Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[CFLarsen]

Oh, for Ed's sake Claus. Everytime you do this people point it out to you. I'm not about to bother to be your personal fetch-dog when everyone here knows full well that we'll only have to wait a week at most for you to do it again, to have it pointed out again, and to have you ignore it again only to get all uppity when people point out to you what you're doing.

Go and find another hobby - perhaps bird-watching? Or you could breed frogs? Anything that doesn't involve annoying me and everyone else on this forum would be a pleasant change, I assure you.

Hobby?

All I am asking is that you back up your claims with evidence.

You know...like a skeptic would.

Can you do it or not?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A person (atheist or theist) who makes an effort to apologise for the misdeeds and/or faulty arguments of religion, but who in doing so engages in errors of reasoning themselves.

(ETA: As opposed to the practise of bible apologetics.)

Well, it seems like you're engaging in the same creeping definitions of words like Arti is then.

For one thing, "apologist" has a definition and that is those who defend the tenets of the faith. I don't. Claus does not. A number of other people Arti has appelled as "apologists" do not. For another, most of the people Arti has appelled as "apologists" have, to the best of my recollection, never excused the misdeeds of religion nor ever given credence to the faulty arguments presented by religions or religious believers.

She's already misapplying the term by trying to redefine it, but even worse, she's applying it to people who don't fit the "moved goalpost" definition you've given it. And yet you defend her constant and consistent use of it towards people who disagree with her?

Not that I want to make this about me, since her arrogent and unplesent attitude has been directed at people as diverse as The Atheist and Darth Rotor, but check out my replies in any thread started by or contributed to by DOC. I've smacked him down repeatedly on his aweful apologetics. How then does that make me one who "apologizes for faulty arguments of religion"? I criticized the recent honor killing in Irving, Texas. How does that constitute me "apologizing for the misdeeds of religion"? I responded to Radrook's posting of a verse from Psalms that states "The fool says in his heart there is no God" with "Yes, but the wise man says it aloud and further knows that the heart isn't the seat of conciousness and cannot think or speak", and yet somehow I'm an "apologist"?

Give me a big old m-fing break. Without trying to warp the definition of "apologist" into not just something the word does not mean, but something that doesn't even apply to me, calling me one is little more than lying or character assasination.

I realize you're an Arti fanboy, but she's a latecomer to JREF forums. There are a lot of skeptics and atheists who were here long before her (like from the beginning) and we're not going to let some relative newbie try and define who is welcome to post here, who is a "real skeptic" or even who a "real atheist" is.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I feel like I've been told "you're going to get it when your dad comes home"-- but I don't know what I did! Or what I'm going to get. I mean, I enjoy riling them up...but I don't want to endanger myself. I love skeptics because they tend to be very rational... but I'm sensing some irrationality here and feeling nervous. I'm trying to imagine what they plan on doing. "pssst, Shermer--this broad has something she wants to tell you..."

I suppose some people just don't like other people's personality. Sometimes style is confabulated with content.
I would hope the subtle insinuations of confrontation are more bark than bite, but in today's world...one can not necessarily take things lightly.
I'm sure you'll keep your party close at hand. Numbers tend to dissuade any potential "situations".

I actually had a great talk with Shermer at one of the TAMS about, of all things, Mormon underwear... we both were wondering where you could by some and we were talking about peculiarities of Utah... "yeah Mike... I think you are a really great guy, but I gotta tell you... I just feel more kindred with Dawkins way of delivering messages then yours-- I like my men slightly riled and you're just always all smiley and such... --so CHANGE dammit... because I am the queen, and I define how skeptics should be!"

Interesting. I'm curious, what are some of the qualities that make up Mormon underwear?
I enjoy both Dawk and Sherm. I suppose there is room for both styles. Dawk may be assertive in his woo calling, but overall, he's one very mild mannered individual.

I don't even think skeptics should be any way. I like all the different brands-- except for the apologist/vigilante (oops) brand. I don't understand that kind. They just always seem peeved at something... and I know it has something to do with me... and I enjoy the attention... but I have no way to fix the stuff they spin and get mad at and so forth. It's invented in their heads which I don't have access too! So I tease them. Or I try not to, by putting them on ignore... but then someone quotes them... and if I can't be a little of the "evil" assigned to me for my atheist status, then what's the good of being an atheist? It's just words. They can put me on ignore. And I haven't ever said most of what they imagine I've said anyhow.

Noted.

(TAM 6 is in June... are you sure you can't come?)

Would love to, but my vacation hours won't hit until August. I expect full details on the next couple events.

 

[articulett]

No, but I believe (note: opinion) that some of the people you call apologists hate the fact that you are willing to create long posts objecting to their one or two line put-downs.

And it could all be so hunky-dory for them if only they'd put me on ignore. So why don't they?

 

[CFLarsen]

And it could all be so hunky-dory for them if only they'd put me on ignore. So why don't they?

Why on Earth do you think it would be "so hunky-dory" for your critics to put you on ignore?

If your critics put you on ignore, the only one who would benefit would be you.

Not so long for TAM now.

 

[Big Les]

I realize you're an Arti fanboy, but she's a latecomer to JREF forums. There are a lot of skeptics and atheists who were here long before her (like from the beginning) and we're not going to let some relative newbie try and define who is welcome to post here, who is a "real skeptic" or even who a "real atheist" is.

I really don't think that's what she's doing. Almost everyone in this thread who expressed the opinion that religious sceptics weren't applying their scepticism to that one area of their lives also qualified that by saying it doesn't invalidate their scepticism vis other areas. Articulett is just a bit more forthright than most of us in this regard, and is expressing her preferred brands of scepticism and atheism.

You can infer from this that she would like everyone to be this way, but that isn't something she's actually said.

 

[articulett]

For what it's worth, I agree with you most of the time. However, you can be quite hot-headed which I think can be off-putting to newcomers who don't share the same your views, and may disincline them to really critically examine their beliefs. Hot-headedness is fine in some situations: moderation is the key. Please don't take it as an insult, it is not intended that way.

I'm not taking it poorly. I want to know the examples of where I'm "hot headed". Because I feel that it's always in response to something I find "hot headed" or snide. But maybe it's not. I'm trying to see if it's like the exaggerated "bad guy" stuff that Dawkins gets just for daring to say god is a delusion or if I really am saying something "shrill" or "strident" or "unfair" or if I'm "striking first". Maybe it's because females are expected to be more demure, because I don't think I sound harsher than my critics.

I try to contain my venomous self and give warning when it's a-coming... but when I get the sense that no matter what I say it will be exaggerated in "evil", then I suspect that someone is protecting some belief that they don't want to put on the table for examination. Instead they want to demonize me because I'm threatening their belief. So I poke... and poke... and when they blow up, I feel like I'm right. So I put them on ignore, but they still show up in other peoples' posts and then I'm tempted to poke some more.

But it is just words. And if they offend people then maybe it's good for them to ask themselves why they are offended. And I really will apologize if I got it wrong. But apologist is my way of defining what I see... it's an opinion... it is not worse than than the opinion the apologists have of me. In fact if we were to gather all the adjectives used to describe each other, the "apologists" are more derogatory... but I've learned to ignore them because their view of me exists only in their head. I think they should ignore me, but they don't... I think this is because they recognize that maybe they are a bit of an apologist or vigilante... maybe more people share my opinion of them than their opinion of me. Maybe an examination of actual words shows that I'm more on target than they are.

Or maybe I really am being nastier than is warranted and insinuating that I know what a real skeptic is and I think I get to define it. It would help to have the quotes in front of me, because every time the apologists quote me, their interpretation is so far off the mark that I come to the conclusion that it's the way they interpret that is the problem--not what I said. But I'm willing to examine where I'm unfair with an objective audience and hear their input on why it was harsh and what I might have said instead and why harshness is bad, etc.

After all, it's just words... just opinions. The truth is the same for everybody no matter what I or anyone else says and skepticism is about understanding that truth... the one that is the same for everybody... the one that isn't "subjective" or based on opinions.

I trust you Moby... so if you find me being hot-headed... cut and paste and show me, so I can learn. I feel like I defend new members I like from the clutches of the vigilante apologists... if I frighten away some other new members then I suggest they develop thicker skin like I have. It's just words. Opinions.

 

[Herzblut]

After all, it's just words... just opinions. The truth is the same for everybody no matter what I or anyone else says and skepticism is about understanding that truth... the one that is the same for everybody... the one that isn't "subjective" or based on opinions.

Me neither ever understood democracy. One party, one truth - I also find this a very convincing slogan. Plurality is simply worthless, just words... just opinions.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Gardiner flat out makes my point that theists have the mere feeling that a super mind cares for them.It is a mere replaceable feeling.This mere feeling is a pareidolia like seeing Yeshuaaa in a tortilla and a Feuerbachian projection. Otheerwise, Gardner is a lead skeptic.He needs this mere feelling for contentment.

 

[-Fran-]

I really don't think that's what she's doing. Almost everyone in this thread who expressed the opinion that religious sceptics weren't applying their scepticism to that one area of their lives also qualified that by saying it doesn't invalidate their scepticism vis other areas. Articulett is just a bit more forthright than most of us in this regard, and is expressing her preferred brands of scepticism and atheism.

You can infer from this that she would like everyone to be this way, but that isn't something she's actually said.

On the opposite I think she's said a few times that there is room for different approaches, and I agree with that. Maybe us newbies, or relative newbies (I suspect you are/will remain a "newbie" unless you were among the 200 or so first members, according to some) don't have all the answers on how skepticism should be, and should be presented, I doubt though, in all respect, that all the senior members have either.

Articulett, I for one like your style on the whole. Maybe you've been too harsh at some points, I don't know, but so what if you were? We are all human and sometimes go too far. I do not think that your style on the whole is going too far though, and many (most) things that you say I agree with.

I have a different approach, I guess, and sometimes wish I was a bit more daring, and sometimes wish I had been nicer. I suppose we can all work on stuff in our approaches, but I don't see a reason why you should change your style in any major way, Articulett.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oh, FFS US, grow up.

I apologise. I didn't realise that was the meaning of the word, as I had gleaned my understanding of it from various discussion boards and I had evidently misunderstood the meaning. You are not an apologist. You are, however, still a jerk.

Seriously - "arti fanboy"? And you honestly think that you and other people who have been around for a long time should be held in some sort of higher regard than the rest of us lowly peons who only discovered the board relatively recently? That your opinion is somehow worth more because you've been here longer? Guess what - this isn't a freakin' lodge, it's a skeptics forum, and your opinion is only valuable in so far as it is supported by logic and reasoning. That's not to say that there aren't people who I respect and whose opinions I value, but the respect is earnt and the opinions must be well supported - there is no one that I consider beyond reproach, not arti, and especially not you.

And for Ed's sake, shutup about the 'real skeptic' and 'real atheist' thing. A 'real atheist' is a person who does not believe in the existence of god - if someone expresses any type of belief in a being that could be described as a god, then they aren't 'really' an atheist regardless of what they profess. The fact that you're still yammering on about the 'real skeptic' thing proves that you either haven't read a damn thing me, arti, or the vast majority (allowing for the very, very few dissenting opinions) have said in this thread, or that you're purposely misrepresenting our position.

Get. Over. Yourself.

 

[articulett]

My hero! I mean my fan boy!

Whatever. Thanks Moby.

Look, I trust most of the people here and the moderators... if I'm harsh... cut and paste and show me and tell me why it was wrong or uncalled for or damaging. I don't feel any more negatively about religion in general than what other people feel about all those religions and woo things they don't believe in. And if I am expected to treat these beliefs differently, I want to know why. Am I harsher with religious believers than I and others are with astrology believers or Scientologists or other people whose opinions or beliefs I find wrong or misguided or delusional or biased? Am I supposed to be. Am I harsher than they are with their views of me... of atheists... of those who prefer a different approach? My harshness is a matter of opinion, and I don't really care about the opinions of "the apologists and vigilantes" any more than they care about mine. I care about the opinions of people I like-- the people I find smart and honest and funny and congenial. And that is most everybody here.

So, If I'm biting in a way that is harmful or unfair I trust that the majority will let me know. It's just words. I don't decide who comes here or who goes. I don't decide who "can be" a skeptic. I'm not trying to control other peoples' actions or words or approaches. I don't feel like I have a right to define what a "true skeptic" is any more than anyone else does-- including my critics. And even if I thought so, how in the world would "make" people "buy into" my "true" definition.

Am I harsher or more biting than Dawkins? And if so, can someone give me a quote. Because I want to know if it IS me... or if it's part of this "faith is good; atheism is evil" meme that follow around anyone who dares to say they find the whole "belief in belief" stuff not worthy of respect. Sometimes I feel that no matter how nice you say such a thing, people who believe in something will feel insulted because their faiths have taught them to perceive a lack of belief as an attack on them.

There really isn't a good way to say you don't believe in a god without people who do hearing you calling them delusional. And yet they believe everybody who doesn't believe in their god is delusional, don't they?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

combined posts

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You are, however, still a jerk.{snip lecture}

I thought that an in your face attitude was held in esteem by some folks?

How is that attitude working out to help educate people about skepticism btw?

 

[amb]

Oh, for Ed's sake Claus. Everytime you do this people point it out to you. I'm not about to bother to be your personal fetch-dog when everyone here knows full well that we'll only have to wait a week at most for you to do it again, to have it pointed out again, and to have you ignore it again only to get all uppity when people point out to you what you're doing.

Go and find another hobby - perhaps bird-watching? Or you could breed frogs? Anything that doesn't involve annoying me and everyone else on this forum would be a pleasant change, I assure you.

Ugh, breeding frogs, what a horrible thought. Now breeding cockroaches......

 

[articulett]

I think there are different ways of promoting skepticism and all are good and valuable.
I think of my own path and what worked for me.

Randi likes to show people how easily people can fooled--especially people who are sure they can't be.

Shermer is congenial... you like him... he gives you info. in a way that softens the biases people have against skeptics.

Phil Plait is funny... he makes fun of himself and he makes fun of the woo. You laugh and you think.

Dawkins is smart and provocative. I think he plants a lot of seeds that could sprout later. He tends to make people defensive, and so they demonize him... OR they examine why they are defensive. If they're already leaning in his direction, he galvanzes and clarifies thinking. And the reaction of the offended is also good, because it lets others see the weird way people defend unbelievable things. It allows others to see the bias where faith is protected at all costs-- it never is associated with anything bad; and atheists are demonized for saying the mildest things. It makes people talk and think about things they were afraid to talk about or that never occurred to them.

And I think there's room for all methods. And because I think faith itself is a "pretend asset" and NOT a good avenue for true or useful knowledge, I prefer Dawkins' way... Like him, I'm angry that we have discovered some very profound truths about our very existence thanks to DNA, but religion makes people afraid of it--it pretends to have a "truer truth". Religionists pretends that Dawkins is arrogant and that those claiming to speak for some invisible creator are humble and trustworthy. That is faith making people think backwards to support itself and the ego of the believer.

Everybody has their own talents, leanings and approaches, but I don't think it matters so much if the goal is the same--critical thinking--understanding the truth that is the same for everybody and helping as many people as possible have the tools available for discovering and furthering that truth--that growing compendium of human understanding. I am fans of all the "big names" in skepticism. But I don't have the same talents as all of them. I'm not a magician; I'm prickly in personality... --but I'd be honored to be thought of as Dawkinesque in my approach. I'd be embarrassed to come across as a vigilante like CFLarsen or Unrepentant Sinner. These are not methodologies I find helpful for anything except examples of what to avoid or the others I've so "brazenly" labeled as apologists.

And if you disagree... I think you should go into animal husbandry-- frogs, cockroaches, whatever.

 

[Belz...]

II try to contain my venomous self and give warning when it's a-coming...

Don't worry, articulett. At least one person here appreciates your venom.

 

[Belz...]

Me neither ever understood democracy. One party, one truth - I also find this a very convincing slogan. Plurality is simply worthless, just words... just opinions.

Leave it to Herz to not understand the meaning of the term "truth".

 

[Belz...]

I realize you're an Arti fanboy

How mature...

but she's a latecomer to JREF forums. There are a lot of skeptics and atheists who were here long before her (like from the beginning) and we're not going to let some relative newbie try and define who is welcome to post here, who is a "real skeptic" or even who a "real atheist" is.

If being a veteran was a sign of wisdom, Claus wouldn't have more than 50-60 posts.

 

[articulett]

And T'ai would be a genius. ack.