Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Egg]

No, because I'm asking whether they consider it rational or not, and if not, why they believe in it.

You're not, but frankly as you appear to be arguing devil's advocate, I'm not so interested in what you imagine theistic scepticism to be, as the theistic sceptics themselves. This is all very interesting, but I'm arguing more to the concept at hand than to you. I've established that you think such beliefs are irrational and for comfort only, but I would like to hear why these sceptics believe this from the horses' mouth, as it were.

Which brings me back again to the same question. Why choose to believe in god, and not unicorns, or psychics, or anything else that (currently) lacks any evidence? Why make belief your provisional conclusion when non-belief makes more sense? You've answered that with "comfort". I find that disappointing, want to know if there's more to it.

Well, for one thing, although I saw it as irrational, I wasn't sure whether the believers at least, thought otherwise. To wilfully hold self-acknowledged irrational belief on such an important issue seemed strange and inconsistent to me, as I keep saying.

Self-identified sceptics who believe in a god. There have been precious few posting here at all, but Cleon would be the one I had in mind, mostly because of his (understandable in the circumstances) outburst but his, and by implication any others, apparent unwillingness to discuss the issue.

Both of which amount to "how can you disprove god?". To which the obvious answer is "I don't have to". The person stating belief in god is making a claim by implication. If they believe in god, they must think god exists. Otherwise they are not believing in god, they are pretending to do so. Therefore, as with any other extraordinary claim, the onus is on them to support that claim. If they don't want to, that's fine. But I don't have to do the opposite either, and the default position/provisional conclusion of "doesn't exist" holds true. If as you say they are being irrational with regard to god, then their belief is meaningless to anyone but them and open to criticism of the sort being levelled in this thread.

It's not entirely surprising that theists aren't lining up to volunteer to be the thread whipping post .

To try to answer your question, Big Les, I think many of the points have already been raised in this thread. Religion tends to be a subjective issue, so whilst one person may have what they rationally consider to be enough evidence that some kind of god exists from their own experiences, they would not be in a position to present anything but anecdotal evidence to someone questioning their belief.

The same might go for someone who worked in the White House overhearing a conversation through a door on Sep 10th, for someone trying to present evidence of sight to someone blind from birth or for the earlier example of the guy who met an alien.

A sceptic can claim they're deluded or lying, but then that could be argued to be a baseless claim in itself. We each make a judgement call using our own logic and the evidence we're presented with and we all hold certain beliefs which would lack the evidence needed to present to another person.

As with the Contact example, does not being able to prove to someone else that you love your family make that love any less real to you or make you any less a sceptic?

 

[articulett]

How dare you suggest I'm a speciesist ! My cats are very sceptical!

I bet they're soulless atheists too.

My cats are very skeptical. My dogs, however, have concluded I'm god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....That's what you don't get: Why do you expect an irrational belief to be rational?
.....
Try to understand that you can't apply rationality to irrational beliefs.

You are simply substituting "irrational" for "faith based" beliefs. Neither fits the skeptical model.

...I have, with the Contact example. Also, see my reply to skeptigirl.

See my last 2 sentences.

...What is the difference in someone who believes in something he doesn't claim evidence of, and someone who disbelieves in something he doesn't claim evidence of?

But there is evidence. You and many others using your argument ignore the evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that people's beliefs in gods are not the result of actual encounters with gods. The only way to have an untestable god is to alter the usual description of gods.

...Have you read "Contact"? Not just seen the movie, but read the book?

No, but going from the scene in the movie you are undoubtedly referring to, I didn't buy the argument. Foster had an anecdotal experience she at first had no evidence for (later there was the 20 minute time elapsed on the tape). The whole discussion was simply about asking someone to believe something you have no evidence for except your personal experience. Science wouldn't have accepted Foster's anecdote either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...They're not claiming any form of proof. Faith, and all that....

Again, out of one side of one's mouth comes, "there is no evidence but I believe." Out of the other side comes, "I believe because it has been 'proved' to me by my personal experience". You can't have it both ways.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then I wonder what different thought processes are occurring between theistic sceptics and atheistic ones......

Blind spots and rationalizations.

 

[Beth]

Welcome to the forum Egg. Great post!

It's not entirely surprising that theists aren't lining up to volunteer to be the thread whipping post .

 

[articulett]

An atheists position would change with measurable, replicable evidence. And an omniscient god would know exactly what evidence that would be. But what would change the mind of a theist? Believing in something for which there is no evidence is automatically less rational, isn't it?

As Robert Ingersoll said,

There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only for one moment, the continuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless chain of existence one little link; stop for one instant the grand procession and you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a master. Change the fact, just for one second, that matter attracts matter, and a god appears. The rudest savage has always known this fact, and for that reason always demanded the evidence of miracle. The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine — cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle — that is to say, a violation of nature — that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of nature. The church wishes us to believe. Let the church, or one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions.

Yes, people can call themselves whatever they want. However I feel there are rational reasons why most people who call themselves skeptics also think of themselves as atheists-- they lack a belief in any gods. Their skepticism leads to a kind of thinking on par with Ingersoll, and I tend to poke around when I realize that there are those who consider themselves skeptics, but haven't followed the thinking to the above conclusion. Why not. Why do theists think it's good to assert belief? What do they imagine their faith is good for? Could anything change their minds? If not, then isn't their conclusion irrational (not subject to evidence or reason or revision)?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...You can't criticize someone's belief for being irrational, if they don't claim that their belief is rational. In this case, they already know that they are - but they are irrational in a non-evidential way.

Yes I can. I can point out the blind spot and as long as they admit they have one, we're good. But if they claim that faith based beliefs are compatible with evidence based beliefs because they somehow co-exist in separate places, I can point out the hypocrisy.

 

[articulett]

It's not entirely surprising that theists aren't lining up to volunteer to be the thread whipping post .

To try to answer your question, Big Les, I think many of the points have already been raised in this thread. Religion tends to be a subjective issue, so whilst one person may have what they rationally consider to be enough evidence that some kind of god exists from their own experiences, they would not be in a position to present anything but anecdotal evidence to someone questioning their belief.

The same might go for someone who worked in the White House overhearing a conversation through a door on Sep 10th, for someone trying to present evidence of sight to someone blind from birth or for the earlier example of the guy who met an alien.

A sceptic can claim they're deluded or lying, but then that could be argued to be a baseless claim in itself. We each make a judgement call using our own logic and the evidence we're presented with and we all hold certain beliefs which would lack the evidence needed to present to another person.

As with the Contact example, does not being able to prove to someone else that you love your family make that love any less real to you or make you any less a sceptic?

This is sloppy theistic type thinking again. I think that we can all agree that there is one reality-- one truth that doesn't depend on whether people believe it or not. The story of how humans came to be is a single story. There is one truth. We can use the evidence to fill in the details as best we can, but iwe can't make up evidence if we actually want to understand the facts. A skeptic is aware of the ways people fool themselves. You can be aware of how Scientologists or various cults or Sylvia Groupies or Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses are lead astray. But you don't imagine the same for yourself in regards to your similar beliefs. That is what is nonskeptical! You know that it's very human to believe the stuff that people told you when you were growing up-- and to have feelings perceptions that are misleading when compared to reality or given perspective. But you don't consider that you may have been a victim of such when you make claims about a god and you are using confirmation bias when you conclude your god (however nebulously defined) is more likely to exist than Zeus.

Unless God is a "feeling", Any claims about him are either "true" or "false". Either the god you believe in exists or doesn't except in your mind, correct? And we know that Zeus probably only existed in peoples' minds, right? We know that schizophrenic delusions only exist in peoples' minds. We know that Scientology is a human made religion. We know that humans have been detecting agency in things they don't understand for eons (storms are formed by angry gods) and then confirming that bias (our crops grew well because we sacrificed a virgin-- let's do two next time...) If your god is real-- then why are you a "whipping post" when you discuss him? When I talk about the facts of evolution-- the fact don't change just because my audience doesn't understand them. I don't feel like a whipping post because of their ignorance. I may work to help them understand, or I may decide it's not worth my time. But labeling yourself a whipping post is like labeling yourself a martyr-- you're insinuating there is something good about faith without showing what that something is... or why you came to believe in your particular brand. The facts about evolution don't change and I don't need others to believe or find that truth rational in order to not feel like a whipping post. I think theists use this "you guys are being mean" blather to keep their delusion alive for themselves... to make their god off limits for questioning. To make those who doubt their god feel bad just as their gurus taught them.

There are facts and there are everything else-- feelings, beliefs, myths, illusions, etc. While I believe that you believe god exists. I see no more reason to believe that your god exists anymore than you believe that Zeus exists. Any facts you make about your god cannot be factual to anyone else until that god is proven to exist. Otherwise, it's like saying "engrams (Scientology entities) cause you to have a difficult life" unless you "clear" them. Not only is that NOT a rational claim for obvious reasons. It's the same kind of irrational claim as any made about a god for the same kinds of reasons. It's manipulative, assumes facts not in evidence, and is prone to confirmation bias-- it's also based on invisible, immeasurable entities that there is no reason to believe exist.

Your blind example is ridiculous... because things that you see have qualities that can be measured and explained by others. These qualities exist whether the blind person can understand them or whether you can convey that understanding. What you say can be corroborated because it has a basis in reality. Even if you overheard something and couldn't prove it... the world is one in which those words were said... that would be a fact that no one can change even if you can't prove it. If one day you discover and audiotape happened to be running at that time, that conversation should be on it. That's the way reality works. Or perhaps you'd learn that you misheard things--because humans are readily prone to such errors in logic.

But facts are true whether people believe in them or not. That would be true of god as well... and zeus and pink unicorns and schizophrenic delusions and you and me and the spherical nature of the earth. You are confusing fact with opinions about facts. The facts about such things are the same. 2+2=4 no matter how much someone's subjective self tells them it isn't so.

Skepticism is usually about using facts to develop opinions about facts. It seems to me that belief in a god is having an opinion that is not based on facts-- rather it's using a lack of facts to imply a murkiness where you insert some nebulous god claim.

Your belief about a god has no bearing on the fact as to whether that god exists. It also has no bearing on whether it's logical or rational to believe in your god. It's just a subjective feeling that benefits you or that you imagine benefits you. I'm not skeptical that you have such feelings-- I just don't think your feelings mean what you imagine them to mean. I see no valid reason for thinking your conclusions abut your god are any more likely to be true than the hijackers conclusion about theirs. I wish there were valid reasons. But believers never give any but they tend to be big on demanding respect from skeptics for their beliefs. So us nonbelievers are left in a world where all sorts of crazy people believe all sorts of irrational things for reasons they cannot explain even to themselves. And, because they believe that faith is good--they compete to be seen as more faithful-- which makes them the opposite of skeptical as far as I can see. If faith is belief without or despite evidence, skepticism is letting evidence lead you toward the truth.

So, per my way of thinking, when a skeptic believes in a god, he/she is clearly not applying their skepticism to that god-- they are not applying the same skepticism that they would to homeopathy or conspiracy theories or other religions or other woo-- and I'm always curious as to why-- though that question is ever avoided.

Why should skeptics treat someones claims about their god any differently than we treat claims about Sylvia Browne's special powers? I just wish a theist would give a good solid answer to this question sometime.

 

[Big Les]

It's not entirely surprising that theists aren't lining up to volunteer to be the thread whipping post .

Not surprising, but slightly disappointing. For me. I don't blame them one bit.

To try to answer your question, Big Les, I think many of the points have already been raised in this thread. Religion tends to be a subjective issue, so whilst one person may have what they rationally consider to be enough evidence that some kind of god exists from their own experiences, they would not be in a position to present anything but anecdotal evidence to someone questioning their belief.

The same might go for someone who worked in the White House overhearing a conversation through a door on Sep 10th, for someone trying to present evidence of sight to someone blind from birth or for the earlier example of the guy who met an alien.

This is actually along the lines of something that occurred to me a few marathon posts back. What's the difference between someone who believes in something otherwise lacking in evidence but for some reason is unable to present that evidence, and somebody who believes in something actually untestable, and is therefore also unable to present that evidence? In the former case the sceptic, or at least the sort of practical sceptic I'm used to seeing on the forums, would say that they require evidence before they are able to consider joining that person in their belief. Whereas following the reason of a theist, they could just as well choose to believe, or not, based upon the same total lack of evidence.

A sceptic can claim they're deluded or lying, but then that could be argued to be a baseless claim in itself. We each make a judgement call using our own logic and the evidence we're presented with and we all hold certain beliefs which would lack the evidence needed to present to another person.

Well sure, but there are somewhat agreed standards of evidence that sceptics follow, and it takes pretty high quality evidence before most will decide in the positive on something like this. Needless to say, no-evidence-at-all as (not) advanced by the theist, ranks pretty low down the list!

As with the Contact example, does not being able to prove to someone else that you love your family make that love any less real to you or make you any less a sceptic?

The comparison would be valid if it was possible to experience this "god" in some way, as we experience the effects of the construct we call "love". In fact, those effects are actually causes of that construct. Without social interaction between real people, love would simply not exist. Sexual attraction and infatuation would, because these are not predicated on actual meaningful interaction with said people. In other words, love you can't prove is little better than imagination, but at least it has an identifiable real-world stimulus. There is no such stimulus for belief in this intangible god. I've covered this already - the comparison between "love" and "god" doesn't go far enough to be useful in this debate by my estimation.

 

[-Fran-]

There's one thing I don't quite get. The fact that a skeptic who says he/she has a belief in a deity is in itself what comes off as weird and inconsistent to me. And the fact that they might fight other woo, while having a woo, is what makes it a bit hypocritical to me as the case may be (regardless of if they do good - which I have never disputed)

Then for the sake of this discussion (as in: is it, in fact, inconsistent with skepticism, or not) why does it matter in the least whether or not the theist skeptic claim any specifics about his deity (that they say they believe is a claim, though maybe an indirect one). What does it matter whether or not they realize that it is irrational?

For me it is enough that one skeptic once said only this "I believe in a god" and nothing more, and I see an inconsistency that I wonder about. Regardless of any values we may put on all these things, I see an inconsistency. And I see that inconsistency because as I have understood the word skeptic, a belief in a mythic figure is not skepticism.

How is it suddenly not an inconsistency just because skeptic theist A realizes that him setting god aside from his usual skeptical thinking is not rational, and he never claimed it was?

How is it not an inconsistency because skeptic theist B never makes any claims about the belief we still know that he indeed have?

If I am convinced that skepticism does not actually mean anything close to what I think it means, and that a belief in a deity therefore is actually quite the skeptic thinking after all - then OK. There is no inconsistency after all then.

But how does these things mentioned below erase the actual inconsistency? It only says, as far as I can see, that in real life, skeptics and skeptic theists can get along fine, and that a skeptic theist can fight harmful woo, and be good at it, and that some groupings here on JREF need them for their cause. And that a skeptic theist can get by in life using his skepticism for other things and in doing so having a good life... It says all those things (and probably a few more) but it does not answer the question.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
.....That's what you don't get: Why do you expect an irrational belief to be rational?
.....
Try to understand that you can't apply rationality to irrational beliefs.

Originally Posted by Belz...
...They're not claiming any form of proof. Faith, and all that....

... and so on. (I just grabbed these two quotes as examples, similiar things have been said by many, many times, in different versions on this thread. So I just took two out of the pile that were close at hand, and am not directing this post to any one of those people in particular.)

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Personal religious experience is merely ones own mental states. The supernatural and the paranormal are mere mental problems, I think.
Yes, Articulett, the god notion derives from the mere feeling that there has to be a super mind behind and beyond Existence[ theP olyverse].It is the mere feeling that Feurbach shows to be a projection of humankind.It is the mere feeling behind the pareidolia of seeing dvine purpose and love for us as when one sees Yeshua in a tortilla.It is just a mere feeling.No substance as the ignostic-Ockham arguments show. It is a mere feeling.

 

[articulett]

Hey griggsy.

My friend, skepticgriggsy, is someone I met on another forum. He has a bit of a neurological problem that sometimes makes communication difficult--but I hope people recognize him for the skeptic he is. He agrees with us Fran and Les...

If someone thinks that skeptics on a skeptic forum should treat claims about gods differently than claims about other entities (demons, engrams, fairies, succubi), it's incumbent upon them to show us why-- and how their claims about god are different from similar claims about other invisible immeasurable entities that are supposed to interact with humans. People can label themselves however they want-- but if once they state their opinions on a skeptics forum, they should be ready for the opinions of other skeptics in response.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know. I must stop. It's probably my brains clever way of allowing me to procrastinate and avoid all the chores I should be doing. Damn-- that actual reality thing-- always demanding my attention. Damn, Damn.

Oh no, girl. Keep going!! I love that stuff.

 

[Belz...]

Regarding the True Scotsman, Belz, we are talking about a definition here, not a value judgment. If you want to define a true skeptic differently than I do, then support your reasoning how a true skeptic can include a blind spot for certain god beliefs. If your definition is based on the technical definition of agnostic, and you truly equate your god concept in that case with the concept of invisible pink unicorns, then we do not disagree. I just happen to be skeptical that very many people are really using that invisible pink unicorn equivalent god concept when they identify themselves as agnostic.

Girl, what I'm saying is that there are NO true skeptics. We ALL have blind spots. The thing is to minimise them.

 

[Belz...]

I bet they're soulless atheists too.

My cats are very skeptical. My dogs, however, have concluded I'm god.

How many of those do you have, anyway ? Birds, too ?

Again, out of one side of one's mouth comes, "there is no evidence but I believe." Out of the other side comes, "I believe because it has been 'proved' to me by my personal experience". You can't have it both ways.

I never said they claimed both. I don't know of one who claims both.

And I'm not trying to excuse anything. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who believes LESS in woo and religion than me.

 

[Belz...]

If someone thinks that skeptics on a skeptic forum should treat claims about gods differently than claims about other entities (demons, engrams, fairies, succubi), it's incumbent upon them to show us why

And of course, note that I never claimed otherwise. Claims must be proven. But saying it is very different from challenging your beliefs, and either proving it or abandoning the claim.

 

[articulett]

How many of those do you have, anyway ? Birds, too ?

Too many. I'm prone to excess in pets and verbiage. I used to foster animals for the humane society and had a weak spot for keeping the rejects and unadoptables. (5 cats; 3 dogs 0 birds.)

I never said they claimed both. I don't know of one who claims both.

And I'm not trying to excuse anything. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who believes LESS in woo and religion than me.

And, you'll apparently be heard pressed to find someone who is less hostile towards "faith" than I am.

 

[-Fran-]

Girl, what I'm saying is that there are NO true skeptics. We ALL have blind spots. The thing is to minimise them.

THIS I agree with

Though, as I see it, that doesn't mean that discussing one of those inconsistencies that results from this isn't interesting. We can go at all the others as well

It's also so, I think, that some blind spots are more glaring and easy to spot than others, and therefore is placed rather high up on the list of blind spots to discuss. I thought that what the OP mentions is such a blind spot.

ETA:
Also, it is a very big difference in how you view your own "blind spots". A skeptic may not always be aware they have one, but when they do become aware of one they try to look honestly at it, and when presented with evidence against it, they see it for what it is, and discard it. The theist skeptics obviously are not prepared to do this, because then they would have already - seeing as there are plenty of stuff in this vein about beliefs in gods. The thing is to minimize our blind spots, yes, but they do not want to minimize their blind spots. They are done minimizing, finished! Whereas a skeptic know he/she will probably have to keep minimizing and learn more and change what they thought they knew, until they die.

 

[Belz...]

And, you'll apparently be heard pressed to find someone who is less hostile towards "faith" than I am.

Huh ?