Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnrepentantSinner said:
I thought that an in your face attitude was held in esteem by some folks? :confused:
Click to expand...

An "in your face attitude" can certainly be a valid technique to use sometimes. When you're acting like an immature teenage, as you were, it's not so effective.

UnrepentantSinner said:
How is that attitude working out to help educate people about skepticism btw?
Click to expand...

I don't tell people they're jerks because they don't understand skepticism. I tell people they're jerks when they're jerks.

There are all kinds of people in this world. You're the kind that likes to be a jerk, and I'm the kind that can't suffer jerks. At the end of the day, I'm not the one putting words in other people's mouths and treating them like **** though.
 
Belz... said:
Don't worry, articulett. At least one person here appreciates your venom.
Click to expand...


Make that two. I'm also an Arti fanboy and very proud of it.


UnrepentantSinner & Claus: Not only do you need to grow up and stop being jerks, but you both need to get a life. Really. You both are so obsessed with attacking articulett that you've lost all credibility (if you had any to start with) here on this forum. Why don't both you "newcomers" just get a room together at Tam 6 and be done with it.
 
Then there are those who are akin to mongooses.
Well, perhaps they only pretend to be.

Tee-hee!

:p
 
Make that three. I also appreciate articullet's venom.
A lot of fundamentalists are very vocal in attacking Dawkins, claiming he's the devil incarnate. I love it. As does Dawkins I bet.
Why should we treat them with kid gloves? No, I believe attack is the best defence.
 
ambnp said:
Make that three. I also appreciate articullet's venom.
A lot of fundamentalists are very vocal in attacking Dawkins, claiming he's the devil incarnate. I love it. As does Dawkins I bet.
Why should we treat them with kid gloves? No, I believe attack is the best defence.
Click to expand...

Chalk up another fanboy for articulett here. There's plenty of room for the bad cops as well as the good ones, and those in between. It's funny really that she and The Atheist are at such odds, since he's played that role well in the past. Clash of e-personalities I suppose.
 
Big Les said:
Chalk up another fanboy for articulett here. There's plenty of room for the bad cops as well as the good ones, and those in between. It's funny really that she and The Atheist are at such odds, since he's played that role well in the past. Clash of e-personalities I suppose.
Click to expand...
A clash of skepticism. Pussy footing around no longer works, therefore more robust language is needed the type Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, and not as well known, David Mills, [Atheist Universe] use to get their point across to the deluded class. All these authors and more, give as good as they receive. Like I said, attack is the best policy. We have science on our side. What have these religionist have? Revelation. There is no argument, religion like McCartney's ex, have not got a leg to stand on.
 
Folks - I've only just had this thread brought to my attention again and the last page or so of posts reads nothing more than a transcript from a kids playground. You may as well have replaced the last couple of pages with repeats of "I don't like you - you smell - you can't be a member of my gang! Nah-na!"

This focusing on your personal issues with other Members is not appropriate for this section of the Forum.

Either post on-topic and not in breach of your Membership agreement or don't post at all.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
After 48 pages, perhaps posters have run out of ideas on the topic.
I would endorse the idea that skeptics should be atheist. Otherwise their not true skeptics. If your skeptic on, say, astrology, homeopath, herbalist, chiropractor, crystals and any new age crap, how could you not be skeptical about a god who controls this whole shebang? It's all or nothing, otherwise you're no better than fundies picking and choosing what suits them in that so-called book of revelation; the bible.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Folks - I've only just had this thread brought to my attention again and the last page or so of posts reads nothing more than a transcript from a kids playground. You may as well have replaced the last couple of pages with repeats of "I don't like you - you smell - you can't be a member of my gang! Nah-na!"

This focusing on your personal issues with other Members is not appropriate for this section of the Forum.

Either post on-topic and not in breach of your Membership agreement or don't post at all.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, Darat. We've also said we liked Articulett's writing style. :D
 
I'm sure there are lots of us out here who very much appreciate Articulett's posts. Maybe I could do without some of the radical feminist stuff, but her religious views are right on.

People who believe in supernatural entities are not skeptics. Come on.
 
I have not read any of this thread but I thought the title of it was interesting so I opened up to the last page. Seems the subject of the OP was lost a long time ago judging by the responses I am reading...
 
Darat said:
Folks - I've only just had this thread brought to my attention again and the last page or so of posts reads nothing more than a transcript from a kids playground. You may as well have replaced the last couple of pages with repeats of "I don't like you - you smell - you can't be a member of my gang! Nah-na!"

This focusing on your personal issues with other Members is not appropriate for this section of the Forum.

Either post on-topic and not in breach of your Membership agreement or don't post at all.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
Click to expand...

Someone here brings out the best in everyone.
The degeneration of this thread is evidence (tm).
Not naming names though. :)
Perhaps the consistent, relentless degeneration of threads by some persons (logical some meaning at least one) might be something of interest to moderators, unless the rest of us smell and can't be members of your gang. ;)
There is a cause for this effect.

The default position for skeptics (by definition) on every topic (including gawd), is "I don't know." No limits on the scope of inquiry. Is that on-topic?
 
Last edited:
I stand to be corrected, but I still feel skeptics should be atheists as well.
If your skeptic about, say, the supernatural. How on Earth can you be non- skeptical about any gods existing? Even ''THE GOD''. The logic escapes me.
 
ambnp said:
I stand to be corrected, but I still feel skeptics should be atheists as well.
Click to expand...

I feel the same. I object to the idea that atheism is part of the definition of skepticism, though (as per the OP), and also the idea that one is automatically a not a skeptic just because they are a theist. Even skeptics can have blind spots to which they do not properly apply critical thinking skills - I imagine that belief in god is the most common of these, but I would grant the same leeway to a skeptic whose blind spot was alien visitation to Earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom