.. A preponderance of atheism at a skeptical conference
about skepticism and religion?
..seems to me an attempt to make atheism and skepticism the same, or, even worse, trying to make atheism a prerequisite for skepticism (as some people seem to want).
Who are these people? PZ never said that. I've never said that. Did I miss someone else saying it?
.. It hurts the skeptical movement by alienating those skeptics who are not atheists or who just don't want to deal with strident atheists. Atheism and skepticism are not the same; events and preaching that make them seem so are detrimental to a separate skeptical movement.
People's filters are very hard to get past.
Why would my position, "that there is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings", be any different in terms of alienating skeptics than any other subject for which I or anyone disagrees with another skeptic?
I can tell you why I think there is a
perceived difference.
1) God beliefs cannot be supported with evidence.
2) The debate is not about one's differing conclusions based on evidence, the debate is about the skeptical process itself.
3) Atheists discuss theism as a topic in skepticism, theists don't necessarily want to include their theism in skeptical discussions.
.. I am not an atheist. I was an agnostic (according to my understanding of the word). I was raised without a religion. I never cared what anyone's religious beliefs were, having been taught that your religious beliefs are your own business;
4) God beliefs get a special pass.
..your actions are subject to criticism, but not your right to believe what you want.
4 continued) God beliefs involve a special 'right', the right not to be challenged. One's right to believe other conclusions also exists but the conclusions may be challenged.
I realize many people believe that their way is the only true way and that everyone should believe the way they do. I disagree with any attempt to make this belief a reality.
5) This straw man emerges on this topic more often than with other topics, probably for the reasons I cited above. If I state my atheist position and the basis of it, I am a fundie trying to convert someone. If I state my position and the basis of it on something else, I am merely debating the subject.
Since I started reading this forum about six months ago, I have learned a lot about many things, both factual and attitudinal. The two things that surprised me the most are attitudes:
- It is assumed by many atheists that a skeptic must be an atheist.
This straw man goes with #2 above and results from the difference when one debates the skeptical process when discussing god beliefs, rather than the evidence. That leads to:
6) Our imperfect skepticism (none of of can be a perfect skeptic in all things) is not given the same status as the imperfect skepticism of god beliefs. The former is just a fact, the latter involves beliefs that have deeper meaning to the individual when challenged.
- Many atheists come across as very similar to fundamentalist [name your religion here]s. Their way is the only true way and everyone should believe the way they do. If the atheists here I'm addressing don't truly believe that, I apologize, but that's they way they sound to an outsider.
And I suggest to you that it is the special case given god beliefs which leads to this perception, not necessarily because atheists are any more assertive regarding their atheism than they are regarding other subjects one might be passionate about. A lot of us must sound pretty preachy in the anti-vaxxer discussions. Do those discussions also sound to you like a bunch of vaccine fundies?
Never mind, don't answer that.
I think these attitudes can drive away people who are investigating skepticism and even atheism. Some probably just don't come back to the forum or attend any more conferences or investigate skepticism any further.
I don't deny this is a problem. But we differ completely on where the responsibility lies in what to do about it. From my perspective, I'm being asked to give a special pass to god beliefs. I'm being asked to not discuss the elephant in the room that I don't agree there is such a thing as faith based beliefs not subject to the same critical thinking as other non-evidence based beliefs. I'm being asked to not bring up my atheist perspective that there is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings and challenge a theist to think about why they think that conclusion is true about every god but the one they believe in.
I cannot do these things because they offend theist skeptics. But it's fine if I challenge right wing skeptics or Libertarian skeptics.
I suggest to you that no matter how politely or carefully worded I discuss my view that the evidence supports the conclusion all gods are mythical beings, it will still result in the same perception as you have described here: atheist fundie proselytizing.
I kept reading and eventually joined because I am learning so much. I am still figuring out and working through my beliefs, but this experience has made me strongly resistant to atheism. I'm contrary, and some anti-religion posts make me want to run out and join the closest church.
They also confuse me. When is it atheism speaking and when is it skepticism? I thought skepticism was closer to agnosticism;
There are two camps.
One is that since one cannot 'prove' gods don't exist, agnosticism is the better skeptical position. It's hard to buy that people are equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns but it is supposed to be the same principle.
The second camp, the one I'm in, holds the view that the above camp is trying to fit the evidence to the conclusion that gods might exist. Also it encourages the problem that some theists try to use the fact you cannot disprove gods as if that was evidence
for gods existing. Instead, I think one can follow the evidence to the conclusion, and that conclusion is, gods are mythical beings people invented. I see no evidence pointing in any other direction. There is no skeptical principle I'm aware of that says I need to be agnostic about things which are known fiction unless there is some other supporting evidence to consider.
we question but don't know absolutely; we look for evidence to reach conclusions but keep an open mind before the evidence gives an indication of probability.
That's a principle. It doesn't stop one from considering certain things are scientific facts. Scientific facts are subject to change should new evidence arise.
It was a scientific fact the Earth's crust was solid until the paradigm shift of plate tectonics. Now moving crustal plates are scientific facts. It has to do with a judgement on the level of certainty. It's easy for people to see that complex theories might be subject to change in the future. But people might be less aware that such facts as, the Earth orbits the Sun, are also subject to change should new evidence emerge.
I am also confused by those who say that religion should be treated no differently than any other form of woo. I agree that in all cases things that are testable should be tested; things for which there can be evidence should have evidence provided; and that the burden of proof is on the claimant. My confusion is with certainty regarding something that is unknowable. Belief that ESP works is something that can be studied and tested. Belief that Bigfoot exists is belief in a material fact that can be studied and proved. Belief in a god isn't. The claimed actions of a god can be studied and tested, but not the actual existence. And you can't prove a negative. So what is wrong with saying that you are unsure of the possibility of a god or that you believe in the existence of a god without evidence (not in the face of evidence against, merely in spite of any evidence for). I believe in the existence of love and hate and generosity and spite and altruism and that puns are funny; I don't know if any of those can be proved to exist. Can't you believe in these things and still be a skeptic? ......
You would be in camp number one, you can't prove gods don't exist so concluding they do not is flawed thinking.
And I'm not the least bit offended you hold that view. I'm pretty sure camp two, (there is overwhelming evidence ALL gods are mythical beings invented by people), is still in the minority within the skeptical community. I'm also convinced the paradigm is shifting toward camp 2.
