Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Herzblut]

Sure. And I've got one. My brain.

Better take my one, trust me.

Seriously, a human brain is no reliable source of information whatsoever. It's reliable in helping you to survive, that's what it's targeted to. You know, evolution and such..

Theists make up an answer or get it from their myth. You can believe stuff all you want-- it doesn't make it true. I prefer the truth.

You don't. Like anybody else you prefer to believe what you want to. You are particularly unsceptical about yourself. You even believe you should propagate your truths about the evil of religion in a public forum like this one without recognizing you're trapped in your own selfishness.

And I prefer not to know something than to believe a lie.

You don't. You e.g. believe the lie that islam causes suicide attacks like 9/11 to happen and refuse to investigate the complex reality. You prefer to live with your simplistic lie. Like any other hopeless ideologist does.

Your narrowminded thinking resembles scepticism like a pebble resembles a diamond.

Cheers
H

 

[Herzblut]

I'm afraid your notes added don't add too much value. Let's see.

The nice thing about the truth and reality is that it is always there to explore--and it stays the truth even when people don't believe.

Says who? But it's a nice belief, simple, stringent - and wrong.

And skeptics, scientists, brilliant people, and the like-- amass the evidence and develop an increasing convergent understanding of our world...

Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein were brilliant. Unfortunately for you, they were quite religious as well, weren't they?

and there is not supernatural in sight.

Lack of belief neither. Thus, human brains can't be that good, can they? Except yours, of course.

H

 

[-Fran-]

Better take my one, trust me.

Seriously, a human brain is no reliable source of information whatsoever. It's reliable in helping you to survive, that's what it's targeted to. You know, evolution and such..


You don't. Like anybody else you prefer to believe what you want to. You are particularly unsceptical about yourself. You even believe you should propagate your truths about the evil of religion in a public forum like this one without recognizing you're trapped in your own selfishness.


You don't. You e.g. believe the lie that islam causes suicide attacks like 9/11 to happen and refuse to investigate the complex reality. You prefer to live with your simplistic lie. Like any other hopeless ideologist does.

Your narrowminded thinking resembles scepticism like a pebble resembles a diamond.

Cheers
H

I love how he ends all that with "Cheers"

 

[HghrSymmetry]

This is a side point, yet I see it come up over and over again.
That being the confounding of disbelief in a god(s) with a lack of belief. There is a subtle, but important difference.

A poster on another forum had an illuminating method of illustrating the distinction;

An Euler-Venn diagram can clear things up. Start with a blank leaf of paper; make a large circle with a “B” (belief) in the middle of the circle. Within the large circle of “belief” you can make two smaller circles, “BG” (believe there is a god) and “BNG” (believe there is no god). This is an accurate representation of inclusion. Both “BG” and “BNG” fall under the larger category of “B” (belief). Now make a separate circle beside the “B” (belief) circle titled “NB” (non-belief). Now the diagram accurately portrays both inclusion and exclusion. You would like to think that non-belief should be within category of belief, as if it were merely a subset of belief, but its not. No overlap, no inclusion: non-belief is not a belief-system.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh its you and your "militant atheists" rant again, I thought I smelled something.

Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation? I think the responses ACS alone have been getting (which basically are "you're not a skpetic you woo and you're not weclome here or we're going to hammer you constantly on your woo craziness) demonstrate my point about the militancy of some atheists here.

 

[CFLarsen]

The same way anybody says anything exists. By saying it.

Wow.

You know what you did? You argued that spells work.

Yep, just say that something exists - and it does!

Look, quit dodging. You've made the assertion that there are people who believe in God, but do not believe that God exists. This, to me and apparently many others, is so absurd as to be nearly meaningless. Therefore, I asked you a simple, direct, unequivocal question: Who are these people? Just name one of them, and show me that he or she actually has the beliefs you've described.

I don't want analogies. I don't want you quoting dictionaries at me and drawing unfounded inferences from them. I don't want any more of your "answer a question with a question" games. I just want a straight answer. Can you or can you not show me that there are actual human beings who have the beliefs you're describing, people who would answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?" and "No" to the question "Do you believe that God exists?"

Put up or shut up, Claus.

You want to know about something, but refuse to look at reference works?

Pardon me if I am unimpressed.

I agree. From a sceptical pov the different creeds of the different branches of the different religions would have to be checked one by one.

There is no such creed like:

I believe that:

(1) God exists.
​

End of creed!

The current discussion looks at least superficial to me, if not meaningless.

It may be a belief, but...it's not really much of a religious belief, is it? No flaming bushes, no clear promise of a Heaven or Hell, no direct messages from God...

They say he created the universe, and then took a back seat. You pretty much have to exist, or once have existed, to accomplish this. His posited existence is not, by anyone apart from you it seems, in question.

How is that different from the theory of Big Bang?

The two things are not mutually exclusive. They can say he exists all they like, regardless of what evidence there is, or how available it is. And they do, from where I'm sitting.

Yes. But you are not sitting where they are sitting.

Indeed, for the bulk of the example. But then, having had all his suggestions for testing met with excuses, he says that;

"The only sensible approach". The only sensible approach. How else are we meant to interpret this than that the opposite of this, to accept the claim of existence, is insensible?

He is talking about delusion about physical phenomena. The unicorn is claimed to be physical - right up to the moment where the skeptic steps in, of course.

Quite true. But it's a handy rule of thumb, I find. If you can produce evidence that people believe as you claim they believe, then this admittedly very poor quality evidence that you might be wrong will simply evaporate. So, go for it, I say.

So, if you were the sole voice of reason on a thread on a forum for fans of Sylvia Browne, you would say the same?

As far as you're concerned, yes. We've established that, thanks. Any more intact LPs in the pile?

You asked me, and I answered. Why ask me, if you already knew the answer?

Because how can you see people killing themselves (Jonestown) and others (9-11 hijackers) because they really truly believe their myth and not wonder about yours. Andrea Yates killed her kids, but if the point of life is to get you or at least your kids into heaven, then why not kill them before they are old enough to sin?

You are way out of line here.

Andrea Yates killed her children because she was insane. Her medical record lists a nervous breakdown, several suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations.

It wasn't religion that caused her to kill her five children.

That you blame such a tragedy on her religion is not only wrong, it is downright cruel.

 

[Big Les]

I kindly disagree. What you call "extra bits" might be key to understanding a belief and the worldview it constructs.

This is why I asked if you'd read the thread. Claus' has posited that religious sceptics believe in god, but not that they think this god exists. On the face of it this is nonsense, but my mistake is to approach the idea rationally. Despite a lack of evidence of anyone openly claiming this, I actually suspect that he's quite correct here - that most people who are otherwise "universal" sceptics, deceive themselves (as Claus put it) into some form of belief in god, just as a child deceives themselves into superficial belief that their imaginary friend exists, or that santa does. I just don't thin they will admit this, which may be why Claus can't show me anyone that believes in this way.

So basically I'm tilting at windmills - I'm expecting people to both admit to and then abandon their irrational beliefs, when they keep those beliefs safe from their own critical inquiry. I'm expecting that when they say "I believe", they are being totally sincere. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, but again, reason don't enter it to it. Which brings us full circle -Claus' hypothetical religious sceptics (who must make up a certain proportion of the total) are keeping this one irrational belief despite awareness that if they fully acknowledged its irrationality, they would be forced to abandon it. I have also said that this version of "belief" does not resemble belief as it is usually defined, to which Claus responded by pointing out that we can't tell people what they believe. Quite true, but to me it's self-evident that knowing self-deception is not the same thing as "true" belief. We make the distinction with psychics who either knowingly defraud the public, at one end of the sincerity spectrum, and those who are convinced of their own "powers" at the other. I'm just doing the same here. I think Claus' point is that we can't know this because there is insufficient evidence in the case of nominal god belief, and (ironically enough) because we can't read their minds. That I accept, but I then return to my prior criticisms that regardless of level of sincerity, they are still to some extent keeping their "belief" away from their own critical thought process, and that of other people.

The other problem is that we have no idea how many religious sceptics actually fit Claus self-deceiving definition. Are there none who are not deceiving themselves? Everything I read about Deism suggests and claims an existent creator god. That seems to conflict with the above. Maybe it doesn't, I'm not sure.

So you see, in this discussion, the crux of the matter is the root belief in god, however you define it, and the compartmentalisation of this belief vis critical (self)scrutiny. We can't tell anyone what to believe, but someone who is being sceptical about their beliefs arguably should be able to recognise when they are special pleading (i.e. maintaining belief for comfort) and to do without this. That's a choice that's up to them, and take it or not, they are still as sceptical about everything else as their actions demonstrate. No-one can take that away from them.

What are the fundamental basics of your worldview, if I may ask? Would you be so kind to put them down in a few sentences, like

I believe that

(1) I exist. You exist. Mankind exists.
(2) Nature exists and nothing but nature.
(3) Man is capable to understand all aspects of himself and nature by scientific methods and only by those.
(4) Any personal pov or decision is and shall only be based upon scientific evidence.
(5) Other worldviews based upon other beliefs are nul and void.

​

Something like that, you know, that's just a sample. Let's have a sceptical look at it then, what you think?

Herzblut

I believe that there is a physical world that we are only ever able to imperfectly understand, and that we should all be attempting to do so to as great an extent as is practicable. Believing in god seems to be at odds with this worldview, which is one that I think most sceptics share.

 

[Big Les]

Wow.

You know what you did? You argued that spells work.

Yep, just say that something exists - and it does!

He didn't Claus. He said "The same way anybody says anything exists." Not makes exist. There is a very clear difference.

How is that different from the theory of Big Bang?

Because it un-necessarily posits a responsible intelligent being.

Yes. But you are not sitting where they are sitting.

Clearly not. But my own understanding is all I have to approach the subject with, and it all tells me that they are indulging in special pleading. I am not saying that no-one else doesn't do this, just that I think that critical thinking shows that we should all be trying avoid this sort of thinking. I will certainly not pretend to agree with you just to make you feel better.

He is talking about delusion about physical phenomena. The unicorn is claimed to be physical - right up to the moment where the skeptic steps in, of course.

And then, when all options are exhausted, he exhorts us to adopt the only sensible position which is to disbelieve, provisionally. A believer, by definition, has not done this.

So, if you were the sole voice of reason on a thread on a forum for fans of Sylvia Browne, you would say the same?

As far as gaining any insight into what they believe, yes, of course! Not, as you seem to suggest, to help get at the truth behind their beliefs, which can be demonstrated to be cold reading and other forms of deception.

You asked me, and I answered. Why ask me, if you already knew the answer?

I've been asking myself that same question, believe me.

You are way out of line here.

Andrea Yates killed her children because she was insane. Her medical record lists a nervous breakdown, several suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations.

It wasn't religion that caused her to kill her five children.

That you blame such a tragedy on her religion is not only wrong, it is downright cruel.

You're appealing to emotion there. It's a perfectly legitimate argument - that her religious beliefs may have facilitated the tragedy just as many would argue that the availability of guns facilitates other tragedies such as school shootings. An argument you yourself agree with. There are different stimuli for such things that can be addressed - some physical, some psycho-social. Remove guns from the equation; reduce the chance of school shootings. Remove social isolation and bullying from the equation, likewise reduce the chance of them happening. The same argument applies equally here - availability of a weapon was one factor, mental problems another. Arguably, her religious belief was another. Remove any one of these and the killing might not have occurred. I believe that is what articulett is saying - not that religion in and of itself is solely to blame.

 

[CFLarsen]

Big Les,

Do you dismiss Credo Consolans as being unskeptical?

 

[CFLarsen]

He didn't Claus. He said "The same way anybody says anything exists." Not makes exist. There is a very clear difference.

If so, why can't you accept that that's what Deists do?

Because it un-necessarily posits a responsible intelligent being.

The same could be said for what caused the Big Bang.

Clearly not. But my own understanding is all I have to approach the subject with, and it all tells me that they are indulging in special pleading. I am not saying that no-one else doesn't do this, just that I think that critical thinking shows that we should all be trying avoid this sort of thinking. I will certainly not pretend to agree with you just to make you feel better.

And you don't have to. I don't agree with Deists either, but, unlike you, I don't try to force them to posit something they don't, just because I cannot imagine a god without existence.

They can. That you can't, is not their problem. It's yours.

And then, when all options are exhausted, he exhorts us to adopt the only sensible position which is to disbelieve, provisionally. A believer, by definition, has not done this.

A believer in something evidential, no.

As far as gaining any insight into what they believe, yes, of course! Not, as you seem to suggest, to help get at the truth behind their beliefs, which can be demonstrated to be cold reading and other forms of deception.

You can do that, because psychics claim verifiable evidence of their beliefs.

I've been asking myself that same question, believe me.

Stop wasting my time, please.

You're appealing to emotion there. It's a perfectly legitimate argument - that her religious beliefs may have facilitated the tragedy just as many would argue that the availability of guns facilitates other tragedies such as school shootings. An argument you yourself agree with. There are different stimuli for such things that can be addressed - some physical, some psycho-social. Remove guns from the equation; reduce the chance of school shootings. Remove social isolation and bullying from the equation, likewise reduce the chance of them happening. The same argument applies equally here - availability of a weapon was one factor, mental problems another. Arguably, her religious belief was another. Remove any one of these and the killing might not have occurred. I believe that is what articulett is saying - not that religion in and of itself is solely to blame.

How do you know? Only religious people kill their children?

 

[Big Les]

Whilst I can appreciate your argument that it can be considered neither sceptical nor unsceptical, I am of the opinion that nothing should be exempt from critical examination. If there is no positive evidence available, and we have negative evidence (i.e. all the testable claims have been debunked or dodged by being claimed unfalsifiable), that the sceptical position should be one of provisional disbelief, and that one should not choose to believe regardless of all this. It's not doing anyone, even the believer, any harm, but it is inconsistent.

I think any form of self-deception is undesirable for anyone attempting to improve their understanding of themselves and the universe they occupy.

 

[modecom]

Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation? I think the responses ACS alone have been getting (which basically are "you're not a skpetic you woo and you're not weclome here or we're going to hammer you constantly on your woo craziness) demonstrate my point about the militancy of some atheists here.

If you were twice as smart, you'd still be stupid but keep talking, someday you might say something intelligent.

 

[Big Les]

If so, why can't you accept that that's what Deists do?

I can accept it, I just can't agree with it! Why can't you accept that? I'm not saying they need to bend to my wishes, I'm simply discussing what I think about their beliefs. Unless you're suggesting that religious beliefs should be off limits for discussion, you'd better get used to it.

The same could be said for what caused the Big Bang.

That doesn't even make sense.

And you don't have to. I don't agree with Deists either, but, unlike you, I don't try to force them to posit something they don't, just because I cannot imagine a god without existence.

How am I trying to force them to do that? At most, you could argue that I'm suggesting that they do. In fact what I'm doing is expressing an opinion about what they believe. I don't expect anyone to change their minds, I'm trying to understand a group of people I have plenty of respect for. See above.

They can. That you can't, is not their problem. It's yours.

I have a problem understanding their reasoning and level of honesty with themselves, certainly. However, I would suggest that the hypothetical self-deceiver does have a problem, by definition. Self-deception is not a desirable state of mind.

A believer in something evidential, no.

By the end of Sagan's example, the dragon is no longer practically evidential, because every possible test has been proposed. Therefore he decides that the only sensible position is one of provisional disbelief pending evidence. This can only mean that he thinks provisional belief is not sensible.

I happen to think being sensible is a pretty desirable quality. We can't achieve it 100%, but we can address failures as we become aware of them.

You can do that, because psychics claim verifiable evidence of their beliefs.

That wasn't the point of your comment as far as I could tell. You were equating my claim that majority opinion can be useful with your own strawman that said essentially "if a majority of Sylvia fans believe in her, she must have powers".

Stop wasting my time, please.

Oh, touche. Your response to my question negated your whole line of reasoning vis the definition of belief. You had claimed that religious sceptics do not claim that their god exists, despite saying "I believe in god". I asked you how you would approach a sceptic who did claim that their god existed, and you come back with the old chestnut of testable claims. You missed my point entirely, which was;

A sceptic who claims that their god exists but cannot be tested is identical to the invisible dragon believer in Sagan's example. They claim existence, but also unfalsifiability. Just as Sagan concludes that this should be no impediment to adopting a provisionally negative position, I conclude that someone being sceptical about the existence of their god should conclude likewise.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I got sarcastic with you because despite placing great store by Deists not claiming existence of their believed god, you answered my hypothetical question exactly as you would for a sceptic claiming (as you say they do) to believe in god but not actually believe it exists.

How do you know?

I don't know, I was simply pointing out your over-reaction to what articulett was suggesting. As I said, it is arguably one factor in the child's death, just as the availability of the weapon and her mental state otherwise also were. I am not saying that her religiosity was solely to blame for her actions, just that it may have been a factor.

Only religious people kill their children?

Of course not. That's nonsensical. You support (as do I) restriction of handguns with the intention of depriving disturbed people of their preferred means of doing violence. A similar campaign to reduce the influence of religion would work towards depriving disturbed people of one motivation for doing violence. I'm not convinced of this, but it is certainly a more valid argument than you were making out in your apparently hysterical response to articulett.

 

[Mobyseven]

[snip rest of 'science is weird, therefore god' argument]

*** Matter may be in two place at once ***

In quantum physics there have been experiments done that appear to show that matter can be in two places at once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

*Sigh*

When someone says that the matter "is in two places at once" in quotation marks like that, they don't literally mean that the matter is in two places at once. Instead it is a simplification of what actually happens when an object has both wave and particle like properties and interferes with itself.

Do not confuse the interpretation or analogy with the actual hard science.

And don't think that, "Science tells us really crazy and weird things, therefore god," is a valid argument. At best, it's really lame, and at worst it's a redefining of the word 'god' to mean the same as 'science', just so you can say, "God exists."

 

[Herzblut]

Hi Big, thanks for your exhaustive reply. Let me try to cover some topics.

.. I then return to my prior criticisms that regardless of level of sincerity, they are still to some extent keeping their "belief" away from their own critical thought process, and that of other people.

You're criticising human nature. My own ethical framework can basically summarized as secular humanism. Would you expect me to be willing to dispute humanism? I won't. Although I'm very well aware that my value judgements cannot be justified by "evidence" or "critical thinking" at all. For me, they are nevertheless indisputable. Am I deceiving myself?

I believe that there is a physical world that we are only ever able to imperfectly understand, and that we should all be attempting to do so to as great an extent as is practicable.

Why? How do you derive this normative statement? Can you justify it rationally?

Believing in god seems to be at odds with this worldview, which is one that I think most sceptics share.

I don't. First of all I am very suspicious about myself when I find something "seemingly" so. And I don't care who shares my private opinions.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Whilst I can appreciate your argument that it can be considered neither sceptical nor unsceptical, I am of the opinion that nothing should be exempt from critical examination. If there is no positive evidence available, and we have negative evidence (i.e. all the testable claims have been debunked or dodged by being claimed unfalsifiable), that the sceptical position should be one of provisional disbelief, and that one should not choose to believe regardless of all this. It's not doing anyone, even the believer, any harm, but it is inconsistent.

With what? There's no claim in "credo consolans". There's nothing to test. There's not even evidence against it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I can accept it, I just can't agree with it! Why can't you accept that? I'm not saying they need to bend to my wishes, I'm simply discussing what I think about their beliefs. Unless you're suggesting that religious beliefs should be off limits for discussion, you'd better get used to it.

It isn't just a matter of disagreement. You do much more than that: You call them irrational and dishonest, and their beliefs are unreasonable.

That doesn't even make sense.

Oh? Why can't it be God that made Big Bang happen?

How am I trying to force them to do that? At most, you could argue that I'm suggesting that they do. In fact what I'm doing is expressing an opinion about what they believe. I don't expect anyone to change their minds, I'm trying to understand a group of people I have plenty of respect for. See above.

You are forcing them by insisting that they do claim evidence, when they don't.

I have a problem understanding their reasoning and level of honesty with themselves, certainly. However, I would suggest that the hypothetical self-deceiver does have a problem, by definition. Self-deception is not a desirable state of mind.

Are you totally free from self-deception?

By the end of Sagan's example, the dragon is no longer practically evidential, because every possible test has been proposed. Therefore he decides that the only sensible position is one of provisional disbelief pending evidence. This can only mean that he thinks provisional belief is not sensible.

I happen to think being sensible is a pretty desirable quality. We can't achieve it 100%, but we can address failures as we become aware of them.

You need to read Sagan's example again. He does not take the position of provisional disbelief:

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stody and unimaginative - merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved"

I know that example inside-out, mate.

That wasn't the point of your comment as far as I could tell. You were equating my claim that majority opinion can be useful with your own strawman that said essentially "if a majority of Sylvia fans believe in her, she must have powers".

That was your point!

Oh, touche. Your response to my question negated your whole line of reasoning vis the definition of belief. You had claimed that religious sceptics do not claim that their god exists, despite saying "I believe in god". I asked you how you would approach a sceptic who did claim that their god existed, and you come back with the old chestnut of testable claims.

How else would you have answered that??

You missed my point entirely, which was;

A sceptic who claims that their god exists but cannot be tested is identical to the invisible dragon believer in Sagan's example. They claim existence, but also unfalsifiability. Just as Sagan concludes that this should be no impediment to adopting a provisionally negative position, I conclude that someone being sceptical about the existence of their god should conclude likewise.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I got sarcastic with you because despite placing great store by Deists not claiming existence of their believed god, you answered my hypothetical question exactly as you would for a sceptic claiming (as you say they do) to believe in god but not actually believe it exists.

Read Sagan again. He does not take a provisionally negative position.

I don't know, I was simply pointing out your over-reaction to what articulett was suggesting. As I said, it is arguably one factor in the child's death, just as the availability of the weapon and her mental state otherwise also were. I am not saying that her religiosity was solely to blame for her actions, just that it may have been a factor.

Of course not. That's nonsensical. You support (as do I) restriction of handguns with the intention of depriving disturbed people of their preferred means of doing violence. A similar campaign to reduce the influence of religion would work towards depriving disturbed people of one motivation for doing violence. I'm not convinced of this, but it is certainly a more valid argument than you were making out in your apparently hysterical response to articulett.

Read articulett's post again.

 

[Herzblut]

You support (as do I) restriction of handguns with the intention of depriving disturbed people of their preferred means of doing violence. A similar campaign to reduce the influence of religion would work towards depriving disturbed people of one motivation for doing violence.

Measuring you against your own standards I can only call your reasoning blatant self-deception without a glimpse of evidence. You would have to provide evidence that (1) spending tax money on campaigns reducing the influence of religion would be adequately beneficial at all and (2) religion is a driving force of familiy violence.

You might also want to explain away the frequent shocking news about child murder in Germany mostly reporting such cases in the ex-communist eastern part of the country.

Are you just speculating based on pure ideology? Yes, you are.

I don't blame you, it's damn difficult to not fall into this trap. Everybody does.

H.

 

[Belz...]

I believe that A Christian Sceptic was attempting to show an inconsistency in your argument by comparing his belief that you're critical of to a belief that you seem to be perfectly OK with.

And he failed. Mine isn't a belief. There IS NO EVIDENCE.

 

[Belz...]

Then it seems that A Christian Sceptic was spot-on that you have a belief, despite your insistence that your "lack of belief in god is NOT a belief."

So now you contend that "lack of belief" is a belief ?

You also said that the "lack of evidence indicates that I shouldn't be of the opinion that such a god exists." It should be noted that there is also a lack of evidence to support your opinion that no gods exist.

You DO understand how this whole "burden of proof" thing works, right ?