Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[drzeus99]

Oh, I'm not skeptical. The back will do!!

Tough year, eh Belz?

(me too)


<raising hand> Ummm..The back is fine by me too, Ms Articulett


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[-Fran-]

It's from wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

That was funny! I am so suffering from the 'Bookmark Loop Disorder'

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or one could change that to the "subscribed threads" loop disorder.

Think I'll go to bed now.

 

[articulett]

That was funny! I am so suffering from the 'Bookmark Loop Disorder'

Me too. In any case, isn't that funny that Claus things I'm using that to call people "mentally ill" because they I don't agree with them "politically"? I can't even understand their points, much less divine their "politics"! And I shy away from "politics" anyhow.

 

[-Fran-]

Me too. In any case, isn't that funny that Claus things I'm using that to call people "mentally ill" because they I don't agree with them "politically"? I can't even understand their points, much less divine their "politics"! And I shy away from "politics" anyhow.

If that really was all you said then yeah, he over-reacted. Or maybe he really thought those "disorders" were real mental illnesses?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm painfully aware that I've been suckered into a never-ending point-by-point semantic argumentathon with the indomitable CFLarsen, and quite frankly, I've lost the will to live. I've said everything that's worth saying, and more besides. Despite what he says, I am not telling anybody what to think. I'm simply disagreeing with his hypothetical take on the issue.

Despite what you say, I am not saying that you are telling people what to think. I am saying that you are telling people if they really believe or not.

If belief in god really does amount to what he's laid out (i.e. imagination), I don't see it as a belief worth holding, whether it's genuinely held or not. There's nothing wrong with it per se - it's not doing anybody (including the believer) any harm, and it doesn't invalidate their scepticism as they apply it to the external world in any way. It's simply an interesting and difficult to understand (for an atheist) contradiction that somebody who otherwise strives to hold positions only where there is evidence, would persist in holding this one.

There is no contradiction, because they don't claim evidence. After all this time, you still don't get that.

Why have I "removed any possibility of the result being belief in god" by pointing to Persinger's experiments?

Why isn't it "fine" if people acknowledge that their god is imaginary?

Where have I claimed that all theist skeptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists?

What argument are you talking about wrt the example of saints and orgiastic emotions?

What have you read of the skeptic writers? E.g., Shermer, Randi, Gardner, Plait, Wiseman, Nickell, Radford, Dawkins, Hines, Sagan?

In 3007, when "Jedi" cannot be distinguished between Abrahamic religions, will you equate "Jedi" with "Christianity"? If not, why not?

Do you think that skepticism - rationality, critical thinking, the lot - inevitably leads to atheism?

I disagree completely Claus. I will leave it to those I respect to translate if you have a point since I can't follow you, and I do follow and respect most of the people on this forum.

For those who care about Claus's digression, he's referring to this as my "diagnosis of mental illness"

Nice. You resort to phony psychiatric diagnoses to vilify your political opponents, but I am the one disgressing for pointing it out.

I don't know why Claus brought the discussion here-- is he mad? stalking me? Trying to start a fatwa in his "war on articulett"? Is he making some kind of sense or a point I'm missing?

Nice. Casting even more suspicion on others, whilst batting your bambi eyes in the most innocent way.

That's one of the things that bug me about faith-- the faithful (or maybe just the annoying)-- spout their opinions so freely--like you should be eager to hear them-- and then when you assert your opinions in return they have a tizzy fit! They sure don't give you the respect they seem to think their opinions deserve.

Now you are being plain dishonest. It isn't a case of you asserting your opinion and others have a "tizzy fit" over that. Your "opinion" was pure character assassination.

It's their imagined expertise or the patronizing insincere questions that really annoy me. Most of Claus's questions are like that to me. In fact all of those I think of as afflicted with "pugilistic discussion syndrome" are like that. They ask loaded questions... never care about the answers-- never cede a point-- and I just get the impression of a toddler having a tantrum screaming "I win! I win!". I jshould probably just slip quietly away, but I get a wicked thrill from getting them riled up. Should I tone myself down?

No, just acknowledge that you are a flaming hypocrite by doing so. You try to cultivate the reactions you later act all so surprised over: Oh, my, people bug you when they respond to you!

So, folks (other than Claus) , am I the one with a problem as Claus asserts? Do I portray those who disagree with me as mentally ill? Do you think there is a good reason or point for Claus derailing this thread to chastise me? Or is Claus in his own reality on this one-- because I sure can't follow him.

More character assassination.

I must be arrogant, because I think the reaction is due to me hitting a nerve. I actually like Claus. But I think it's weird that he decided to give me a piece of his mind about another thread here in an effort (I imagine) to stir up people into feeling like my enemies. But why? Have I said anything so awful? I don't think I've ever said anything terrible to anyone when they haven't said far worse first. I'm going to pretend it's because I'm wickedly clever like Christopher Hitchens and they have no decent response.

You really can't see anything wrong with portraying your political opponents as mentally ill, even as a lark?

Fine, ignore the issues being discussed, make comments completely unrelated to the issues being discussed. That makes for great discussions.

This is a pedestal in the context of the point I was discussing:

Nonsense. How the heck are you going to disprove the existence of God? All you can do is point to natural explantions for whatever phenomena are claimed to exist.

That wasn't the context of the discussion. If you make one of those comments unrelated to what is being discussed, don't expect people to read your mind and figure out what you meant.

Here it is again, this need to control the discussion and decide what can be discussed or not.

I'm sorry but my irony meter blew up when I read this because Arti's screechy diatribes are all about feelings, "respect" and a bunch of other blather that just makes my mind numb due to it's lack of logic. What elephant in the room are you talking about? That religious skeptics aren't atheists and therefore need to be confronted and told they are woos at every turn? That isn't an elephant in the room, that's a political decision by militant atheists who want to nudge not only religious skeptics but non-militant skeptics out of the room.

Exactly.

It's not mollycoddling to be decent to your fellow human being and I'm disgusted to think my fellow atheists, who claim to be such humanists, would attack people who they agree in 29 of 30 points with so viciously and relentlessly just because they don't adhere to atheist orthodoxy in a forum of an organization that is not atheist.

It is dangerous when skepticism, critical thinking and atheism (not to link them, just listing them) become methods of oppression. Instead of lighting Sagan's candle in the dark, science is abused to ostracize those who are not goose-stepping down the road to the Cult of Pure Atheism.

See... you think it's you. I think it's Claus. I think the people you get in these conflicts with are the same people that everyone gets in conflicts with. They don't get along with anyone. But you think it's you... because you perceive conflict and so you try to fix it. They never think it's them-- so they never fix their communication problems. They just bully everyone telling everyone how wrong they all are and insult others for things that are much more glaring faults in themselves. They may or may not be religious-- but they do that thing that bugs me about a lot of the theists that preach here-- people like T'ai or DOC etc. They are forever noticing the non-existing faults of others while being utterly blind to the same faults blinking neon in themselves.

Most people are trying to get along and communicate better and clarify points and commonalities so they can pin down points of contention-- but they don't do that because they imagine they already know all there is to know about communicating.

From my perspective... it isn't you... it isn't Big Les... it isn't Fran...it isn't Lonewolf-- it's the ones asserting that everyone else has the problem except them. Thankfully, they are the minority-- and I'm glad they have chased my favorite posters away with their hubris. It's not even atheists against non atheists-- we have a of variety of people who can discuss the issues just fine. It's the blowhards trying to win the imaginary game going on in their heads and blaming everyone else for the conflict who are the stress inducers.

If you can't talk to them--you can always talk about them. Or put them on ignore. Or make a game at seeing how pissed off you can make them by giving them a taste of what they so readily dish out.

Oh, irony.

Yes... that was me. I'm the one blaming the blowhards. You're still blaming yourself. So is BigLes. And Fran. But you can't fix the blowhards, and they don't know they're the ones who have something to learn and not as much to teach as they imagine.

Disagreement is normal. But most people work it out or laugh it off, right? I think women always wonder if it's something they said. But for some people conflict is their favorite sport, and their snits never lead to further understanding or a resolution... just some Twilight Zone tangential drama that you wonder how you managed to fall into where they are playing a win-lose game that you have no idea about-- and you thought you were just having a discussion.

Sometimes I actually find Claus or Unrepentant Sinner amusing or interesting or offering good insight... they aren't the worst... but they do agitate a lot of people and seem very unaware of the way they come across while asserting that others are much more offensive than I think those same people are. And when you comment on that, they accuse you of taking sides. And that's because it's a win-lose game to them. To everyone else it's a conversation on a forum or a discussion, right?

You have seriously misunderstood what this forum is about.

This is not just a place where we exchange opinions (and try to ostracize those we disagree with). This is also a forum where we investigate paranormal claims, find evidence against people like Sylvia Browne, who scams grieving people, and disclose other forms of trickery and false beliefs.

This forum is not a Mrs. Pepperpot tea party.

 

[Egg]

I think you're missing the point completely.

To answer your question. Of course not.

Those instances aren't based on supernatural claims.
People also have to apply common sense to critical thinking.
Of course no one can check the contents of a can of corn before
they buy it to make SURE it has corn, but the chances that it does
is near 100% (if it's labeled as corn and sold as corn). We apply good
judgement based on reasoning and common sense in that (and the airport)
instance.

But belief in something that has no verifiable evidence of any kind, and
is based on other reasons, and also incorporates a supernatural cause
should ALWAYS be questioned. That's what being a skeptic is all about.
It's about the claims of woo and supernatual.

That's the difference.


Cheers,
DrZ

Thanks for the answer and to others who've tried to answer my questions. I'm a little confused as to why I keep being told I'm mistaken or have poor reasoning, when I am actually merely just asking questions.

I guess in as much as anything, I'm trying to ascertain how you guys are defining "skeptic", so if I am missing the point it would appear to be on what the agreed definition of "skeptic" is.

My understanding was that it was the US spelling of "sceptic" and referred basically to someone who adheres to the scientific method of suspended judgement, systematic doubt and/or criticism, so I was interested as to what extent someone who calls themselves a skeptic/sceptic takes that approach in day to day life and if that might be relevant to the definition.

From what people are saying on this thread, it seems that "skepticism" only refers to paranormal/supernatural phenomena (or lack thereof) and "woo" (which I thought I had pinned down to any general kind of belief based on feelings, speculation and maybe persuasion). Instead of taking the scientific approach which says "we don't know", it seems a "skeptic" starts with the assumption that until the evidence says otherwise, the default is that it doesn't exist - as shown by several people here making such baseless claims as "god is imaginary" - a position I would have previously attributed to a "cynic".

If that is the definition we are using, then "skeptics" should indeed all be atheists, and I can say with certainty that I don't fit such a definition, nor would aspire to. I would tend to think such a closed minded approach would lead to bias when examining evidence and actually be detrimental to scientific discovery.

If we are in agreement that we currently have no empirical evidence for "god", then if we base facts only on empirical evidence, our positions could only be agnostic (using the "we can't know" definition of the word). The "we don't know" is not some kind of percentage - that would be based on opinion. It's just "we don't know". That's not to say one can't be an atheist, but that would be a statement about belief or lack thereof - an opinion if you like.

Should we define "god" in any way (as pointed out by Skeptigirl) then we might be able to find some kind of empirical evidence, but even then all we can do is discover that to all intense purposes we had either created a straw man to knock down or we may have learned something that "god" isn't. Debunking certain claims about "god" still leaves us with an "I don't know" about the existence issue.

Since I'm somewhat confused as to the agreed "skeptic" definition and often find trying to label people as a hindrance rather than of much benefit, I would state my position as one who accepts the scientific method as the most effective tool we have for finding facts/truth. My position is that if I find a tool inadequate for a particular job, I would try out different tools even if they might be generally less effective or reliable. So if the scientific method and empirical evidence can't give me information either way on something, be that "god" or something else, I can either be happy not knowing at all, or I can base my opinion on results employed using different methods. So long as I'm aware of the unreliability of such methods and try to apply critical thinking, the results I find or the conclusions I reach, I may well "believe" or at least have some opinion as to the likelihood of. My opinions may change from day to day and should more reliable information arise, I'll take that on board in my reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

Who is it they think they are sticking up for and what message do they think they are communicating other than they think they are experts on JREF policy, communication, definitions, and skepticism by virtue of the fact that they have "seniority" as forum members. So does T'ai. Big deal.

Uh oh. I just passed 10,000 posts! I hope that doesn't spell doom for me!!

(Your PM box is full, by the way)

Nice. Casting even more suspicion on others, whilst batting your bambi eyes in the most innocent way.

She has BAMBI eyes ?

...

DAMMIT!

 

[Big Les]

Despite what you say, I am not saying that you are telling people what to think. I am saying that you are telling people if they really believe or not.

Nuh-uh. I'm telling you that what you say makes no sense. If someone who actually does profess to hold religious beliefs would care to agree with you, (and I remain unconvinced that your argument is representative of their thoughts) then I will suggest that their belief might amount to mere fantasy.

There is no contradiction, because they don't claim evidence. After all this time, you still don't get that.

And you still don't get that several of us here are saying that we think that believing in god is a de facto claim of evidence. Since you claim, bizarrely, that "to believe in" doesn't mean the same thing as "believe exists", I can't see that we're going to break this particular impasse.

Why have I "removed any possibility of the result being belief in god" by pointing to Persinger's experiments?

Answered already. Because the experiments consist of real-world external stimuli. The results may look the same, but are not a product of "god" (whatever that might be).

Why isn't it "fine" if people acknowledge that their god is imaginary?

Answered already. I said it was. But it's also irrational to hold a belief in something you know doesn't exist. To me and to many other self-described sceptics, this is an undesirable position. For them, clearly not. That's fine, however there is no reason at all that I, other people, and the person themselves, shouldn't criticise such a belief.

Where have I claimed that all theist skeptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists?

Well, you are typically very careful in your wording such as to allow you to fit your argument to your words after the fact. Nonetheless, if you are being honest with yourself, you will find such a claim about four inches above this very sentence. Phrasing your arguments as short and obtuse questions is something that cold readers do, Claus, and it's really quite the impediment to a reasonable conversation.

What argument are you talking about wrt the example of saints and orgiastic emotions?

Whatever the hell it is that you're trying to convey. Why not try restating your own argument in plain English prose - that way we won't have to keep playing whack-a-mole with individual statements.

What have you read of the skeptic writers? E.g., Shermer, Randi, Gardner, Plait, Wiseman, Nickell, Radford, Dawkins, Hines, Sagan?

Mind your own business.

In 3007, when "Jedi" cannot be distinguished between Abrahamic religions, will you equate "Jedi" with "Christianity"? If not, why not?

Answered this already too. This is becoming rather tiresome. I said "yes" to this one too if you'll remember.

Do you think that skepticism - rationality, critical thinking, the lot - inevitably leads to atheism?

Of course not - the existence of plenty of sceptics who either profess belief in god or who refuse to touch the issue with a ten foot pole is evidence enough that people come to different conclusions with the same available evidence. Your own definition of scepticism refuses to call the "god" issue either way. Mine, in an attempt to think and conduct myself as rationally as I can, applies to god in the sense that with no evidence at present, it is rational and indeed sceptical to say "there is no god". It's the leap of faith despite this lack of evidence that causes this issue to be discussed.

 

[Egg]

I found the case presented in the movie to be very convincing. I didn't follow through verifying the evidence. What evidence do you think wasn't presented and/or was any of the evidence presented not factual?

At risk of derailing the thread, I'll just suggest checking out the comparisons made between Jesus and other deities. The Zeitgeist movie part 1 presents similar evidence and there's a discussion you can check out in the conspiracy theories forums.

 

[Big Les]

Can I just clarify once again that I understand that some (if not most) religious people believe or make-believe because it comforts them - the credo consolans idea that CFL brought up. In fact it seems that is the only possible reason when dealing with the version of god we are discussing.

I simply don't agree that it's a valid reason to believe in anything (by which I mean, to believe that it exists). We are rational adults living in the real world, and there are real-world comforts that do not require the (albeit partial and specific) abjuration of rationality. Sure, it's not always happy happy joy joy, but I think there's a lot to be said for facing it without the blue blankie of an imaginary or otherwise notional god.

 

[Lonewulf]

Accidentally quoted Articulett and mistook her for Skeptigirl above, in this post.

My apologies, but it's too late to edit it now.

 

[Beth]

I've combined several posts here. Due to the excessive length of this post and the similarity of many of the points/questions I've snipped a lot. If I've missed any points you feel are important, please bring them up again and I'll try to address them.

Maybe that is the crux of why this point is being missed by some people here and understood by others. Maybe those who have arbitrarily stopped that critical analysis don't realize they have done so. Maybe they believe there is empirical evidence of a god. Or maybe they just don't recognize that god beliefs require ignoring the empirical evidence. That is something I have observed and the point I make when I discuss the two definitions of gods.

While no doubt some believers feel there is empirical evidence of a god, the skeptical believers who post here don’t seem to be of that stripe. Generally either they have had a personal experience that is convincing to them or they believe that god does not interact with the world.

As far as recognizing that god beliefs require ignoring the empirical evidence, I think you’re wrong about that. What empirical evidence for the non-existance of god are they ignoring?

On the one hand, a skeptic who is also a god believer has some definition in mind in the latter category, yet rationalizes the lack of empirical evidence and the evidence specific god beliefs are false such as Creation and Noah's flood do not suggest the skeptic's god belief is false because he/she then switches to the former definition of an untestable god belief.

As slingblade has posted, a lot of people move towards atheism rather slowly. Why do you have a the problem with a skeptic who believes in an untestable god?

If you only believe in the untestable god, what do you have left in that belief really? Nothing, it is a concept of nothing which is felt, touched, seen, etc anywhere but in one's mind. It is a fantasy of an afterlife. An imaginary friend.

This isn’t really relevant to the topic of discussion, though it’s an interesting question in its own right. Perhaps even deserving of it’s own thread.

My own response is another question – why believe in justice? It can’t be felt, touched, seen, etc anywhere but in one’s mind. If you feel a skeptic can believe in justice, why can't a skeptic believe in god? It seems to me that they have similar evidence to support their existance.

I think there is value in believing in the ideal of justice, even if it is an intangible 'thing' that cannot be proven to exist. I think there may be value in believing in god as well, even if god is an intangible 'thing' that cannot be proven to exist.

But skeptic/believers stop that critical thought process. They only carry it through to a point.

I think this is the sticking point. The reason that questions about how skeptics can believe in god comes across as argumentative or insulting. I don’t agree that religious believers stop thinking critically or are not skeptical of their religious beliefs. When you make this assumption, you don't ask them to discuss the critical thought processes they used to examined their belief, instead you assume they have deliberately avoided thinking about their religious beliefs critically and ask them why. People who believe in God haven’t necessarily done this and the assumption that they have comes across as arrogant and demeaning.

When they think about the fact prayer answering should be testable they start defining their god differently. When they see the evidence doesn't support Bible stories they start calling the stories symbolic.

If someone is changing their definition of God to fit the evidence (for example, if they decide biblical literalism isn’t compatible with the empirical evidence), it seems to me they are the epitome of a skeptic – they are changing their beliefs to fit the empirical evidence. Why is this not considered skeptical behavior?

First, scientifically, there is a set of rules about evidence. That's why people's subjective thoughts are not evidence.

Not true. For example, I recently heard about a MRI set up that can tell when someone is thinking about lying by examining the parts the brain that light up. It’s got enough credibility that the scientist who did the research and developed the system has started a business charging people thousands of $'s to establish they are telling the truth about certain things, such as “No I haven’t cheated on you darling”. It was reported on NPR science Friday a few weeks ago. I think that subjective thoughts must have been evidence in developing this process. Now, that's a far different matter from the subjective thoughts we've been discussing. My point is that subjective thoughts DO have a place as evidence in the scientific process, so your claim that they are not evidence is incorrect.

But the reason those thoughts are not evidence is we have evidence about how those subjective experiences occur and 'real gods' are not the best fit for the evidence.

Despite stating this as if it were a fact, it's not. It's quite debatable. We have developed alternative explanations for some of the subjective experiences that people report. I recollect hearing about frontal lobe stimulation producing experiences similar to many reported religious experiences. But this proves nothing about the causes of such experiences in the absence of such neural stimulation.

So just what are the underlying principles of skepticism in your view?

I think skepticism is a method, not a set of conclusions. I think a skeptic is willing to reexamine his or her basic assumptions about how the world works when they come across evidence that contradicts those assumptions. I don't think that holding a religious belief means that a person has failed to apply critical thinking to that belief, whether that belief is that a god exists or that no god exists

Just what is and isn't evidence escapes them.

Yes, some people seem to think that the only empirical evidence qualifies as evidence. They do not consider personal experience or testimonial evidence as having any worth. While I agree that empirical evidence is far stronger, I don't agree that I need to reject any and all personal experiences and/or testimonial evidence as worthless. I do not think that skepticism requires that we reject all evidence that doesn’t meet the standards of scientific evidence. I simply think it needs to be weighed differently.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that someone who interprets the bible as a primarily metaphorical document and god as a creator being who set things in motion is not being skeptical. They simply weigh the evidence available to them differently than an atheist does, placing some value on subjective experiences and testimonial evidence that the atheist rejects entirely or interprets differently.

If the topic were:

"Should skeptics, by definition, be anti spiritualist mediums"

Would anyone’s viewpoint be different?

Mine wouldn’t be any different. I think when you define skeptics as having to hold any particular point of view, whether on religion or any other subject, you have developed a dogmatic creed.

Instead of taking the scientific approach which says "we don't know", it seems a "skeptic" starts with the assumption that until the evidence says otherwise, the default is that it doesn't exist - as shown by several people here making such baseless claims as "god is imaginary" - a position I would have previously attributed to a "cynic".
If that is the definition we are using, then "skeptics" should indeed all be atheists, and I can say with certainty that I don't fit such a definition, nor would aspire to. I would tend to think such a closed minded approach would lead to bias when examining evidence and actually be detrimental to scientific discovery.

Nicely put egg. I just wanted to say I agree with this.

 

[Janot]

And most eventually become atheists. Just as most Nobel prize winning scientists do.

A bit late, but I think the evidence which CFLarsen demands is here, or at least a reference to it.

 

[-Fran-]

A bit late, but I think the evidence which CFLarsen demands is here, or at least a reference to it.

Wow, did that pastor really say that it's dangerous to learn more because your faith might go away? If god really existed then it would seem that no knowledge in the world could make it go away. It's a poor god who must rely on a certain lower level of education for his followers.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nuh-uh. I'm telling you that what you say makes no sense. If someone who actually does profess to hold religious beliefs would care to agree with you, (and I remain unconvinced that your argument is representative of their thoughts) then I will suggest that their belief might amount to mere fantasy.

Appeal to ignorance. "I can't fathom X, so X does not make sense. It does to those who believe X, but not to me."

And you still don't get that several of us here are saying that we think that believing in god is a de facto claim of evidence. Since you claim, bizarrely, that "to believe in" doesn't mean the same thing as "believe exists", I can't see that we're going to break this particular impasse.

I don't think we will, either, as long as you continue to refuse to go with what believers claim.

Answered already. Because the experiments consist of real-world external stimuli. The results may look the same, but are not a product of "god" (whatever that might be).

That's why I asked you just how much you had read about skepticism. You can't know for sure that it is not a product of "god". All you can say is that we can produce similar effects naturally, and that we therefore have a natural explanation.

Answered already. I said it was. But it's also irrational to hold a belief in something you know doesn't exist. To me and to many other self-described sceptics, this is an undesirable position. For them, clearly not. That's fine, however there is no reason at all that I, other people, and the person themselves, shouldn't criticise such a belief.

Another reason why I asked. You think that skepticism is about desired positions - it isn't. It is a tool that gives us explanations of how the world is - not how we desire it to be.

Well, you are typically very careful in your wording such as to allow you to fit your argument to your words after the fact. Nonetheless, if you are being honest with yourself, you will find such a claim about four inches above this very sentence. Phrasing your arguments as short and obtuse questions is something that cold readers do, Claus, and it's really quite the impediment to a reasonable conversation.

All you need to do is quote where I claim that theists skeptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists.

Whatever the hell it is that you're trying to convey. Why not try restating your own argument in plain English prose - that way we won't have to keep playing whack-a-mole with individual statements.

Huh? You don't even know which argument of mine you are dismissing?

Mind your own business.

It is very relevant, given your thorough misunderstandings of what skepticism is. Have you read e.g. Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World"?

Answered this already too. This is becoming rather tiresome. I said "yes" to this one too if you'll remember.

You have given highly contradictory answers wrt the Jedi religion issue. First, you dismiss their beliefs as being meant as a joke, then you take their beliefs seriously.

Of course not - the existence of plenty of sceptics who either profess belief in god or who refuse to touch the issue with a ten foot pole is evidence enough that people come to different conclusions with the same available evidence. Your own definition of scepticism refuses to call the "god" issue either way. Mine, in an attempt to think and conduct myself as rationally as I can, applies to god in the sense that with no evidence at present, it is rational and indeed sceptical to say "there is no god". It's the leap of faith despite this lack of evidence that causes this issue to be discussed.

Then, you do think that skepticism inevitably lead to atheism, provided that skeptics follow your brand of skepticism.

Can I just clarify once again that I understand that some (if not most) religious people believe or make-believe because it comforts them - the credo consolans idea that CFL brought up. In fact it seems that is the only possible reason when dealing with the version of god we are discussing.

I simply don't agree that it's a valid reason to believe in anything (by which I mean, to believe that it exists). We are rational adults living in the real world, and there are real-world comforts that do not require the (albeit partial and specific) abjuration of rationality. Sure, it's not always happy happy joy joy, but I think there's a lot to be said for facing it without the blue blankie of an imaginary or otherwise notional god.

You are wrong again. We are not rational adults, far from it. The many manifestations of various forms of superstition prove this.

Nobody is pure rationality.

A bit late, but I think the evidence which CFLarsen demands is here, or at least a reference to it.

Hmmm....no:

According to Nature magazine only 7% of people in the National Academy of Sciences such as Nobel Laureates, believe in God.

That doesn't mean that 7% of Nobel Laureates believe in God. It means that 7% of the people in the NAS believe in God. It doesn't say anything about how big the percentage of Nobel Laureates is of the people in the NAS.

 

[Janot]

That doesn't mean that 7% of Nobel Laureates believe in God. It means that 7% of the people in the NAS believe in God. It doesn't say anything about how big the percentage of Nobel Laureates is of the people in the NAS.

Somehow I knew you were going to come back with that. Annoyingly, I was reading last week a different report that it was 7% of Nobel Laureates in sciences, but I can't find that reference. Probably a journalist cutting the same corner.

 

[Dumbledore]

Wow, did that pastor really say that it's dangerous to learn more because your faith might go away? If god really existed then it would seem that no knowledge in the world could make it go away. It's a poor god who must rely on a certain lower level of education for his followers.

And you bring up a good point. How much of this argument has to do with fudie religious groups who feed off of the uneducated. There are many highly educated skeptics our there who are religious. Being educated and a skeptic doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. Declaring that all skeptics have to be atheist or they are hypocritical sounds too much like dogmatic religious doctrine to me!

 

[schlitt]

CFLarsen, are you able to summarise what you are trying to convey?
Along with others i do not follow what you are trying to say. Your argument seems to be permutable for the sake of continuance and disagreement.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, are you able to summarise what you are trying to convey?
Along with others i do not follow what you are trying to say. Your argument seems to be permutable for the sake of continuance and disagreement.

• If we as skeptics are to criticize what believers say, we have to criticize what they claim - not what we want them to claim.
  
  
• We can't, as skeptics, test non-testable claims.
  
  
• That is why it is not an issue for skepticism if some people want to believe in an acknowledged imaginary god/friend/bartender. Credo Consolans beliefs are not incompatible with a skeptical approach. It all comes down to evidence - and whether evidence is claimed or not.
  
  
• In the case of an intervening God, it is skeptical to position that the existence of God can be proven - or not. We can simply examine the evidence pro and contra. In the case of a non-intervening God, we can't know if he exists or not. There is nothing to examine.
  
  
• We can say that beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on faith are compatible, as long as the beliefs based on faith are not in conflict with the beliefs based on evidence.
  
  
• The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.
  
  
• The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".
  
  
• It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.
  
  
• We can say that X is unverifiable and untestable today. What we can't say is that it will always be unverifiable and untestable.
  
  
• We 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.
  
  
• We can't disprove gods, exactly the same way we can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.