Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[danielk]

Obviously we can't test anything where no claim is made.

Indeed.

The question is about belief. Do you think god belief deserves more credence or respect than demon belief?

Er, I'm a bit miffed given that we've been through this at least twice now already -- but anyway, I'll try to clarify: If you use a definition of god akin to your definition of a demon, that is, as a being present in the material world, then the god belief does not deserve more credence than the demon belief.

When someone says that they believe something exists because no one can prove that it doesn't, then that is an excellent reason to conclude that it doesn't and that you've stumbled on a mental construct humans use to fool themselves... you've stumbled upon woo. I'd say, the more defensive the believers are, the less likely it is that their beliefs are true but the more they have invested in keeping that belief alive.

I actually agree. But it still isn't a logical proof, and thus leaves room for faith.

I'm all for inclusiveness--but I don't defer to faith based notions-- I don't think faith IS a good way to know anything... I think it's a dangerous illusion making you feel like you know something while being unaware of your ignorance.

I agree with that, too. However, I was talking about the definition of skepticism. According to my understanding, skepticism basically means to apply the scientific method on a broader level, that is to all claims one encounters in life. If there is no empirically verifiable claim, you can't test it.

Of course you can decide to only believe in things which can be verified scientifically. However, I don't think that's a necessary prerequisite to being a skeptic. What is necessary is that one must not deny a scientific finding because it contradicts your beliefs.

 

[danielk]

Are you under 21? Is English your first language?

No and no.

This discussion has been civil until now, so let's keep it that way, shall we?

 

[articulett]

No and no.

This discussion has been civil until now, so let's keep it that way, shall we?

I think you accused me of evading something and you are the one who seems defensive. I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I thought I had it nailed and that we agree. I'm not trying to be uncivil. Since English is not your first language, perhaps it's a language problem

Someone who believes in god is similar to someone who believes in "evil"--however it is defined. It can be conceptual etc. But, unless, evidence is claimed then a belief in god is similar to a belief in evil. It's a human construct--even if some people treat it as something else.

A skeptic who believes in god is on par with a skeptic who believes in evil... would you agree? Claus, would you? Do you agree with what Claus is saying? So long as no claims are made regarding evidence, you treat the belief as a human construct--not as an indication that it's something that exists in our shared reality outside of the human imagination?

I agree that a skeptic can believe in anything. I, like the majority, feel that a skeptic who believes in god is like a skeptic that believes in evil... they hold a belief in an entity or force in the the universe that has not been shown to exist... we have no evidence that immeasurable forces exist or that consciousness can exist outside a brain. I think that such skeptics put those sorts of beliefs outside of skeptical scrutiny or avoid making claims because they want or need to protect those beliefs. I think these "things" exist only in the human mind, and this is confirmed by the fact that most skeptics seem to agree.

I am always a little surprised by people who call themselves skeptics but they aren't skeptical of god beliefs in the same way they'd be skeptical of a belief in "evil". BTW, demon belief can be explained in similar fuzzy ways as god beliefs-- "bad vibes", "satanic influences", etc. Why would a god belief without a definition be more believable than a demon belief without a definition or evidenciary claim? Is god just understood to be a fuzzier term?

 

[articulett]

Huh? I'm certainly not arguing a straw man, as can be easily verified by looking at the title of your browser window.

But if you've read this thread it's clear that everyone has already said that "skeptic" is a label that anyone can give themselves and anyone can deny that another person is-- like Christian. So the question really is, can we expect most skeptics to be nontheists if they use the tools of skepticism in regards to whether a god exists. And the answer is yes.

There is no reason to posit the existence of any kind of consciousness outside of a human brain as the evidence shows that people are readily fooled by such things though no sort of consciousness has been demonstrated outside of a human brain-- in fact, a brain hooked up to sensory input seem necessary for consciousness to occur and we haven't even got a template for hypothesizing another type of consciousness. And we certainly don't have a way of distinguishing such an entity from a misperception or hypnogognic dream or schizophrenic delusion. Moreover, we know that peoples beliefs are culturally derived--they believe what the people they trust told them in regards to souls, gods,demons, afterlives, and so forth.

Nobody can address a claim for which no evidence is made-- but we can conclude that all such beliefs are not evidence for the existence of gods, demons,souls, or anything in the external reality that we all share. We can logically conclude that they are woo beliefs--based on misperception and indoctrination and wishful thinking--but not based on actual gods. That is the most parsimonious explanation for such beliefs--even if most people believed something like them. Just as misperception readily explains why most humans who have ever existed perceive the world as flat--and the sun rising and falling in the sky instead of earth rotating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Huh? I'm certainly not arguing a straw man, as can be easily verified by looking at the title of your browser window.

I should probably keep reasserting the qualifier I already posted. It's just that you are the third or fourth person to post this same thing.

Yes, that is how the thread title is worded. But way back and multiple times since it has been clarified a number of times.

Skepticism is a process. A skeptic uses that process to evaluate and draw conclusions about an evidence based world.

Coming to a conclusion without using the skeptical process makes that conclusion not skeptical, but in and of itself, does not mean the person isn't a skeptic.

Claus seems to be arguing that exempting faith based beliefs entirely from the picture is hunky dory. I suspect god believing skeptics would agree.

Some of us don't think faith based beliefs are an exception to the rules. We think all god beliefs are in the woo category. It's hard to reconcile otherwise what differs between a woo god belief (Pele and Zeus) and a "faith" based belief. And in articulett's example, no one has yet given a rational reason such "faith based" god beliefs differ from woo based demon beliefs.

So the thread discussion has been about whether or not one should except the arbitrary exemption of faith based god beliefs as outside of the realm of science and skepticism and therefore excluded from skeptical inquiry, or whether skeptics should face the fact their god beliefs are woo beliefs. No one is suggesting we ignore the fact god believing skeptics can otherwise be perfectly good skeptics.

 

[86kam]

Skepticism is a process.

Precisely. It is how the human mind differentiates fact from fiction.

Coming to a conclusion without using the skeptical process makes that conclusion not skeptical, but in and of itself, does not mean the person isn't a skeptic.

Your flaw lies in the person not using the "skeptical process". Someone who claims to be a "skeptic" should show how they came to that conclusion. Paramount is the laws of logic. If the conclusion violates logic, then the process wasn't very "skeptical". One can arrive at the right conclusion using flawed thinking/logic.

I suspect god believing skeptics would agree.

Sorry, but this is an oxymoron. If you are "skeptical" then the belief in god is NOT a given.

Some of us don't think faith based beliefs are an exception to the rules.

Wonderful.

We think all god beliefs are in the woo category. It's hard to reconcile otherwise what differs between a woo god belief (Pele and Zeus) and a "faith" based belief.

There is no differentiation. They are ALL woo.

And in articulett's example, no one has yet given a rational reason such "faith based" god beliefs differ from woo based demon beliefs.

Quite simply put there is none.

So the thread discussion has been about whether or not one should except the arbitrary exemption of faith based god beliefs as outside of the realm of science and skepticism and therefore excluded from skeptical inquiry, or whether skeptics should face the fact their god beliefs are woo beliefs. No one is suggesting we ignore the fact god believing skeptics can otherwise be perfectly good skeptics.

So many fallacies... such little time..

 

[Mobyseven]

Huh? I'm certainly not arguing a straw man, as can be easily verified by looking at the title of your browser window.

Actually, you are attributing to us a position we do not hold, and arguing against that position. So yeah, that's a straw man.

You might want to pay attention to what we are saying, instead of looking only at the title of the thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Precisely. It is how the human mind differentiates fact from fiction.



Your flaw lies in the person not using the "skeptical process". Someone who claims to be a "skeptic" should show how they came to that conclusion. Paramount is the laws of logic. If the conclusion violates logic, then the process wasn't very "skeptical". One can arrive at the right conclusion using flawed thinking/logic.


Sorry, but this is an oxymoron. If you are "skeptical" then the belief in god is NOT a given.


Wonderful.

There is no differentiation. They are ALL woo.



Quite simply put there is none.


So many fallacies... such little time..

Hi new blood. Welcome to JREF forum. I believe we think alike on this matter. You might want to see a few of the arguments I have been posting about the fallacy of a skeptic or scientist using one definition for god, (gods are outside of the realm of science just as something outside of the Universe is outside the realm of science), as a rationalization to believe in a god defined more traditionally, (people's religious based god beliefs), without dealing with the cognitive dissonance created by the god belief.

 

[86kam]

Hi new blood. Welcome to JREF forum. I believe we think alike on this matter. You might want to see a few of the arguments I have been posting about the fallacy of a skeptic or scientist using one definition for god,

I have been reading your posts, very astute. The stick in my craw is the statement that " scientist using one definition for god". If one is a scientist, then there should be no qualms about the conclusions, or definitions of a god. There is no god. There has been no evidence of one. To even begin to try and determine whether there is some kind of omniscient form requires a great leap in logic, and the very definition of a "god" can vary from person to person. How can you pin it down?

(gods are outside of the realm of science just as something outside of the Universe is outside the realm of science),

Then I must ask... EVIDENCE??? How can you know thre is a god in the first place??? If it is beyond our universe, and beyond our understanding... how can you say that it IS ??

as a rationalization to believe in a god defined more traditionally, (people's religious based god beliefs), without dealing with the cognitive dissonance created by the god belief.

And once you start having to "rationalize" things beyond what the evidence shows, you are treading in woo territory..

Alternatively... you may want to delve into archeology, sociology, and history to discover why humans hold these lingering beliefs..

 

[articulett]

I have been reading your posts, very astute. The stick in my craw is the statement that " scientist using one definition for god". If one is a scientist, then there should be no qualms about the conclusions, or definitions of a god. There is no god. There has been no evidence of one. To even begin to try and determine whether there is some kind of omniscient form requires a great leap in logic, and the very definition of a "god" can vary from person to person. How can you pin it down?

Then I must ask... EVIDENCE??? How can you know thre is a god in the first place??? If it is beyond our universe, and beyond our understanding... how can you say that it IS ??


And once you start having to "rationalize" things beyond what the evidence shows, you are treading in woo territory..

Alternatively... you may want to delve into archeology, sociology, and history to discover why humans hold these lingering beliefs..

Yes, I think that's the conclusion of most skeptics including skepticgirl. There's no way of distinguishing god from demons or any other woo--and thus they are woo--even if no claims are made. They posit so many different things that are not known to exist except in human minds-- consciousness without a material brain for one --and then all the qualities attributed to that consciousness and how it came into being and how anyone could know about it and how to tell if what they knew was based on anybetter evidence than all those whom we know were misperceiving supposed "signs" of gods or invisible entities of some sort.

It's just woo and semantics to prop up the woo and shield it from scrutiny. I'm amazed that it works on so many.

If they are being logically consistent, a skeptic would be as much of an a-theist as they were an a-demonist. They would lack a belief in a god in the same way they lacked a belief in demons or psychic powers or anything mystical and immeasurable and "supernatural". We have no way of distinguishing such beliefs from delusions and so we conclude they are such. If they are indistinguishable from the imaginary, then it makes sense to treat them as imaginary. I don't care what label someone gives it--"god", etc. Whatever makes people believe in such things cannot be evidence of such things.

Anyone can call themselves a skeptic. But my expectation is that most skeptics eventually realize that gods are as much woo as demons and psychics and past lives and ghosts. I don't know how you can justify a disbelief in the latter while nursing a belief in some god no matter how vaguely defined. Of course belief is not particularly measurable, and I'm not sure if people are really aware of exactly what they "believe" or how strongly or why--and I'm sure that a lot of people say they believe or hang onto a belief because of fear or "pascal's wager" indoctrination-- "just in case". I'm not sure you can make yourself "not believe".

I think those who argue that it's skeptical to be "on the fence" or who seem to give "god belief "a special pass or declare it off limits are not aware of how they are favoring one type of woo by criticizing those who are vocal in categorizing that one woo (god belief) where it belongs (in the woo category). While I agree it's not good to alienate people, I think society has been sort of brainwashed to give god belief special deference. I am always appalled when some supposed skeptic calls non believers strident or "god haters" because it seems so obvious to me that they are giving theistic woo a special pass whether they are aware of it or not. I stay silent in my real life for the most part. But on a skeptics forum?

I think "god belief" should be treated as a skeptic would treat any woo. People have a right to believe whatever they want--they don't have a right to expect me to defer to it or find their beliefs logical or valid or reality based or good or useful. Anyone may call themselves a skeptic, and I am free to point out that they are using their skepticism selectively.

 

[86kam]

If there are being logically consistent, a skeptic would be as much of an a-theist as they were an a-demonist.

I quite agree.. and here in lies the rub. Someone who considers themselves a "skeptic", should apply critical thinking and logic to even their own notions/beliefs. If they did properly, I posit that they would NOT hold any belief in a deity. It runs contrary to critical thinking and logic.

They would lack a belief in a god in the same way they lacked a belief in demons or psychic powers or anything mystical and immeasurable and "supernatural".

I quite agree.

We have no way of distinguishing such beliefs from delusions and so we conclude they are such. If they are indistinguishable from the imaginary, then it makes sense to treat them as imaginary. I don't care what label someone gives it--god, etc. Whatever makes people believe in such things cannot be evidence of such things.

Then we are pretty much in agreement here. I might add that by definition, beliefs very much hold an aspect of delusion. Maybe one in the same.

Anyone can call themselves a skeptic. But my expectation is that most skeptics eventually realize that gods are as much woo as demons and psychics and past lives and ghosts. I don't know how you can justify a disbelief in the latter while nursing a belief in some god no matter how vaguely defined. Of course belief is not particularly measurable, and I'm not sure if people are really aware of exactly what they "believe" or how strongly or why.

I would very much agree with the above. But I will tell you.. to label yourself as a "skeptic" is kind of inviting problems. I see skepticism as a thinking process. If you apply skepticism, and critical thinking to your thought processes, and hold an unsubstantiated belief in an unproven deity, you are NOT thinking skeptically ... ergo you are NOT a "skeptic".

I find the designation of the tag "skeptic" to be superfluous. I see skepticism as a way of thinking, not a designation.

I think those who argue that it's skeptical to be "on the fence" or who seem to give god belief a special pass or declare it off limits are not aware of how they are favoring one type of woo by criticizing those who are vocal in categorizing that one woo (god belief) where it belongs (in the woo category).

I agree. The thought process of skepticism, logic, and critical thinking should not play "favorites" in regard to a personal bias or otherwise.

While I agree it's not good to alienate people, I think society has been sort of brainwashed to give god belief special deference. I am always appalled when some supposed skeptic calls non believers strident or "god haters" because it seems so obvious to me that they are giving theistic woo a special pass whether they are aware of it or not.

Sometimes it IS good to alienate some people....
I would agree that religion has held too much sway in regard to realpolitik. When someone claiming to be a critical and logical thinker supports a concept the has no evidential merit... god or otherwise, in that case, "skepticism" is not a factor. Thus far, in my experience, they will "project" YOU as the kook for not buying into their pseudo-logic. Then you are dealing with the intellectually dishonest...

I think god belief should be treated as a skeptic would treat any woo. People have a right to believe whatever they want--they don't have a right to expect me to defer to it or find their beliefs logical or valid or reality based or good or useful. Anyone may call themselves a skeptic, and I can point out that they are using their skepticism selectively.

Again, I would say that the the use of the tag "skeptic" would present a problem. Now you may have people considering themselves "skeptics" when they have some woo belief of a personal nature. I would say that there is no "Skeptic", but people who can think skeptically, some more than others in varying degrees.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus: If someone is a believer based purely on faith, entirely in the absence of evidence, then that position is not skeptical. It's pretty much the opposite.

Is the belief a belief in something evidential?

I can. You seem to think that there's something in between that drives belief.

So let me understand what you are saying.

So long as no claims of evidence are made a belief in god and a belief in demons are equally valid to you--equally likely to have a basis in truth. A belief in ESP and past lives are valid, as are beliefs in the chupacabra or that "everything happens for a 'higher' reason" or that we are in a matrix. You hold these things as possible because there is no evidence to examine to dismiss the notion.

At least that's internally consistent.

I have explained in extenso that there is a fundamental difference between a belief in a non-evidential god and a belief in ESP and past lives: Namely evidence.

Why is a belief in Chupacapra supernatural/paranormal?

What we're saying is that most skeptics find all such beliefs unworthy of consideration for the same reason we that we don't take seriously the beliefs of schizophrenics who are getting messages from aliens via radio signals that we can't detect.

The latter is claimed to be evidential.

Belief in the divine is the same as belief in "evil" to me.

To you, yes. But your perception of what other people believe does not constitute fact.

That's the problem with your argument: You cannot imagine that your perception isn't the true one.

It is incredibly arrogant of you.

Should atheists, by definition, be a-demonists (lack a belief in demons)?

I'm trying to find out if people are being logically consistent in what they are skeptical of or if they are giving "god beliefs" special leeway.

I take it that you think atheists should, by definition, be a-demonists?

Claus, if someone says, "the devil made me do it", do you consider the possibility that it could be true (that there's a devil that made them do something)?

Yes, it's possible.

Don't you think it is possible?

What is the most likely explanation of that statement? What do you think most skeptics would take that statement to mean. I would say the person doesn't know what made them act as they did, but I sure as hell wouldn't imagine a devil was involved. I see no more basis for a belief in them then a belief in god.

Again, you fall back on what you think, and cannot imagine that other people could think otherwise.

As i said, i am 100% certain of some things. And as an example i said i am 100% certain that i exist.

But there is nothing in science that you are 100% certain of?

No, it cannot be traced because there is no historical records from 20,000 years ago, and if there is, my belief will change to a time when there was none. Since i do not require or claim any evidence it is my prerogative to do so.

Lets say it was three trillion years ago in another galaxy...

As part of the whole statement, the verifying of someone called Mildred who existed during the time of the claim would be evidence, sure. but i specifically chose a period of time before historical recording. It is therefore not verifiable, just as this non evidential god is not verifiable.

All verifiable: 20,000 years ago is verifiable. Three million years ago in another galaxy is also verifiable.

Not very practical, sure, but it is verifiable.

The point is, a belief in a god is the same as any other conceivable idea that has no evidence, or way of verifying.
So why should one idea be considered more plausible than another if there is no indicating factors?

Because "Mildred" is evidence. It is verifiable and, not to forget, falsifiable. If it turns out that it was really "Splonxtz", the belief would not be validated.

You are missing the point.

There are infinite things i could choose to believe. a non evidential god is just one among the infinite. Why would a belief in a non evidential god be considered something formed from skeptical methodology? It could not possibly.

Nobody is saying that it is. It falls outside skeptical methodology, because of the non-claimed evidence.

The availability is key in this matter. If something exists, it is therefore self evident, it is accessibility which is the problem.

Does an atom exist?

The fact they do not claim evidence does not negate the fact that a skeptical methodology requires evidence.

They haven't reached their belief based on skeptical methodology.

So just what is the claim or belief then?

You know that: A non-evidential god/imaginary friend/whatever.

I mean that in sense; belief in nothing is the same as no belief. Believing there is a god who does not exist is the same as believing there is no god.

So, now you are saying that they don't have a belief? What's your problem, then?

I do not want them to claim anything. I am simply stating you cannot claim to have used skeptical methodology when accepting something which does not have evidence as truth.

But they don't claim to have used skeptical methodology. You are the one who wants them to have done so.

Yes, you certainly can. I could choose to believe pink unicorns, FSM, you name it, but in doing so i would need to accept them on faith, due to the fact there is no evidence. whether i want to claim i have evidence for them or not is irrelevant.

No, no, no.

Pink unicorns and the FSM are verifiable evidence.

I'm with you, Schlitt. I find Claus maddeningly evasive and impossible to pin down... He seems to give god belief more credence than demon belief or past life belief and other woo beliefs and he's pretending it has to do with whether evidence is asserted.

Now you are flat-out lying. You know perfectly well that I don't give god belief more credence than the other beliefs you mentioned. I have constantly pointed to evidence as the determining factor.

I understand why it's important to be inclusive.

I agree about not excluding people

I'm all for inclusiveness

Who are you inclusive of?

Why aren't you excluding people from being skeptics?

As Big Les said. Claus, we are just trying to figure out what you are talking about. You brought up the invisible friend, so clarify what you mean. Your discussion over this is really unclear.

What is it about post #1208 and #1210 that you don't understand?

Exactly.

Of course we know the difference. That's the whole focus of the discussion. From my point of view, you can be a skeptic, but you can't excuse what isn't in keeping with skepticism by simply labeling it "outside" of the realm of evidence. What's to stop any woo believer from claiming the same? In fact, I believe more than a few of them actually do use that rationale.

"Of course we know the difference". "From my point of view".

The same arrogance: You elevate your opinion to be the skeptical truth.

No one here is saying this, thus you are arguing a straw man.

Come again?

You are not trying to exclude people from being skeptics by definition just because they voice a belief in a god of some sort?

What have you been doing, then?

Someone who believes in god is similar to someone who believes in "evil"--however it is defined. It can be conceptual etc. But, unless, evidence is claimed then a belief in god is similar to a belief in evil. It's a human construct--even if some people treat it as something else.

A skeptic who believes in god is on par with a skeptic who believes in evil... would you agree? Claus, would you?

Evil is a religious concept? How so?

Do you agree with what Claus is saying? So long as no claims are made regarding evidence, you treat the belief as a human construct--not as an indication that it's something that exists in our shared reality outside of the human imagination?

If no evidence is claimed, and there is no evidence, why isn't it a human construct?

Claus seems to be arguing that exempting faith based beliefs entirely from the picture is hunky dory. I suspect god believing skeptics would agree.

I am arguing that unless the faith based beliefs are evidence-based (which they are not), we can't say skeptically if the beliefs are true or not.

Some of us don't think

We think

Elevation personal opinion to skeptical truth.

all god beliefs are in the woo category. It's hard to reconcile otherwise what differs between a woo god belief (Pele and Zeus) and a "faith" based belief.

Evidence.

So the thread discussion has been about whether or not one should except the arbitrary exemption of faith based god beliefs as outside of the realm of science and skepticism and therefore excluded from skeptical inquiry, or whether skeptics should face the fact their god beliefs are woo beliefs. No one is suggesting we ignore the fact god believing skeptics can otherwise be perfectly good skeptics.

Don't forget to pat them on the head, too.

I have been reading your posts, very astute. The stick in my craw is the statement that " scientist using one definition for god". If one is a scientist, then there should be no qualms about the conclusions, or definitions of a god. There is no god. There has been no evidence of one. To even begin to try and determine whether there is some kind of omniscient form requires a great leap in logic, and the very definition of a "god" can vary from person to person. How can you pin it down?

Precisely. It is arrogant to insist that your own perception of "God" is what other people believe in.

Alternatively... you may want to delve into archeology, sociology, and history to discover why humans hold these lingering beliefs..

One of the major reasons is comfort. We are comforted as humans to "know" that there is someone watching out for us. Someone we can unburden our worries on to. Maybe something, maybe it does exist. But the belief is comforting to us.

 

[Mobyseven]

Is the belief a belief in something evidential?

It is a belief of the form, "I believe x exists," where x is 'god'. They stating their belief about an object in the universe.

If they claim evidence, that evidence requires analysis and evaluation. So far there hasn't been any valid evidence presented.

If they don't claim evidence, the belief is unskeptical to hold prima facie, as there is no rational way they can have reached that belief.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is a belief of the form, "I believe x exists," where x is 'god'. They stating their belief about an object in the universe.

No, they don't.

If they claim evidence, that evidence requires analysis and evaluation. So far there hasn't been any valid evidence presented.

If they don't claim evidence, the belief is unskeptical to hold prima facie, as there is no rational way they can have reached that belief.

They don't claim to have reached their belief by being rational.

How can a non-evidential claim be within the scope of scientific skepticism?

 

[articulett]

Claus--does it ever occur to you that no-one but you seems to get your point? How can there be evidence for a "god that doesn't want anyone to know about him". How can there be evidence for divine truths that are only accessible by the faithful? How can there be evidence that there are no invisible beings spying on you as you type?

I'm not excluding anyone-- I don't own the word skeptic--but I think it's obvious to most posters that positing a god is not skeptical-- whether evidence is claimed or not. It's on par with positing being spied on by ghosts. I don't care if it's a comfort. I don't think any forms of consciousness without a material brain are possible. I think the much more logical explanation is that they are all products of human imagination--we have tons of evidence regarding that.

There is no more evidence for ESP or past lives then there are for gods, yet people believe and assume such things exist. We can't disprove anything except on a case by case basis. But most skeptics don't hold open the possibility because people believe in such things. Every one can change their mind if evidence shows that such beliefs are based in reality. But nothing does. It doesn't matter whether people claim such things are "evidenciary"-- what they are evidence of is NOT the things themselves anyhow--but the capacity of humans to fool themselves.

You put words in peoples' mouth and make straw men and then argue that strawman. You make derisive comments about others and then cry foul when the judgments come back at you. You have an arrogant air --as though you think yourself an expert on skepticism, the JREF, logic, and conversational inclusion --which is unwarranted since you are the only one who seems to think this about yourself--all while calling me and others arrogant. You started the criticism of me and skepticgirl in this thread and, as usual, you pretend we are the ones who are intolerant and "out of line". You provide no evidence for your ever moving point of view, never seem to understand anyone else, and often talking as if you are winning points in a game that no-one else is playing. You ask insincere questions and ignore the answers while avoiding all questions that try to pin down what you are trying to say.

We all understand that you think skepticism is perfectly compatible with god belief so long as nobody claims evidence for a god belief-- but to the rest of us god belief is the same as demon belief or belief in past lives or belief in ESP. It's all woo belief. Nobody thinks of the god they believe in as their own personal mental delusion-- but that is what all gods are. Just as all psychics are not real psychics. It has nothing to do with MY point of view... it has to do with the truth-- the reality that is the same for everybody. I thought that was what skepticism and science were both interested in.

Either some invisible form of consciousness that people are believing in exists in some manner outside of their beliefs or it doesn't-- and a skeptic moves towards the more likely explanation-- and that is that it doesn't. There is no way to reason with faith, of course--however anyone looking at the subject using logic is likely to conclude that all such beliefs are woo-- they have no basis in the reality that we all share. There is no reason to look at god belief any less critically than other belief in other woo--whether it meets whatever evidenciary thing you are describing or not.

I can't even tell what you are saying. I suppose anything could be "possible"--but a god is not logical. Just because people keep their gods free from scrutiny the way Sylvia Browne avoids the MDC, doesn't make them more likely to be true-- it makes them less likely to be true and more likely to be woo. A skeptic doesn't sit on the fence about such things--if it can't be shown to exist than a skeptic can safely treat it as if it doesn't exist. If it's indistinguishable from woo--it's woo.

You seem to be arguing for some point that no one but you understands. We all said that anyone can call themselves a skeptic. And that we cannot address beliefs that people make no claims about. But that is a long way from accepting that such beliefs have any basis in reality. It seems like you are suggesting that they can. But you've given no reason for doing so nor any method for distinguishing real god possibilities from fake ones.

No one but you seems to understand why a belief can't be considered woo until evidence is claimed.

You insult people quite a bit without being aware of it and then assert that they are arrogant and judgmental when it comes back. Maybe you should see if some of your judgments might not better be applied to you. People are NOT saying what you imagine they are saying and you are not being clear or making a point that anyone but you seems to understand. You are not the conversational diplomat you imagine.

I know you see yourself as being inclusive and defending those who call themselves skeptics who also have god beliefs-- but I don't think that such people consider you to be speaking for them. And most of the people on this thread don't seem to even understand what you are saying much less agreeing with any of the points you seem to imagine yourself making.

When people believe in a god or believe in the possibility of a god--they are not believing in an "imaginary god"-- they are positing a god that exists outside their thoughts-- consciousness without a material brain... and that is just not something that has any basis in our known universe. It's like imagining walking without legs... it doesn't "mean" anything...

Yes, god beliefs give comfort. Yes, anyone can call themselves a skeptic. But we are not arrogant to point out that god beliefs are woo-- they are cut from the same cloth as all woo and indistinguishable from "imaginary friends" and similar constructs. Perhaps your prattle is just a means of keeping your from acknowledging this fact so you can keep your beliefs afloat, but nobody is buying it.

Most people who call themselves skeptics DO tend to be atheists... just as most skeptics do tend to be a-demonists or not believe in mystical powers. And all for the same reason-- no evidence that such things even CAN exist. No reason to posit that they have any basis in our reality and tons of reasons to conclude that they are all human constructs like "evil" and "justice" and invisible bigfoots.

 

[articulett]

No, they don't.



They don't claim to have reached their belief by being rational.

How can a non-evidential claim be within the scope of scientific skepticism?

Stating that you believe something or just assuming it's true or positing it as a possibility is something that a skeptic or scientists can examine. We can ask "why does that person believe that?" And we can hypothesize why (cultural meme transmission, fear, comfort, childish security blanket, etc.). We can reflect on our own beliefs or former beliefs. What we don't do is consider a person's belief in something as evidence of that something... that is illogical. We don't assume that a person knows why they believe what they do. Are those who believe that Sylvia Browne is psychic the best people to determine if psychics are real or why they believe in psychics? I don't think so. I think skeptics and scientists come up with much more valid explanations--and they tend to agree and hone their understanding in doing so.

It is very logical to wonder why people would hold a belief in something for which there is no measurable evidence--especially a skeptic who is probably extra aware of how readily people can be fooled. So there is a weird sort of irony some of us see when skeptics aren't skeptical of god woo the way they are skeptical of other woo.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus--does it ever occur to you that no-one but you seems to get your point? How can there be evidence for a "god that doesn't want anyone to know about him". How can there be evidence for divine truths that are only accessible by the faithful? How can there be evidence that there are no invisible beings spying on you as you type?

Does it ever occur to you that this thread is not representative of skeptics?

I'm not excluding anyone--

Yes you are. You are very busy excluding not just those whose belief you cannot comprehend but instead force your own preconceived notions upon. You are also busy excluding those you disagree with.

I don't own the word skeptic--but I think it's obvious to most posters that positing a god is not skeptical-- whether evidence is claimed or not. It's on par with positing being spied on by ghosts. I don't care if it's a comfort. I don't think any forms of consciousness without a material brain are possible. I think the much more logical explanation is that they are all products of human imagination--we have tons of evidence regarding that.

One long rant about how you cannot understand how other people think.

There is no more evidence for ESP or past lives then there are for gods, yet people believe and assume such things exist. We can't disprove anything except on a case by case basis. But most skeptics don't hold open the possibility because people believe in such things. Every one can change their mind if evidence shows that such beliefs are based in reality. But nothing does. It doesn't matter whether people claim such things are "evidenciary"-- what they are evidence of is not the things themselves--but the capacity of humans to fool themselves.

If you don't hold open the possibility that such things exist, then you are not a skeptic.

You put words in peoples mouth and make straw men and then argue that strawman.

No, I do not. You, and others, insist that your interpretation of "god" is the only one, the right one.

You make derisive comments about others and then cry fowl when the judgments come back at you.

Hypocrite.

You have an arrogant air as though you think yourself an expert on skepticism, the JREF, logic, and conversational inclusion which is unwarranted since you are the only one who seems to think that about yourself--all while calling me and others arrogant.

On the contrary: Unlike you, I accept people's beliefs on their own terms.

You provide no evidence for your ever moving point of view,

My point of view has been entirely consistent. Feel free to point out where it isn't.

never seem to understand anyone else,

I understand you very well.

and always talk as if you are winning points in a game that no-one else is playing.

I'm not. Do you think you could be wrong here?

You ask insincere questions and ignore the answers while avoiding all questions that try to pin down what you are trying to say.

Nonsense. I don't ignore answers, and my questions go right to the core of the matter.

We all understand that you think skepticism is perfectly compatible with god belief so long as nobody claims evidence for a god belief-- but to the rest of us god belief is the same as demon belief or belief in past lives or belief in ESP. It's all woo belief. Nobody thinks of god as their own personal mental delusion-- but that is what all gods are. It has nothing to do with MY point of view... it has to do with the truth-- the reality that is the same for everybody.

Bull. It is all about your point of view.

Either some invisible form of consciousness that people are believing in exists in some manner outside of their beliefs or it doesn't-- and a skeptic moves towards the more likely explanation-- and that is that it doesn't. There is no way to reason with faith, of course--however anyone looking at the subject using logic is likely to conclude that all such beliefs are woo-- they have no basis in the reality that we all share.

I can't even tell what you are saying. I suppose anything could be "possible"--but a god is not logical. Just because people keep their gods free from scrutiny the way Sylvia Browne avoids the MDC, doesn't make them more likely to be true-- it makes them less likely to be true and more likely to be woo. A skeptic doesn't sit on the fence about such things--if it can't be shown to exist than a skeptic can safely treat it as if it doesn't exist. If it's indistinguishable from woo--it's woo.

You keep misrepresenting those who don't claim evidence of their god. You have to paint them as dishonest. That's arrogant.

You seem to be arguing for some point that no one but you understands. We all said that anyone can call themselves a skeptic. And that we cannot address beliefs that people make no claims about. But that is a long way from accepting that such beliefs have any basis in reality. It seems like you are suggesting that they are.

No, I am not, and you are perfectly aware of this.

But you've given no reason for doing so. Or maybe you're not. No one but you seems to understand your point. You insult people quite a bit without being aware of it and then call them insulting and arrogant when it comes back. Maybe you should see if some of your judgments might not better be applied to you. People are NOT saying what you imagine they are saying and you are not being clear or making a point that anyone but you seems to understand.

I don't call you arrogant because you are condescendingly rude. I call you arrogant because you cannot accept that people's own perceptions of their gods are different from your own. It is your perception that has to be the right one - so the others are just wrong.

I know you see yourself as being inclusive and defending those who call themselves skeptics who also have god beliefs-- but I don't think that such people consider you a to be speaking for them.

I don't claim to be speaking for them.

And most of the people on this thread don't seem to even understand what you are saying much less agreeing with any of the points you seem to imagine yourself making.

Oh, you understand perfectly what I am saying. You are not stupid.

When people believe in a god or believe in the possibility of a god--they are not believing in an "imaginary god"-- they are positing a god that exists outside their thoughts-- consciousness without a material brain... and that is just not something that has any basis in our known universe. It's like imagining walking without legs... it doesn't "mean" anything...

Yes, god beliefs give comfort. Yes, anyone can call themselves a skeptic. But we are not arrogant to point out that god beliefs are woo-- they are cut from the same cloth as all woo and indistinguishable from "imaginary friends" and similar constructs. Most skeptics do tend to be atheists... just as most skeptics do tend to be a-demonists or not believe in mystical powers. And all for the same reason-- no evidence that such things even CAN exist. No reason to posit that they have any basis in our reality and tons of reasons to conclude that they are all human constructs like "evil" and "justice" and invisible bigfoots.

Why is a belief in Chupacapra supernatural/paranormal?

I take it that you think atheists should, by definition, be a-demonists?

Don't you think it is possible that the "devil made them do it"?

Who are you inclusive of?

Why aren't you excluding people from being skeptics?

How is evil a religious concept?

If no evidence is claimed, and there is no evidence, why isn't it a human construct?

I answered your points and questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine.

 

[articulett]

Does it ever occur to you that this thread is not representative of skeptics?

Does it ever occur to you that it might well be very representative of those who call themselves skeptics.

Yes you are. You are very busy excluding not just those whose belief you cannot comprehend but instead force your own preconceived notions upon. You are also busy excluding those you disagree with.

How am I excluding them? You exclude everyone since no one but you seems to understand and agree with your point.

One long rant about how you cannot understand how other people think.

Only you could derive that interpretation from that. I can't understand how you think. But you are one person. And you are not representative... since it doesn't look like a lot of people understand what you think.

If you don't hold open the possibility that such things exist, then you are not a skeptic.

I disagree. A skeptic goes where the evidence goes. I am perfectly willing to change my mind should evidence ever appear...just as Randi would pay the million dollars should someone prove to have psychic powers or the like.
But don't pretend that he thinks it's likely. That's how I consider all gods... and that's how I suspect most skeptics are... or eventually become. All things are possible... but we don't increase our understanding by considering them all equally valid... we go with the evidence that is accumulating.

No, I do not. You, and others, insist that your interpretation of "god" is the only one, the right one.

No more than I insist that my interpretation of ESP, or demons, or "evil" is the right one. I'm willing to use whatever definition anyone wants to use--

Hypocrite.

Look in the mirror. It seems the biggest hypocrites are the ones most likely to notice it in others. Shall we go through this thread and see who started the snideness first? Should we take a vote? Or do you just go with CFLarsen's special interpretation of hypocrite?

On the contrary: Unlike you, I accept people's beliefs on their own terms.

Whatever that means. Does that mean anything to anyone besides Claus?
You accept peoples' beliefs in ESP "on their own terms"? Or just their god beliefs? Do you accept peoples beliefs in past lives on their own terms?

My point of view has been entirely consistent. Feel free to point out where it isn't.

Can anyone besides you even say what your point is? What it means? What you are trying to say? We all understand that you think you are the "super skeptic" who accepts people in a super special skeptical way-- but is there anyone else who shares this view of yourself?

I understand you very well.

It don't believe this. I don't understand you. Does anyone else?

I'm not. Do you think you could be wrong here?

Evidence?

Nonsense. I don't ignore answers, and my questions go right to the core of the matter.

Does anyone besides you think so?

Bull. It is all about your point of view.

Nope. Then you don't understand me. Or most of the others. It's about the truth that is the same for everybody. Either some god exists in some manner and people are detecting it through faith or whatever it is that makes them call themselves believers or they believe in something that has no basis in reality... though they wouldn't be in the position to know that any more than Sylvia Browne's clients are.

You keep misrepresenting those who don't claim evidence of their god. You have to paint them as dishonest. That's arrogant.

That's a strawman. I don't think they are anymore dishonest than people who believe that Peter Popoff is talking to God... I believe that those who tell me that they are getting messages from god really believe they are getting messages from god. I just don't believe they are getting messages from god anymore than the hijackers were getting messages from Allah. The fact that you seem to be unable to differentiate between misperception and a lie makes me wonder about your intelligence and/or honesty. You did that to skepticgirl too. Do you think that people who believe they've been probed by aliens are liars? How about those who claim to have seen the chupacabra? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra

No, I am not, and you are perfectly aware of this.

Actually, you are. You ARE suggesting that beliefs without evidenciary claims are "possible"-- that they aren't something to be skeptical of.

I don't call you arrogant because you are condescendingly rude. I call you arrogant because you cannot accept that people's own perceptions of their gods are different from your own. It is your perception that has to be the right one - so the others are just wrong.

It seems people find you more condescending and rude than they find me. But those are opinions. As is your opinion about what I can and can't accept about peoples' perceptions. But then again, you confuse misperceptions with lies so why should your condescendingly rude opinion about what I can and cannot accept be given any credence by anyone but Claus who is "playing to win". Reality has nothing to do with my perception-- it's the same whether I am perceiving it or not. Either the god that people "believes in" exists in some form other than their imagination or it does not. If they believe that it does, and it does not, they are wrong. That has nothing to do with my perception and everything to do with the reality that is the same for everyone.

I don't claim to be speaking for them.

Interesting, because you seem to be criticizing atheist skeptics for finding belief in a god to be "non skeptical" by saying we are not being "inclusive". So this presupposes that you think of yourself as being inclusive. So who are you including in your defense. We all acknowledge that Hal is a great guy and a great skeptic-- but that is not a reason to imagine his god exists anywhere but in his imagination whether he imagines it more than that or not...nor to think that he came to this belief logically.

Oh, you understand perfectly what I am saying. You are not stupid.

I'm not stupid Claus. But I really don't understand what you are saying. And since no one else seems to be able to sum up your point, I don't think anyone does. It sounds like a semantic argument defending god belief that has something to do with whether someone claims evidence for that belief or not.

Why is a belief in Chupacapra supernatural/paranormal?

For the same reason belief in bigfoot is... see link above. Or maybe you believe people who believe they've seen a bigfoot.

I take it that you think atheists should, by definition, be a-demonists?

Yes, I think it's unskeptical to have a belief in demons.

Don't you think it is possible that the "devil made them do it"?

No. I see no evidence that devils exist much less that they can make people do things. I think devils are a way people explain actions of theirs they don't understand and wish they didn't do.

Who are you inclusive of?

I'm willing to agree that anyone can call themselves a skeptic. If they believe in god, I will conclude that they haven't applied the tools of skepticism to that belief.

Why aren't you excluding people from being skeptics?

This doesn't compute. Anyone can define themselves as a skeptic or an atheist or a Christian and others can decide whether they think these terms fit. Most of the people I know of who call themselves skeptics are also non-theists-- they have no beliefs in any gods... though many believed in a god of some sort-- but the relentless pursuit of truth through skepticism makes god beliefs into just another woo for most.

"How is evil a religious concept?"

I said it's a human construct. But it is also a religious concept. It's on par with god. Many people think of it as something outside themselves--something that exists outside of human belief. In fact god beliefs are often kept to keep away "evil"...

If no evidence is claimed, and there is no evidence, why isn't it a human construct?

It is. But those positing it do not refer to it as such. Who would claim their god is psychosomatic or who would fear the word "evil"?

answered your points and questions. Have the courtesy to answer mine.

I have, but no good deed goes unpunished. I'm sure you won't be pleased or find my response courteous.

Of course you don't want answers. You want to win your imaginary game.
You have an opinion about gods and the possibility of the supernatural that isn't based in logic and you want others to affirm that it's not incompatible with skepticism-- that it's a special inclusive kind of skepticism like Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. But I think you are speaking mostly for yourself-- and maybe an apologist or two. But you don't speak for the majority... and you don't really speak for any believer or "on the fence" skeptic either.

I don't know what you call woo-- but I don't know how you keep god belief from being included in the category except through semantics about whether evidence is claimed. It seems like a muddled conclusion. It seems like your definition of skepticism means that everyone is skeptic if they think that they are.

 

[Mobyseven]

No, they don't.

Er, yes they are. A statement to the effect of, "I believe in x," is a statement that, "I believe that x exists." Implicit in the statement, "I believe that x exists," is the claim, "x exists."

Unless you have some marvellous philosophical insight by which you have either discovered a way that people can believe in x without believing x exists, or by which people can believe that x exists without making the claim that x exists, I'm going to suggest you concede the point.

They don't claim to have reached their belief by being rational.

If they have reached their belief in a way that is not rational, then they have reached their belief in a way that is also not skeptical. You can't have it both ways: A person who applies skepticism to a belief while engaging in irrational reasoning is a contradiction in terms - it can't happen. A person who claims belief but who refuses to apply skepticism is also not being skeptical, by definition.

The question of evidence that you raise is a pointless question. You wouldn't accept a judge finding a man guilty in the absence of any evidence (or in conflict to the evidence) so long as the judge admitted that he wasn't considering evidence in his decision. It would be irrational, a decision made without reason by a person who is supposed to hold reason in the highest regard. So too a skeptic should hold reason in the highest regard - and belief in god is most definitely a decision made without reason.

How can a non-evidential claim be within the scope of scientific skepticism?

I see what you're doing there - trying to create a new class of claim that can be exempt from the normal rules. That, Claus, is called special pleading, and by gosh does there seem to be a lot of it floating around this thread. I'm starting to think it's contagious.

You call it a 'non-evidential claim'. I say that it is a claim that has no evidence to justify it. Homeopathy is also a claim that has no evidence to justify it - should we therefore say that it is reasonable to believe in homeopathy? How about astrology? It would also fall under the heading of 'non-evidential claims' because lets face it - there's no evidence for it either. Chelation therapy in the treatment of autism? No evidence, and therefore (by your logic) a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

The problem is, if you start saying that anything for which there is no evidence is a reasonable belief to hold, you run into a doozy of a problem. See, if something doesn't exist then there is no evidence for it. Never will be. Non-existant objects are, in fact, the bulk of what can be claimed in your 'non-evidential claims'. It is, therefore, by your very own reasoning, perfectly reasonable to believe in anything that does not actually exist.

Any system of reasoning that states that it is reasonable to believe in non-existant objects is a flawed system of reasoning, because it does not allow us to build up an accurate model of the universe.

That's the problem with special pleading, Claus. If you let one in, you've got to let them all in.

 

[Mobyseven]

Why is a belief in Chupacapra supernatural/paranormal?

A vampiric flying demon that travels by night, sucking the blood out of cows, for which there is absolutely no evidence...by gosh you're right! I can't see anything supernatural or paranormal about that belief at all.

I'd better get started classifying it - remind me again what the phylum for 'demon' is?