Civility Out?

[Ian Osborne]

What makes the first groups worthy of retaining their skeptical credentials, when *they* suspend disbelief, but not the last?

Because the first group know they're suspending disbelief, while the second are deluding themselves?

 

[crimresearch]

Deluding themselves on exactly what?

And would you please supply some authoritative evidence linking whatever beliefs you list, to every single person who is religious?

Because I am talking about the exceptions here...

 

[BillyJoe]

CS,

The blanket definition for all skeptics as never being religious presupposes that everyone who is religious believes without proof....

We were talking mainly about belief in God, specifically Deism. You would agree, wouldn't you, that this is belief without proof?

.....Or it assumes that skeptics never believe anything without proof.

That is the ideal. But that is not to say that we can't catch ourselves out on occasion.

And I doubt that either skeptics or the religious among us are all that monolithic in their views.
So I leave room for the possibility that someone can be skeptical in their science, their research, their work...and still allow themselves to be, in some manner, religious.

But you would have to say, wouldn't you, that such a person would be sceptical in all aspects of his life except in his religious belief? Unless you accept the second definition of sceptism where you are free to believe in anything for which there is no evidence for or against.

I believe this is Hal's view but it seems he is no longer following this thread.

BJ

 

[HarryKeogh]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

I'm a proud member of the Skeptic's Society. As for JREF...after a couple of years of membership I don't think I'll renew when the time comes. I'd rather give my limited resources to a cause I feel more in line with.

I seem to grow more tired of the outlook of Randi, P&T and Dawkins each week. They can really come off looking like boorish, mean-spirited asses.

or worse, they can sound eerily similiar to this guy...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050418/D89HG71G0.html

Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.

"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."



yep, nothing like being uncivil to people who don't agree with your views...not that's how a society should run!

 

[crimresearch]

"We were talking mainly about belief in God, specifically Deism. You would agree, wouldn't you, that this is belief without proof?"

I was talking about being religious...and I suspect that some people go through the religious motions without having a firm belief in a deity. And I'm positing that there is room for skeptics among their number.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

I'll take one Randi or Dawkins over a hundred PC hypocrites. The worth of honesty and outspokenneess to society is incalculable - in all areas. Anyone who thinks they should "tone down" need to take a look at themselves and reconsider their ****ing priorities.

 

[viscousmemories]

I'll take one Randi or Dawkins over a hundred PC hypocrites. The worth of honesty and outspokenneess to society is incalculable - in all areas. Anyone who thinks they should "tone down" need to take a look at themselves and reconsider their ****ing priorities.

I guess it depends on your objectives. If you're trying to win friends and/or influence people, I'd be surprised if that approach was very successful. Speaking for myself, your aggressive tone and insinuation that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a "PC hypocrite" who needs to "reconsider their ****ing priorities" completely devalues your input, and I would be very surprised if I'm unique in that. So if that was your strategy to try to persuade me to your viewpoint, you failed. If however you were just venting your spleen for whatever reason, I suppose it works fine.

 

[crimresearch]

So because he was rude and offputting , you have been turned off to the skeptical message, and now must embrace the paranormal?

 

[viscousmemories]

So because he was rude and offputting , you have been turned off to the skeptical message, and now must embrace the paranormal?

The Overlords have not permitted me to respond to that.

 

[Kiless]

Eh, this might be of interest.

Teller's take on it all

 

[BillyJoe]

It seems the big boys - Randi, Dawkins, Kurtz, Penn and Teller - have declared war and are egging each other on towards a final conflagration. It could be the demise of scepticism - meaning we will have to find a new word. I can't help liking all of these guys - until they start bandying together and carry on about religion. Let's send them a message: stay positive you guys!

BJ

 

[CFLarsen]

Gardner

It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical. It is nothing more than an attempt of painting a big skeptic in the worst possible light.

Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth. He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs. Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.

However, when it comes to real phenomena, I challenge anyone to point out where he is illogical.

Evidence

People sure have their own evidence - or rather, their own experiences. It is a bit silly to talk about "evidence", when it can't even be checked. If it only exists in your head, then why is it evidence and not merely a thought? A fantasy?

We mustn't forget that people's opinions are not all equal. We have to look at the evidence and argue our case based on that. If that evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, then we are in a position to determine - until contrary evidence arrives - that the phenomenon simply does not exist.

If I can back my opinion with evidence, and you can't, then my opinion wins. Tough tittie, but that's the way it works in science, isn't it? You can't point to science, and then reject the rigorous scrutiny that science demands, by insisting that your evidence is compelling, even when it isn't.

If you want to go against the massive body of evidence that gravity exists (to pick an example), then the onus is on you. We don't start from the same square, because I can show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that gravity does exist.

Likewise, I can also show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Each time we look for evidence of a god, we find nothing. Likewise, each time we look for evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, we find nothing. Evidence of nothing is, in itself, evidence. It's not proof, of course, but that doesn't mean that you can reject the body of evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist, simply because you don't agree.

The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no. Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.

But that doesn't make it so.

 

[BillyJoe]

Martin Gardner,

Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth.

What on Earth can "religious truth" be other than an oxymoron?

He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs.

Fair enough. I believe in feeling good.

Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.

Kind of conflicts with the "pursuit of religious truth" don't you think?




CFLarsen,

The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no. Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.....But that doesn't make it so.

Let's hope Ian doesn't catch wind of this Interesting bit of philosophysing.



regards,
BJ

 

[CFLarsen]

What on Earth can "religious truth" be other than an oxymoron?

I suspect that "truth" has a different meaning in religious matters.

Fair enough. I believe in feeling good.

I knew that you would.

Kind of conflicts with the "pursuit of religious truth" don't you think?

Hey, if he feels good about it, and it rings true to him....

Let's hope Ian doesn't catch wind of this Interesting bit of philosophysing.

 

[dann]

It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical. It is nothing more than an attempt of painting a big skeptic in the worst possible light.

Claus, you do know that this is pure Stalinism, don't you? 'This is a great man, so we should not criticize his lack of logic!'

Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth. He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs. Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.
However, when it comes to real phenomena, I challenge anyone to point out where he is illogical.

I suspect that even Karen Boesen may be logical, at least sometimes, when it comes to real phenomena. When it comes to astrology, however, she believes in something that does not exist - and probably not because it makes her feel bad!

People sure have their own evidence - or rather, their own experiences. It is a bit silly to talk about "evidence", when it can't even be checked. If it only exists in your head, then why is it evidence and not merely a thought? A fantasy?

Isn't that the question that you ought to ask Martin Gardner?

We mustn't forget that people's opinions are not all equal. We have to look at the evidence and argue our case based on that. If that evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, then we are in a position to determine - until contrary evidence arrives - that the phenomenon simply does not exist.

Well, they are equal to the extent that you should be equally critical of them - and not distinguish between the good guys, "big skeptics" like Gardner, whose "opinions" should be respected no matter how silly, and the others whose religious ideas should not be respected, not because they are more silly, but because their proponents aren't members of our club!

If I can back my opinion with evidence, and you can't, then my opinion wins.

And, apparently, in the case of Martin Gardner's "He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs", he cannot back his opinion with evidence!!! (And I, for one, don't want him to prove that he actually feels good!) So why maintain that he is a "big skeptic"!? When it comes to his religious beliefs, he isn't!
Give the man a joint or an anti-depressant, if he feels like feeling good. It's probably less detrimental to his sanity than the tricks he is playing with his own mind with his "Reliance on faith". So is the one you are playing with yours when you insist that "It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical."
It is illogical and you ought to respect the fact that it is, instead of playing tricks with your mind because you not only want but also appear to need to distinguish between the good believers and the bad ones!

Tough tittie, but that's the way it works in science, isn't it?

You said it, Claus! So stop making all these exceptions to your own rule just because you find it necessary in order to maintain your respect for big skeptics!

You can't point to science, and then reject the rigorous scrutiny that science demands, by insisting that your evidence is compelling, even when it isn't.

Exept, of course, if it makes you feel better?!

If you want to go against the massive body of evidence that gravity exists (to pick an example), then the onus is on you. We don't start from the same square, because I can show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that gravity does exist.

Likewise, I can also show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist.

Isn't that our problem? That you cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist?!

Each time we look for evidence of a god, we find nothing. Likewise, each time we look for evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, we find nothing. Evidence of nothing is, in itself, evidence.

Yes, exactly, evidence .... of nothing!

It's not proof, of course, but that doesn't mean that you can reject the body of evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist, simply because you don't agree.

No, Claus. Lack of evidence that paranormal phenomena do exist!

The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no.

No, Claus. The answer is, of course, yes! We can claim the existence of anything we please - for instance if it makes us feel better!

Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.
But that doesn't make it so.

That's the rub! We may claim a lot of things, but reality, real phenomena, the things that still exist when we stop believing in them, that's something completely different!

 

[DrMatt]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

I'm friends with lots of believers. In fact, I regularly get flirted-at by believers, who mistakenly think that I would give up my integrity just for sex with them.

And I'm with both Eugenie and Penn on this one. I think there very much are what Eugenie calls "moderates" in the world, people who hang onto religious beliefs for every domain where they don't directly contradict scientific findings, and yet who embrace science. But I reserve the right to call special pleading special pleading, and not to condescendingly beat around the bush or euphemize it.

I myself do some things which have no basis in facts---but they don't involve beliefs, merely personal preferences. For example, there's no scientific reasoning behind the fact that I listen to Mahler but not Boyz2Men, it's just what I like. However, I do not profess a belief in the superiority of Mahler, either.

 

[crimresearch]

"For example, there's no scientific reasoning behind the fact that I listen to Mahler but not Boyz2Men, it's just what I like."

That is soooo weird...

Because acording to my medium, Mahler just adores B2M...

 

[DrMatt]

Have you surveyed all of space and time?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice..

For what--the invisible pink unicorn? For N-Rays? For square circles?

Burden-shifting is not a productive argument, neither to advance those hypotheses nor to derrogate atheism (including strong atheism, which, in this case, is philosophically equivalent to the belief that there is no square circle and no invisible pink unicorn).

 

[Kopji]

It seemed a pretty obvious question I needed to answer early on for me.
After leaving religion with its prophets, holy men and stuff; was I just trading one form of following for another? It would be seductively easy to replace the gurus and pontificating spiritual authorities with new ones who were atheists or scientists or whatever. (Yeah, I have strong antibodies against politicians too).

The same skeptical disbelief that finally flung me from religion also leaves me cold to vocal or noisy atheists who might want to lead me somewhere, even if it is to my benefit.

So this just a website: a forum hosted by a colorful and smart entertainer, dedicated to interesting ideas. Sure. The 'host' sounds a bit like an extremist sometimes But I compare people like Randi and Dawkins to leaders of the early pioneer treks. They have an honesty and confidence that is nice to see. Leaders in any endeavor have unique qualities that make them good leaders. This is not a call for everyone to be just like them. Me being here does not mean I agree with every word they say.

Having a skeptical attitude (especially in these times) takes a pioneering spirit. We have our covered wagons ready... and destination in mind... but it does not mean we entirely stop longing for the cities and 'civilized' places we came from. It does not mean we suddenly have a new outlook. Does not mean our lives cease to be influenced by those things we've lived with all our lives.

So to me, being here requires an attitude and a journey. The presence of 'believers' like Hal, MLynn, and Gardner (among others) are good company.

 

[BillyJoe]

Kopji,

The same skeptical disbelief that finally flung me from religion also leaves me cold to vocal or noisy atheists who might want to lead me somewhere, even if it is to my benefit.

....being here requires an attitude and a journey. The presence of 'believers' like Hal, MLynn, and Gardner (among others) are good company.

I believe we are kindred spirits.

(It seems this is the case, but I trust you will understand the smilie )

regards,
BillyJoe