Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Belz...]

Only to you and Beth.

I think everyone thinks you guys are using some very flawed logic to imagine that a belief in invisible forms of consciousness is as logical as the assumption that they are all made up.

Indeed, they're just trying to convince themselves that their faith is just as rational. But here's the catch: we know of at least ONE life-bearing planet.

We know of ZERO gods.

 

[NeilC]

OK so this should be easy. What is the flawed logic exactly.

Could you also define skepticism in such a way as to admit atheists and not theists?

That way we will be further forward to answering the topic of the thread.

 

[articulett]

You might want to catch up, Neil...

Generally skeptics use the rules of logic and evidence to reach conclusions.
There is not a logical reason to posit a form of consciousness that exists absent a living brain--that includes all gods, demons, and other invisible, immeasurable entities. There are certainly people who consider themselves skeptics and theists... but I don't see that as a reason to conclude that a belief in god is rational or logical. To most skeptics, such people don't apply skepticism to their gods. To me it all sounds like, "my woo is the true woo".

How do you include believers of god as skeptics while excluding those who believe in psychic powers or demons or whatever it is you call woo? For me... I'm glad to let anyone who wants to call themselves a skeptic a skeptic, but I don't think anyone comes about a belief in god via the tools of skepticism. It seems that skeptics who believe keep their god outside of science and nature and definition in order to keep their belief. All gods seem like cultural artifacts kept alive by confirmation bias...just like demons... and the notion that we are hear for a "purpose".

What definition of skepticism would someone be using to determine that a god is true-- and if that definition includes people who believe in demon possession or Satan, then what a weak and useless definition it seems to be.

Most the skeptics I know are naturalists and materialists because that is what the evidence is accumulating. Despite eons of belief in dualism, there isn't an iota of evidence to suggest that it's anything more than an illusion. There is no evidence of a supernatural anything, and it defies Occam to invoke the supernatural as an explanation for anything.

Skeptics I know who hold a belief in a god, don't have a personal sort of god-- more of a deistic god or spinoza's god or a reverence or the natural world. What person would call themselves a skeptic and still believe faith was an avenue towards objective understanding of the real world? I suppose some skeptics could be regularly praying to a god imagining that this god hears them or guides them... but that doesn't seem skeptical or logical to me-- just comforting... or a belief based on indoctrination or wishful thinking... I hope such skeptics don't expect me to find that respect worthy or logical. In fact, I suggest that don't bring it up to me if they don't want me probing that belief with the tools of skepticism.

To be a skeptic AND a believer in invisible forms of consciousness --while knowing that people invent such things readily, seems to be a recipe for cognitive dissonance or excuse making-- such folks usually keep their god outside of scrutiny by claiming it's outside of science, doesn't want to be known, or defining it nebulously. They believe because they can't not believe... or they don't want to... or they don't want to probe, because it gives them comfort. And some might just be afraid due to an indoctrination of Pascal's wager--they believe... "just in case"... or they believe because it feels like an "answer" to ageless questions.

How can you keep asking Belz to define the concept when it's been done so numerous times? I think most agree that anyone can call themselves a skeptic, but most skeptics don't believe in gods because they use occams razor and rules of logic and evidence to form conclusions about reality... and gods don't make any sort of sense except as human constructs.

I think most people consider the topic of the thread to have been answered. It's just that some people don't like the answer.

 

[articulett]

Indeed, they're just trying to convince themselves that their faith is just as rational. But here's the catch: we know of at least ONE life-bearing planet.

We know of ZERO gods.

It's worse than that... we know that life is made of the kind of matter that is abundant all over the universe... we have no evidence for dualism--for any kind of consciousness absent a living brain with sensory input programming the emergence of that intelligence...

We have tons of evidence that people believe and readily make up such things-- but despite eons of belief in assorted forms of consciousness absent a brain-- we haven't an iota of evidence to suggest that it is even possible-- and increasing evidence that shows that such entities are common illusions and delusions. To me, it speaks more to how our brains evolved and what words we use to explain our instincts and feelings and the things we don't understand. We narrate our experiences to ourselves and this seems to be at the root of a soul-- and other forms of consciousness that don't really exist.

 

[Mobyseven]

As opposed to beliefs held by a single individual or only a few? Yes, I think it’s a reasonable rule of thumb. As you mentioned "The more testimonies there are that agree on the properties of an object that is known to exist, the more likely it is that such testimonies accurately reflect reality." That doesn’t make the majority opinion right of course. We both acknowledge that too.

Majority opinions are usually correct? Beth, that's a ridiculous assertion, and one for which you have no evidence - the majority is usually wrong, as can be demonstrated by the constant evolution of understanding in the sciences - 'the majority' weren't the ones who came up with evolution, or the concept of a round earth, or the heliocentric model of the solar system, or plate techtonics, or genetics, or modern cancer treatment, or the periodic table, or...you see where I'm going with this?

No, but group consensus does shape our society and culture and contributes to our judgment about what is reasonable to believe.

Such as your belief that it is rational to believe irrational beliefs so long as the belief is widespread. It doesn't make your belief any more rational or reasonable to hold. Hell, it's another case of circular reasoning - "The majority believes that a belief is reasonable to hold if the majority believes it. Therefore, a belief is reasonable to hold if the majority believes it."

It’s my personal criteria and it’s not a particularly unusual one. I only brought it up because you pressed me to define my criteria. Now you accuse me of having made it up specifically to define myself as having 'won' the argument. Not true. I don't think of these arguments of having been 'won' or 'lost' but as expeditions into understanding other people's point of view. By that criteria, I always 'win'.

It may not be an unusual one, but it is an erroneous one. That's why I've been asking you to justify it - for Ed's sake, show me that I'm wrong! Provide something that amounts to a rational argument for your position, or at least ask a question that forces me to evaluate my beliefs! I'm here, practically begging you to find a way to rip my argument to shreds because that way I get to learn something, and it forces me to think - but all you can do is provide a plethora of logical fallacies and fire them at me so fast you don't think I'll notice.

I'm confident in my arguments, Beth. But I'm not so confident that I don't think they can be refined or that a specific part may be faulty. You, unfortunately, seem either entirely unable or unwilling to engage in any type of real debate that might highlight any flaw, probably because that would require you to acknowledge the chinks (gaping holes) in your own suit of armour. It's a shame for everyone involved.

I disagree. How does fit the criteria I provided?

The Chupacabra is a widespread belief in Mexico, a country with the fifth largest population in the world. If that doesn't qualify, then what exactly is the tipping point for something to be a widely held belief? Is there an actual numerical value, or is it an arbitrary decision that you alone can make?

Yes it is. I said “I don’t know” . What part of “I don’t know” don’t you understand? Am I required to have a firm opinion on every weird belief you can come up with? And if I don't, I'll be accused of avoiding the question? Seems like a lose/lose proposition for me, designed, as you accused me of doing, so that you can define yourself as having 'won' the point.

All very diabolical in your mind. But "I don't know" is not a valid answer - the whole point of this was to evaluate what is and isn't reasonable to believe by your own definition of 'reasonable'. If you are unable to fit something into the criteria, it means that there is something wrong with your definition.

Now, the problem as I see it is that by your criteria the Chupacabra is a reasonable belief to hold. Using my criteria I would say that it isn't a reasonable belief to hold. And I think you agree with me on this one - you don't really think that the Chupacabra is a reasonable belief to hold. But if you admit that, then you are admitting that your criteria for determining what is a 'reasonable belief' is flawed in a rather major way. So instead you say, "I don't know," in a bid to withhold comment.

Guess what - I'm not buying it. So once again, by your criteria of what is a reasonable belief to hold, is it reasonable to believe in the Chupacabra?

It's a yes or no question.

Hmmm. I give an answer. You don’t like it. Therefore my answer is wrong and/or I’m avoiding the question. This is a debate style I’m becoming familiar with.

I'm sure you're familiar with it, you engage in it non-stop. Of course, that's not what is going on here - the simple fact is that I asked a question, and you answered a different question. If you don't agree with my evaluation, feel free to post the question and answer side by side, and then explain how the answer in any way answers the question.

It’s nice to know that it’s not just religious questions you are so certain about your viewpoint being right and others completely wrong. The question of whether such things as ‘justice’ and ‘numbers’ exist outside of human minds is on open one – much like the question of whether god exists. Can you honestly not conceive that other intelligent rational humans have spent considerable time and effort and though on such matters and arrived at different conclusions? Do you consider them all irrational? Uncritical thinkers? Believing only due to blind faith? I don't. I don't know the answers to those questions, nor do I claim to. What I do know is that despite much thought and effort, no one else has answered them definitely either.

The above is called 'rhetoric'. It is not called 'an argument'. If you want to provide an argument and some evidence, that's fine. I suggest you start with an explanation of how justice could exist in a world without intelligent life.

Ad hom does not advance your argument. Do you think I’m a second grader? As for automated contradictions, your posts are full of them. Do you think declaring your opinion is the only right one and that all others are not only wrong but that people who believe other than you do are irrational uncritical thinkers helps you come across as a knowledgable adult?

Oh really? Kindly point out to me a single example of where I have contradicted your position without justification. It doesn't count if you provide me with an example where you've deliberately cut out the argument that followed my position, as I caught you doing earlier.

Really? Do you consider it irrational and unreasonable to expect a jury to render a verdict when that is the only type of evidence available.

I find it highly disturbing that you think a jury should come to a guilty verdict on the basis of such flimsy testimony!

I want you to pay special attention to the second link, page 51:

The single most important factor leading to wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification.[222]

I was responding to your claim that it wasn’t data.

Yes, and it's still not data. The world does not conform to your wishes.

I can’t know that. Likewise, no pollster who asks someone how they voted can be certain that no one in their sample is lying. Still, it’s data and it seems that, for the most part, anecdotal evidence systematically gathered and analyzed can provide us with insights.

What insights can we get from anecdotes? As I've already pointed out to you, anecdotes are useless in this situation (and any similar situation) regardless of whether god exists or not! God could exist, and the anecdotes would still be worthless - do you understand why that is? Because I gave an explanation a few posts ago!

If you can't control the sample, you are in the same situation of a person sitting in the jury box. You listen, you evaluate the different witnesses for how credible you think they are, and you make the best decision you can based on the evidence you have available. Is it perfect? No. Might you be wrong? Yes. Is it unreasonable to come to a conclusion anyway? I don't think so. A person merely needs to keep in mind that their conclusion, whatever it is, might well be wrong.

See above for my response to your jury question - obviously you thought I would answer differently, or else you wouldn't be using the same argument again. It actually makes me feel a little bit ill that you think a person should go to jail solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony - such unreliable evidence would mean that more often than not you would be sending an innocent person to prison. The only reasonable verdict to reach when faced with eyewitness testimony and nothing else would be 'not guilty' - there is no possible way that reasonable doubt can be proven on such unreliable evidence.

As for the possibility of being wrong - I know that my conclusions may be wrong. But I'm not going to alter my conclusion unless there is a reason to do so, such as new evidence. Don't play the arrogant card with me unless you've got an evidence card to play next to it.

You are making a subjective evaluation of anecdotal evidence again. You can consider it useless if you want, but I don’t think it is reasonable to expect everyone else to feel the same way about such evidence.

Once again, this is not a subjective evaluation. Stop calling it one. If you think that repeating an incorrect claim will magically make it correct, you're wrong. Once again, from an earlier thread, the explanation that you must have missed as to why anecdotal evidence is useless in cases such as these. Try to pay attention this time:

The question we were trying to answer was, "Does god exist?"

The evidence you produced was anecdotal testimony by people who claim to have experienced god.

If god doesn't exist, these people have trouble separating fantasy from reality.

If god does exist, it doesn't speak to the actual experiences these people had or claim to have had - while it means that it is possible that they experienced god, it is also possible that they are delusional, or that they have misinterpreted the experience, or even (shock!) that they are lying.

Because of this, the anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Note that the above is not a subjective analysis. Stop claiming that it is.

And your evidence for this interpretation is?

Long term systematic observation of the behaviour of parties who are losing debates. While the sample group mainly included members of the same family, this researcher cannot think of a reason as to why the results would not apply to the general population.

That's a rationalization that sounds surprisingly similar to what theistic skeptics say about their belief in god.

Er...no it doesn't. For example, I just said that I don't believe in free will, and theists say that they do believe in god.

See how they're pretty much the exact opposite, and not at all similar?

Not particularly. I brought it up as an example of a belief that many skeptics hold without strong evidence. Why do you think it reasonable for a skeptics to believe in free will but not in god? Seems to me that the evidence for both is quite similar - there is only testimonial and subjective personal experience that either exist.

Well, seeing as how I didn't say that I think it's reasonable for skeptics to believe in free will, I'd have to say that you're pulling nonsense from your nether regions. I'm also going to have to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth that I haven't said.

I’m sorry, but I’m out of time again. Besides, my posts are getting way too long.

I think at this point, we are simply going round and round over the same points. I don't agree with your arguments, you don't agree with mine. This thread has over a 1,000 posts. I think it may be time for me to move on to a different thread. It's been nice talking with you.

You're right, we are going round and round the same points - primarily because every time I point out the flaws in your argument you repeat the argument as though it never happened. I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't agree with your arguments because they are hopelessly flawed, and that this is not a matter of opinion, it is something that anyone with the most basic understanding of logic or reasoning can identify for themselves.

And don't give me that patronising 'polite' tone. If you want to show manners you can do so by not deliberately ignoring large sections of my posts and setting up strawman arguments, not by tagging a faux polite greeting onto the end of your post. Capisci?

 

[Bri]

There is not a logical reason to posit a form of consciousness that exists absent a living brain--that includes all gods, demons, and other invisible, immeasurable entities.

What do you mean by a "logical reason?" What is an "illogical reason?"

There are certainly people who consider themselves skeptics and theists... but I don't see that as a reason to conclude that a belief in god is rational or logical.

I'm not aware of a definition of "irrational" or "illogical" that would allow one to conclude that a belief that a god exists must necessarily be irrational or illogical.

-Bri

 

[The Gnomon]

Thread title: Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?
The thread seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
Referring to another thread, a 2-diminsional diagram with "theist - atheist" on the horizontal dimension, and "gnostic - agnostic" on the vertical, helps clarify the issue, at least to me. (Not being allowed to link, you'll have to find it yourselves.)
A "gnostic" knows things "for sure;" an "agnostic" doesn't. An "atheist" does not postulate a god, a "theist" does. I'm an atheist-agnostic - I don't know anything for sure, and don't postulate a god.
Since I don't know anything "for sure," but only with degrees of likelihood, (the sun coming up in the morning = high; the moon made of green cheese = low), nothing is provable to me "for sure." And nothing can be absolutely disproved except by contradiction. Things are only more, or less, likely.
It is entirely possible to live, enjoy life, be relatively healthy and comfortable, with an awareness one lives in an uncertain world.
I am skeptical about everything, to varying degrees, and try to chose my battles where it matters to me.
I cannot imagine a "skeptic" with ANY absolute belief, including an absolute belief in a god.

 

[articulett]

What do you mean by a "logical reason?" What is an "illogical reason?"


I'm not aware of a definition of "irrational" or "illogical" that would allow one to conclude that a belief that a god exists must necessarily be irrational or illogical.

-Bri

Everyone who seems to think a belief in god is not irrational seems to go out of their way not to read my posts or any of the posters I find particularly clear on the topic (Moby, for example)

You guys use words to say nothing at all.

I'm not aware of a definition of a god that is rational. Most gods appear to exist entirely in the imagination. To presume otherwise necessitates the presumptions that some form of consciousness can exist without a brain-- a consciousness that can "read our thoughts" or communicate with humans telepathically... something that can think and feel without a material brain. We do not have any evidence to suggest any such thing could exist. We have lots of evidence that people invent such things. We have increasing evidence that shows not only why and how... but that a living brain is a basic requirement of consciousness.

Therefore, if one believes that consciousness of any sort exists absent a brain-- (demons, gods, souls, invisible bigfoots, Satan, etc.) one has made a leap of faith and invokes something "supernatural"-- something not known to exist in nature-- not part our natural world-- something for which we have no basis for believing in. Even if there were such a god-- how in the world could anyone know anything about it? People are apparently using somebody's anecdotal knowingness about this thing we can't know about to posit the existence of god--this god that is apparently invisible and indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion or a dream.

Rational beliefs are based in rules of evidence and logic... I posted links... (see "Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit"), "rules of evidence", and the scientific method (including Occam's razor).

Irrational beliefs posit the existence of things for which there are no reasons to posit the existence of. Any belief involving the existence of forms of consciousnessness absent a brain is not a belief that can be supported logically. It is no more likely to be true than any other belief... positing such... god is equal to the invisible pink unicorn and demons and Ra and Satan and angels and the chupacabra in regards to evidence. All the evidence for any of this stuff is bad evidence--for the same reason. They require supernatural explanations-- magic-- something outside of everything we know about our world.

Nobody has given a rational reason or defined a rational god belief-- there is no god belief based in logic. It's all the same as Zeus belief as far as logic is concerned. Therefore, logical people tend not to believe in gods-- and to think that those who do are reasoning fallaciously-- like Beth. And you.

Running around avoiding questions and asking for definitions and playing semantic games and pretending to be polite and imagining that feelings can be evidence of something that is supposed to be factual are not arguments.


Does anyone have a rational reason for a belief in a god? Are there any gods that aren't conscious beings that exist absent a brain--invisible entities?? How can one justify the belief in one version of an invisible entity while dismissing all others. It defies logic. It's so circular. If we have no rational reason to believe in a god... and no rational reason to believe that consciousness can exist without a brain... then we can rationally conclude that all god beliefs are irrational. All of them. All evidence appears to be on par with feelings, hearsay, and appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is very poor evidence indeed.

So which of the apologists have a rational explanation for god belief... or a rational version of god or a means for one to arrive at a god belief rationally? Anyone. Because I just hear the same old insincere questions and dickering about definitions.

What is your point, Bri? If you think a belief in god can be rational--or can be derived via skepticism... show us how. Otherwise, you have your answer. Read Moby. Read just about everyone except Beth.

And read this yet again:

A belief in a god is necessarily irrational because it posits the existance of consciousness without a brain. We have no evidence that such a thing is possible. Despite eons of such beliefs-- there is not a scintilla of evidence. Instead the evidence is accumulating for materialism and brains themselves giving rise to consciousness creating illusions of gods and such.

 

[articulett]

Thank you. That took a while.

Now: Does Hal claim that his god is a fact? Yes or no.

Just yes or no. Don't hide your answer in your usual flood of words. Just answer either:

Yes

or

No

And: What is the evidence that Hal rejects?


And, for the fourth time: What gave you the idea that I wouldn't be skeptical of the idea that demons had possessed your students?

No Claus, Hal doesn't state it as a fact. If Hal is rejecting evidence it's evidence that the world can be described via natural explanations. A belief in a god is a belief in the supernatural-- a belief that consciousness can exist absent a brain... that is not a conclusion that anyone can derive rationally is it? It makes no sense with what we know about brains and consciousness and matter. If it makes no sense then nobody can "know" anything about it.

And about demons-- I made no claims... you can reject the notion because you don't believe in demons. I reject the notion of demons for the same reason I reject the notion of god-- there is no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain! How can someone posit the belief in something that makes no sense with what we know about our world?-- how can one believe in some entity when there is evidence that no entities like it exist?? How can you reject psychic claims and demons, but not gods? What logic allows for one but not the other? You said skeptics can't address things for which there are no claims. I say we can. I say just as the MDC indicates-- it's all woo until or unless some evidence shows up somewhere. I am much more interested in how people come to believe woo and prop it up with semantics... I am interested in how the brain fools people.

How is Hal's belief more skeptical than the teacher who suspects demon possession of her students? Would you expect one who is a skeptic to have such suspicions? Why allow for one and not the other? Isn't the evidence for both equal so long as "no claims are made".

 

[articulett]

And Claus-- people avoid your questions because they are insincere, all over the place, and designed to infer something without saying anything.

If you think a god belief can be derived logically or skeptically-- tell us how-- otherwise I, like Moby, will continue to consider skeptics who believe in any invisible entities to be using their skepticism selectively. I think atheism is inevitable for most skeptics who give the topic much thought. HOW CAN IT BE OTHERWISE?

 

[Lonewulf]

I love how Clause throws in "Yes or No" questions, and then says, "don't hide your answer in your usual flood of words."

I.E., he has to simplify the case so far down as to be utterly useless. You can't actually have an opinion that has to be, y'know, explained.

 

[articulett]

Is a god belief more logical than a demon belief? Why do so many people believe in demons or Satan if no such entity exists? Why isn't god subject to the same scrutiny? Are those who are agnostic about god, equally agnostic about Satan and demons and psychic powers? If not, how can you explain the discrepancy rationally?

 

[articulett]

I love how Clause throws in "Yes or No" questions, and then says, "don't hide your answer in your usual flood of words."

I.E., he has to simplify the case so far down as to be utterly useless. You can't actually have an opinion that has to be, y'know, explained.

Yes... meanwhile he avoids all questions and attempts at clarification.

It's the "sarcastic-and-pointless-question-method" used by those with nothing to say... just lots of inferences they want to make.

And it's all just words to prop up the notion that it's perfectly logical for a skeptic to believe in a god. It's possible. I accept such beliefs as reasonable belief given the culture we live in--probably harmless. But I don't see how a god COULD logically exist. I think for a skeptic to believe in god they need to use semantics, diversions, fallacious reasoning, and cognitive dissonance... or accept that their god may be a belief based on "comfort" that they just prefer to keep. I'd like to think there is a good reason for such-- something tangible or something I could understand --something --but all god belief seems to be cut from the same cloth as demon belief and ghost belief. I can understand how and why the meme spreads... but I don't see how a belief in god can be logical.

 

[articulett]

where no such evidence exists, one person coming to a conclusion that God is merely imaginary and another that God probably exists are not necessarily being any less reasonable or unskeptical than eachother. Neither claim can be proven and neither follows the "hard skeptical" approach and we have no way to reach an objective probability of either.

Wrong--because we have evidence that people invent gods. By your reasoning, those who believe in demons or psychics are as skeptical and reasonable as those who conclude that there are no such things-- that it's all misperception of a type we are very familiar with (see any Randi video)... these are all illusions cut from the same sort of cultural memes.

By your reasoning... everyone is a skeptic... and all reasoning is skeptical. You've defined skepticism out of existence by pretending both claims are equally valid. In our reality and given the evidence-- they are not. Skeptics might believe-- they might believe that it's logical to believe... but that doesn't make the belief in gods based in any sort of actual logic. Nor does it make anyone's god (or any other invisible form of consciousness) even remotely plausible. The reasons for belief in god are no more substantial the the reasons for belief in the chupacabra-- But god beliefs offer a bonus--they make people feel better... special... chosen... more secure. Belief is said to offer an "insurance" plan in case "hell" is real. God just happens to be a better antidote for fears of death and loss and religion-invented hells then other invisible measurable entities... plus we have very strong memes in place to spread such "faith" and "belief in belief".

 

[articulett]

How can there be a god who "doesn't want to be detected", Bri -- when the mere act of "wanting" requires a brain??? Thinking, feeling, loving, wanting, caring, intention, opinions, and "intelligence" all require a brain... these are not things that exist absent a brain.

 

[CFLarsen]

No Claus, Hal doesn't state it as a fact.

Yet, you said that Hal used illogical reasons, and gave this explanation of what an illogical reason was:

Illogical reason for reaching belief: Conclusion assumes facts not in evidence (like conscious entities absent living brain)

Please explain how Hal used illogical reasons when his conclusion doesn't assume fact.

If Hal is rejecting evidence it's evidence that the world can be described via natural explanations. A belief in a god is a belief in the supernatural-- a belief that consciousness can exist absent a brain... that is not a conclusion that anyone can derive rationally is it? It makes no sense with what we know about brains and consciousness and matter. If it makes no sense then nobody can "know" anything about it.

I asked what the evidence was that Hal rejected. Can you point to any specific evidence or not?

Just list it. Don't bury it in so many words.

And about demons-- I made no claims... you can reject the notion because you don't believe in demons. I reject the notion of demons for the same reason I reject the notion of god-- there is no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain! How can someone posit the belief in something that makes no sense with what we know about our world?-- how can one believe in some entity when there is evidence that no entities like it exist?? How can you reject psychic claims and demons, but not gods? What logic allows for one but not the other? You said skeptics can't address things for which there are no claims. I say we can. I say just as the MDC indicates-- it's all woo until or unless some evidence shows up somewhere. I am much more interested in how people come to believe woo and prop it up with semantics... I am interested in how the brain fools people.

Yes, you made a claim:

My students are possessed by demons. The evidence is the way they act. I'm not making any claims about the evidence--you guys aren't around to see the way they act anyhow-- I'm just using my own skeptical analysis to conclude the obvious.

Claus has no reason to be skeptical of it, that's for sure.

What gave you that idea? Just point to the post of mine and explain briefly your reasons.

How is Hal's belief more skeptical than the teacher who suspects demon possession of her students? Would you expect one who is a skeptic to have such suspicions? Why allow for one and not the other? Isn't the evidence for both equal so long as "no claims are made".

Because the teacher who suspects demon possession of her students points to something tangible, something evidential: The behavior of her students which might be described as what possessed people is supposed to do.

And Claus-- people avoid your questions because they are insincere, all over the place, and designed to infer something without saying anything.

Bull. My questions go right to the core of the matter. They cut through the crap and the verbal barrage.

If you think a god belief can be derived logically or skeptically-- tell us how--

Where did I say anything like that? Stop building all these strawmen, just because your own argument is in trouble.

otherwise I, like Moby, will continue to consider skeptics who believe in any invisible entities to be using their skepticism selectively. I think atheism is inevitable for most skeptics who give the topic much thought. HOW CAN IT BE OTHERWISE?

Don't you see what you are doing? That's an appeal to ignorance: You cannot fathom it could be otherwise, so it HAS TO BE WHAT YOU WANT!

Yes... meanwhile he avoids all questions and attempts at clarification.

On the contrary, I am seeking clarification.

Why are you incapable of expressing yourself succinctly? You don't need to write walls full of words. Take your time and think through what you want to say, and then try to express that as clearly as possible.

Verbal diarrhea is not a substitute for eloquence, clarity and brilliance.

 

[NeilC]

You might want to catch up, Neil...

Generally skeptics use the rules of logic and evidence to reach conclusions.
There is not a logical reason to posit a form of consciousness that exists absent a living brain--that includes all gods, demons, and other invisible, immeasurable entities. There are certainly people who consider themselves skeptics and theists... but I don't see that as a reason to conclude that a belief in god is rational or logical. To most skeptics, such people don't apply skepticism to their gods. To me it all sounds like, "my woo is the true woo".

How do you include believers of god as skeptics while excluding those who believe in psychic powers or demons or whatever it is you call woo? For me... I'm glad to let anyone who wants to call themselves a skeptic a skeptic, but I don't think anyone comes about a belief in god via the tools of skepticism. It seems that skeptics who believe keep their god outside of science and nature and definition in order to keep their belief. All gods seem like cultural artifacts kept alive by confirmation bias...just like demons... and the notion that we are hear for a "purpose".

What definition of skepticism would someone be using to determine that a god is true-- and if that definition includes people who believe in demon possession or Satan, then what a weak and useless definition it seems to be.

Most the skeptics I know are naturalists and materialists because that is what the evidence is accumulating. Despite eons of belief in dualism, there isn't an iota of evidence to suggest that it's anything more than an illusion. There is no evidence of a supernatural anything, and it defies Occam to invoke the supernatural as an explanation for anything.

Skeptics I know who hold a belief in a god, don't have a personal sort of god-- more of a deistic god or spinoza's god or a reverence or the natural world. What person would call themselves a skeptic and still believe faith was an avenue towards objective understanding of the real world? I suppose some skeptics could be regularly praying to a god imagining that this god hears them or guides them... but that doesn't seem skeptical or logical to me-- just comforting... or a belief based on indoctrination or wishful thinking... I hope such skeptics don't expect me to find that respect worthy or logical. In fact, I suggest that don't bring it up to me if they don't want me probing that belief with the tools of skepticism.

To be a skeptic AND a believer in invisible forms of consciousness --while knowing that people invent such things readily, seems to be a recipe for cognitive dissonance or excuse making-- such folks usually keep their god outside of scrutiny by claiming it's outside of science, doesn't want to be known, or defining it nebulously. They believe because they can't not believe... or they don't want to... or they don't want to probe, because it gives them comfort. And some might just be afraid due to an indoctrination of Pascal's wager--they believe... "just in case"... or they believe because it feels like an "answer" to ageless questions.

How can you keep asking Belz to define the concept when it's been done so numerous times? I think most agree that anyone can call themselves a skeptic, but most skeptics don't believe in gods because they use occams razor and rules of logic and evidence to form conclusions about reality... and gods don't make any sort of sense except as human constructs.

I think most people consider the topic of the thread to have been answered. It's just that some people don't like the answer.

You seem to think you know a lot about the views of a lot of people. I suggest you stick to answering for your self alone, just to keep it simple.

I ask Belz in response to his post. Numerous people have talked about definitions but I've not seem a simple, cohesive definition that fits the bill.

Your meandering rant about skepticism doesn't constitute a definition IMO. It's hard to know exactly what you are suggesting. For instance you say "Skeptics I know who hold a belief in a god". Therefore you DO admit believers of god into your definition of skepticism, which seems counter to your previous paragraph.

I'm an atheist. I'm trying to see if it's possible to be theist and skeptical. I'm undecided. I know people who are atheist and are unskeptical about certain things by virtue of having strongly held views and preconceptions about people they meet.

I'd like to see a short definition of the word that fits the bill. The dictionaries are no help with things like "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" that includes doubtful believers.

 

[Mobyseven]

NeilC:

I've provided a definition and this has been pointed out to you. If you're going to ignore the answer when it's provided, why should we bother to indulge your trolling further? A better idea would be for you to provide your definition to get the discussion started. Stop making noise and start saying something.

 

[Beth]

Lonewulf sent me a PM requesting I respond to this, so I am. But I'm losing interest in this thread. I only seem to be repeating myself and failing to communicate well. I will probably not respond to any further responses in this thread.

Have you answered the question of why time period is the only prerequisite?

Time period isn't the only prerequisite.

For instance, you said no one today that is "sane" (assuming that you're right here, which I don't believe you are) believes in fairies. Yet you accept them believing in a Sky Fairy (I.E., God).

Actually, I know sane people who do believe in fairies. It is not, however, to the best of my knowledge a widespread belief.

What has "disproved" fairies?

I don't think they have been disproved.

Why is what time period they believed in such a thing indicative of... anything, really?

It plays a role in determining the cultural expectations of what people are expected to believe in and what knowledge they have reasonably be expected to have access to.

Egyptians believed in a vital life energy, or the ka... does this mean that the soul is disproved, because they believed in it back then? Or were the Egyptians just as sane as modern people?

I'm not familiar with the term 'ka', but are you sure it is not referring to the same thing we mean by 'soul'?. I've heard of 'qi' or 'chi' from asian cultures. I think the native american tribes has a word for life energy as well. Most cultures do.

If the Egyptians were just as sane, and their beliefs and "testimony" were just as trustworthy as modern people's... then why not the same with fairies? If there is reason to disbelieve them... then why not also disbelieve people today?

I expect they were just as sane and trustworthy, but they are not around to answer questions about their beliefs, to explore what they are actually referring to with the term 'ka'. I can ask the people I know who believe in fairies when they saw them, how they interact with them,etc. When I can do that, I have more information at my disposal to make a judgement regarding how reliable their testimony is.

That the earth goes around the sun has nothing to do with the time period it was believed in... it has everything to do with being a debunked theory thanks to objective scientific evidence. In the BC's, someone suggested the existance of atoms; he was correct in his theories (though probably not in the details). So time doesn't disprove his theory.

Where is that which disproves fairies?

I sorry, but I haven't given much thought to the existance of fairies. I'm not sure there is any objective evidence that disproves them, just as there isn't any objective evidence that disproves the IPU.

 

[hammegk]

... we know that life is made of the kind of matter that is abundant all over the universe...

True, given the current scientific understanding of "life".

we have no evidence for dualism--

The concept itself is meaningless.

for any kind of consciousness absent a living brain with sensory input programming the emergence of that intelligence...

You have faith that science has, or will, precisely and absolutely define all characteristics of the "kind of matter" that exists in our shared perceptions, and that "life" and "consciousness" will not be part of that definition.