Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Yoink]

Nope, that goes back the "pure skepticism" thing, which I agree is silly. Just that if you don't apply it to the overwhelmingly most-believed and most important unsupported belief, the term "skeptic" becomes invalid, in my view.

I think the most-believed and most important unsupported belief is the belief that the world exists. I believe the world exists. I believe that if I don't get out of the way of a bus it will probably be "bus 1, me 0" etc. I can't prove any of this. I can't even prove that because the fundamental laws of physics obtained yesterday that they will obtain tomorrow--but I believe they will (and will act accordingly). etc. etc. etc.

Now, am I "not a skeptic" because of these (untested and untestable) beliefs?

 

[The Atheist]

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Well, there absolutely is -it's generated inside the human brain. If that's unreasonable, I'd love to see your reasonable reason.

Religion is not made up of testable claims. That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Baloney.

Pick a religion and I'll give you a list of their claims which are testable.

 

[GreNME]

And this is the exact sentence where you demonstrate that you hold just as rigid lines about what a skeptic can not believe in as those who say that no theist can be a skeptic. You just move the line.

No he didn't. He displayed cognizance of the law of averages. Most people who have a religious faith avoid defending fundementalist or literalists, and in many cases speak out against them.

 

[The Atheist]

I think the most-believed and most important unsupported belief is the belief that the world exists.

Good for you.

 

[GreNME]

Well, there absolutely is -it's generated inside the human brain. If that's unreasonable, I'd love to see your reasonable reason.

So, how do you prove what is generated in another person's brain "wrong"?

Baloney.

Pick a religion and I'll give you a list of their claims which are testable.

Thanks, but you can leave your proselytizing at the door. How about you just tell me how you disprove faith.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No he didn't. He displayed cognizance of the law of averages. Most people who have a religious faith avoid defending fundementalist or literalists, and in many cases speak out against them.

So if you find a literalist skeptic the we disprove the world existing? He did not say you are unlikely, it was a much more definite statement that they do not exist. Well with the diversity of human belief the only reason to think that they would not exist is if they can't by definition.

I am thinking of scientists who are Young Earth creationists and still either did or do good honest science and don't claim that the evidence in on the side of YEC. That is a position perfectly in line with skepticism.

 

[Cleon]

God-boy moderator on a skeptics forum; QED.

Mister God-boy to you, punk. (And...horror of horrors, I'm not the only moderator who isn't an atheist.)

To say you don't have evidence for your beliefs is an outrageous lie. The evidence is 2000 years of christianity and a proliferation of christian churches. Not to mention 2000 years of biblical study, theological statements and changing beliefs - or maybe, you still believe that witches should be hung and heretics tortured. Without that historical evidence, you'd be down on your knees worshipping a graven idol, the sun, or some such other equally-absurd belief as the one with a dead Jew running the universe in partnership with his old man and a see-through bloke.

I might take exception to this...If I was a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately, I'm not, so the above is merely gibberish.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't understand the dichotomy between holding such beliefs and not making any claims about them. Sure, they don't make these claims openly, but doesn't the very act of belief imply that they think such a deity must exist?

No. Why?

No, sorry. I wish I did. I really would like to understand. (Platonic "love" is an abstract concept comprised of not only internal emotions, but observable phenomena such as repeated acts of altruism, protectiveness, demonstrated affection etc. It's not some magical power akin to a "god" of any kind, and it involves social relationship between two very real, very alive people.

All those observable phenomena can be faked. As the divorce rate is evidence of.

What is your answer to the question put in "Contact"?

Look at the title "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" this whole thread is about the definition of who is and who is not a skeptic.

I asked you: What definition do you use?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I asked you: What definition do you use?

I go with the process definition, and when applied to people, people who use the process.

As I class beliefs in three categories and skeptics can have the first two(and in general you can not find anyone with out beliefs in the first two)

beliefs that are supported by evidence
beliefs that are not supported or contradicted by evidence
beliefs that are contradicted by evidence

As a great many belief when described in general and not specific detailed terms that fit into the third category can fit into the second if they remove contradictable claims, there is little you can say a skeptic doesn't believe in.

 

[GreNME]

Oy.

I'm not religious at all, hold no religious beliefs or faith in anything, and this thread on top of most threads on the first page make it pretty clear that the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum should probably be called the "Atheist or You're Wrong (and probably stupid)" subforum.

 

[The Atheist]

So, how do you prove what is generated in another person's brain "wrong"?

Why on earth would I need to?

Thanks, but you can leave your proselytizing at the door. How about you just tell me how you disprove faith.

That's just changing the subject - you claimed that religion does not make testable claims, I'm saying that they all do. Pretty unequivocal, I'd have thought. You could always give me a religion so I could prove my point.

Mister God-boy to you, punk.

(Reported on "punk"; cheers.)

(And...horror of horrors, I'm not the only moderator who isn't an atheist.)

No secret in that.

I might take exception to this...If I was a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately, I'm not, so the above is merely gibberish.

As I pointed out, christian, theist, deist, muslim, buddhist - makes no difference to me. One sky-daddy or comfort blanket for the weak-willed is much akin to another. Which crutch you personally use is immaterial to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

I go with the process definition, and when applied to people, people who use the process.

As I class beliefs in three categories and skeptics can have the first two(and in general you can not find anyone with out beliefs in the first two)

beliefs that are supported by evidence
beliefs that are not supported or contradicted by evidence
beliefs that are contradicted by evidence

As a great many belief when described in general and not specific detailed terms that fit into the third category can fit into the second if they remove contradictable claims, there is little you can say a skeptic doesn't believe in.

How does this make the Discovery people skeptics?

How does Cleon's arguments fit into this?

 

[-Fran-]

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/11/16/snap/

The latest Jesus & Mo kind of fits this thread

 

[Big Les]

No. Why?

How can you possibly believe in something you don't personally think exists?

All those observable phenomena can be faked. As the divorce rate is evidence of.

I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that love is a nebulous concept, different for everyone, that's a construct of the mind, and that "god" can be the same, then I agree with you I suppose. Which leads me on to...

What is your answer to the question put in "Contact"?

That "love" as anything more than a way to describe chemical things happening in my brain, doesn't exist. Just like "god" doesn't. I describe my affection for my loved ones, my familiarity with them, my bond with them through shared experiences, my shared world-view etc. It's something that humans have evolved as a way of forming functioning social groups - nothing more. And "god" as a concept is much the same, except that it's even more nebulous, being not an expression of a relationship between two people, but between one person and their imaginary friend/creator/whatever.

So, if my answer is that "love" is a (to some extent shared) mental construct, would you agree that "god" is also a product of the mind?

ETA - some more discussion on your "love" analogy here.

 

[Apology]

I'm willing to accept theists as skeptics as long as they're skeptical about testable claims. We need their help in the fight against the stuff that we can prove is absolute bunk. The fact that they don't want to apply skepticism to their religious beliefs doesn't make their contributions any less valuable. I'd rather not turn skepticism into a belief system. That way it can be available to everyone equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. Requiring everyone to leave their religion at the door will keep skepticism from some of the people who need it the most.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm willing to accept theists as skeptics as long as they're skeptical about testable claims. We need their help in the fight against the stuff that we can prove is absolute bunk. The fact that they don't want to apply skepticism to their religious beliefs doesn't make their contributions any less valuable. I'd rather not turn skepticism into a belief system. That way it can be available to everyone equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. Requiring everyone to leave their religion at the door will keep skepticism from some of the people who need it the most.

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone shouldn't accept theists. I certainly wouldn't. Requiring a "theist check" at the door before barring entry at TAM would be kinda silly.

However, I would still state that religious believers are limiting their skepticism to that which doesn't deal with their own faith.

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

 

[The Atheist]

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

 

[Roboramma]

And that, then, prompts a third question: "Is it possible to be universally and consistently skeptical"? Hume thought not (pyrrhonism is the term for universal skepticism, and he thought that such a person would be rightly expelled from society).

Why did Hume think so?

I don't really see why thing would be the case.

 

[qayak]

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

Maybe a new term for those who apply skepticism to all things should be tried. We could call them . . . . Brights!

 

[CFLarsen]

How can you possibly believe in something you don't personally think exists?

Because it comforts you. Those that do that allow themselves to deceive themselves - ever so slightly, knowingly, but without any major damage - simply because they feel good about it.

I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that love is a nebulous concept, different for everyone, that's a construct of the mind, and that "god" can be the same, then I agree with you I suppose. Which leads me on to...


That "love" as anything more than a way to describe chemical things happening in my brain, doesn't exist. Just like "god" doesn't. I describe my affection for my loved ones, my familiarity with them, my bond with them through shared experiences, my shared world-view etc. It's something that humans have evolved as a way of forming functioning social groups - nothing more. And "god" as a concept is much the same, except that it's even more nebulous, being not an expression of a relationship between two people, but between one person and their imaginary friend/creator/whatever.

So, if my answer is that "love" is a (to some extent shared) mental construct, would you agree that "god" is also a product of the mind?

That's precisely what I think.

Can you also allow the social construct - a non-evidential god that comforts you - too?

If so, then you get it.