
 
Last edited:
SirPhilip said:
(Brother Philip rests his forehead against his hand..) No no no, first you actually explain how, then "..you are mixing it up".

It's completely irrelevant. So what is your point (aside from writing the lamest nitpicking I've seen anyone attempt).

This is one or you have the reading comprehension of a second grader. The third option is a stressful week. Pick one.
Click to expand...

Banish ye to ignore, troll.
 
Egg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some of the greatest minds of the millenium have stated their position on matters of religion. 99% are agnostic or atheist. I'm referring to such people as Hawkins, Dawkins, Weinberger, Sagan, Darwin, Einstein, Asimov, Vidal, Russel, Pinker, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Feynman, Freud, Mark Twain. And many many more. All great rational thinkers, light years ahead of so-called pseudo-scientist.

Regards, Angelo.
 
Henners said:
Don't forget Silver, Livesey, Bones, Pew, Flint, Trelawney and the rest.
Click to expand...
The point I'm trying to make is that the most respected scientist and philosophers of all time are mostly non theist.

Of course there are others who one day are mapping the human genome, and next day are in the pews praying to a being who they percieve to be ''up there'' listening to their prayers.
 
ambnp said:
Some of the greatest minds of the millenium have stated their position on matters of religion. 99% are agnostic or atheist. I'm referring to such people as Hawkins, Dawkins, Weinberger, Sagan, Darwin, Einstein, Asimov, Vidal, Russel, Pinker, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Feynman, Freud, Mark Twain. And many many more. All great rational thinkers, light years ahead of so-called pseudo-scientist.

Regards, Angelo.
Click to expand...
Hi Angelo.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by claiming the greatest minds are mostly non-theist. An argument from authority or that correlation proves causation?

Where is the 99% figure coming from? What criteria are you using to validate your list?

Anyone can make a list of people who they consider to be greatest minds of the millennium to come up with their own figure. What makes you think that if your list had 99 atheists/agnostics on it, that it is some kind of objective list? What's to say you aren't just choosing atheists for the list because you happen to agree with the things they said? Surely, someone could put forward a list of theologians and claim them to be the great minds of the millennium and it would be no more or less valid than your list?

That's not to say that my own list wouldn't include a good number of the people you mention. Einstein's beliefs are pretty hard to pin down and Darwin was still a theist when he wrote Origin and you make no mention of Newton, Planck, Mendel, Pascal, Babbage, Faraday, Boyle, Galileo or Copernicus, or are they the sort of people you are referring to as "pseudo-scientists"?

Btw I don't think we have any evidence that fictional pirates were mapping the human genome. I think they usually stuck to treasure maps.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What the hell does this have to do with anything ?
Click to expand...

I was going to say, "I thought you fell on the gun rights side of the debate", until I just realized what thread I'm in.

WTH?

Egg said:
Anyone can make a list of people who they consider to be greatest minds of the millennium to come up with their own figure. What makes you think that if your list had 99 atheists/agnostics on it, that it is some kind of objective list? What's to say you aren't just choosing atheists for the list because you happen to agree with the things they said? Surely, someone could put forward a list of theologians and claim them to be the great minds of the millennium and it would be no more or less valid than your list?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see the name of a single Theologian that has significantly, clearly contributed to society. Just write some pretty words, or end up causing a split in society.

Scientists have done stuff like discover penicillin, and make claims that are actually shown to be true.

That's not to say that my own list wouldn't include a good number of the people you mention. Einstein's beliefs are pretty hard to pin down[...]
Click to expand...
Not really. He made it very clear he didn't have a personal god, and also made it clear that he was a pantheist; he celebrated nature as "god", without accepting anything intelligent or supernatural about it. Sounds pretty atheistic to me, really.

Egg said:
Darwin was still a theist when he wrote Origin
Click to expand...
Did he stay one for all of his life? Or did there come a point where he had to clear up his Cognitive Dissonance?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What the hell does this have to do with anything ?
Click to expand...
(Why is asking questions with obvious answers as some sort of debate tactic so popular here?)

It means, Belz, that Clause probably would have a difficult time with someone that can transport galaxies and vaporize planets and enjoys choir music and watching people get married.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
I have yet to see the name of a single Theologian that has significantly, clearly contributed to society. Just write some pretty words, or end up causing a split in society.

Scientists have done stuff like discover penicillin, and make claims that are actually shown to be true.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we all have opinions and our own criteria on which we would judge "greatest minds". You could say the same sort of thing for musicians and philosophers, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to put forward maybe Beethoven or Descartes for such a list.


Lonewulf said:
Not really. He made it very clear he didn't have a personal god, and also made it clear that he was a pantheist; he celebrated nature as "god", without accepting anything intelligent or supernatural about it. Sounds pretty atheistic to me, really.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's quite so simple as just giving him the label of pantheist, but yes the personal god thing was clear enough. I've come across his quotes being used to try to argue various things he believed. I guess he was what he was and we can take from his writings and quotations what we will.


Lonewulf said:
Did he stay one for all of his life? Or did there come a point where he had to clear up his Cognitive Dissonance?
Click to expand...
Apparently not, although I don't know if we have evidence to attribute it to cognitive dissonance or not. Darwin's major breakthrough in thinking came while he was a theist. Whether that's more relevant than his later change of mind or not depends on what point Angelo was trying to make.
 
Egg said:
I don't think it's quite so simple as just giving him the label of pantheist, but yes the personal god thing was clear enough. I've come across his quotes being used to try to argue various things he believed. I guess he was what he was and we can take from his writings and quotations what we will.
Click to expand...
If you say so. I still say that the evidence points in that direction. If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to do so.

Egg said:
Apparently not, although I don't know if we have evidence to attribute it to cognitive dissonance or not. Darwin's major breakthrough in thinking came while he was a theist. Whether that's more relevant than his later change of mind or not depends on what point Angelo was trying to make.
Click to expand...

But his major breakthrough did not come about thanks to his theism, but rather in spite of. I think that you will agree with me on that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom