Civility Out?

[SixSixSix]

Have you surveyed all of space and time?

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

So we should believe in invisible pink unicorns as well?

 

[Brian]

Love the religious, hate the religion.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So we should believe in invisible pink unicorns as well?

It looks like SixSixSix doesn't understand what "A simple Yes or No will suffice." means.

 

[SixSixSix]

It looks like SixSixSix doesn't understand what "A simple Yes or No will suffice." means.

I understand just fine. I just don't agree with the straw man you have created.

 

[viscousmemories]

I think doubt is at the heart of skepticism, and that when someone makes a definitive statement like "Anyone who believes X is not a skeptic", they are making an implicit claim that X cannot be true. To me, that unjustified certainty seems more contrary to skepticism than religious belief.

 

[SixSixSix]

So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.

If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well. At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?

There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.

 

[viscousmemories]

So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.

I didn't say skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements, but making definitive statements about things you cannot prove (the non-existence of God, for example) doesn't strike me as compatible with skepticism.

If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well. At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?

Are you suggesting that skeptic means "One who doesn't believe in god, alien abductions, flat Earth, bigfoot, crystal power, whatever"?

There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.

Then I assume you can prove god(s) don't exist?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I understand just fine. I just don't agree with the straw man you have created.

You're the one talking about "invisible pink unicorns", fool.

Francois Tremblay said

"To believe in any of these is to abandon logic."

However, you abandon logic each time your are convinced these things don't exist since no one has surveyed all of space and time, you just don't know.

 

[SixSixSix]

I didn't say skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements, but making definitive statements about things you cannot prove (the non-existence of God, for example) doesn't strike me as compatible with skepticism.

I say that believing in something that you have no evidence for is not compatible with skepticism.

Are you suggesting that skeptic means "One who doesn't believe in god, alien abductions, flat Earth, bigfoot, crystal power, whatever"?

No, it means not believing in things that you have no evidence for.

Then I assume you can prove god(s) don't exist?

Of course not. But I cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist either.

 

[SixSixSix]

You're the one talking about "invisible pink unicorns", fool.

Francois Tremblay said

"To believe in any of these is to abandon logic."

However, you abandon logic each time your are convinced these things don't exist since no one has surveyed all of space and time, you just don't know.

I am convinced these things do not exist. I am skeptical of their existence, since there is no evidence for it. I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary.

 

[deBergerac]

I would love to get into this discussion but I have too litle time at the moment.

Sufice to say that I think Hal should give his talk at TAM4 because we are many who think that you can have irrational beleives and still be a sceptic aslong as your beleives do not conflict with what can be tested.
(You can beleive in pink unicorns if you like but if you claim they can be seen or otherwise detected you have a testable calim.)

And concerning civility I think that it is impossible not to try the matter from case to case. Some people you do not want to be civil to but I fail to see how that could be true for every religious person.

But I do agree that one needs to be frank about differeces in opinion and not be too political correct.

 

[viscousmemories]

I say that believing in something that you have no evidence for is not compatible with skepticism.

No, it means not believing in things that you have no evidence for.

Where are you getting that definition of skepticism from?

Of course not. But I cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist either.

Then how can you conclude that a skeptic can't believe in god(s)?

 

[viscousmemories]

Oh and on-topic... (sorry MLynn):

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 don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on that clip, that atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. It depends entirely on the circumstances, but yes if I had the opportunity to meet Fred Phelps, if I said anything to him at all it would be to call him an evil, intolerant bigot. That has nothing to do with his religious belief and everything to do with his aggressive, vicious anti-human words and deeds.

 

[SixSixSix]

Where are you getting that definition of skepticism from?

What's your definition, then?

Then how can you conclude that a skeptic can't believe in god(s)?

If you have evidence for such a claim, apply for the million dollars. If you do not, then it is appropriate to be skeptical about it.

 

[viscousmemories]

What's your definition, then?

Well here are some from dictionary.com:

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

None of those strikes me as necessarily incompatible with belief in god(s).

If you have evidence for such a claim, apply for the million dollars. If you do not, then it is appropriate to be skeptical about it.

Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's entirely possible to be skeptical yet believe. For example, I have met theists who claim that they completely believe in God but would cease believing if introduced to solid empirical evidence of his non-existence. How is that not skeptical?

 

[SixSixSix]

Well here are some from dictionary.com:

None of those strikes me as necessarily incompatible with belief in god(s).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's entirely possible to be skeptical yet believe. For example, I have met theists who claim that they completely believe in God but would cease believing if introduced to solid empirical evidence of his non-existence. How is that not skeptical?

If I replaced the terms "theist" and "believe in God" with "psychic" and "believe in telepathy", we have a skeptic who is a psychic. Since it difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, such a person (by your definition) can still call themselves a skeptic. Reducto ad absurdem for any or all strange beliefs.

I think once we are able to start calling someone who believes in UFOs, alien abductions, telepathy, spirits, ghosts, and so forth a skeptic (because there has never been solid empirical evidence of the non-existence of any of these - and it is likely there never will be), we are using the word in a very different sense.

Of course you can argue that belief in a god is different to believing in these things. If that is your position, then can you explain to me in what sense it is different?

 

[viscousmemories]

If I replaced the terms "theist" and "believe in God" with "psychic" and "believe in telepathy", we have a skeptic who is a psychic. Since it difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, such a person (by your definition) can still call themselves a skeptic. Reducto ad absurdem for any or all strange beliefs.

As far as I know there isn't any Skeptic's Council that makes determinations about who can and can't call themselves a skeptic. I mean there's no certifications or anything that I'm aware of. So sure, if someone approaches information with doubt and uncertainty yet happens to believe that they can speak to the dead, I don't see any reason why they can't call themselves a skeptic.

I think once we are able to start calling someone who believes in UFOs, alien abductions, telepathy, spirits, ghosts, and so forth a skeptic (because there has never been solid empirical evidence of the non-existence of any of these - and it is likely there never will be), we are using the word in a very different sense.

As I think someone said earlier, (or maybe I read it elsewhere) there's a difference between simply holding a belief and asserting it as fact. If someone claims to have powers that defy natural laws, that's scientifically testable. But if someone professes a belief that a god created the universe, that's not. I don't think "holds a belief in things that can't be falsified" == "not a skeptic", otherwise anyone who believes that their Mother loves them is not a skeptic.

 

[SixSixSix]

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

Fair enough - if someone simply claims a belief that is not falsifiable, I agree that they shouldn't be "kicked out of the club", as it were.

Now, I don't agree that most religions are in fact not falsifiable, but that's a separate issue.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary.

I guess Martin Gardner is illogical. Who knew.

I think people do have evidence. It happens to be the same evidence that you have for a natural world. You and they just interpret that evidence differently.

I personally don't care how convinced you are. Reality is what counts. And since you, nor I or anyone, has surveyed all of space and time, we don't know, and no level of "convinced" can change that fact.

 

[SixSixSix]

I guess Martin Gardner is illogical. Who knew.

Appeal to authority?

I think people do have evidence. It happens to be the same evidence that you have for a natural world. You and they just interpret that evidence differently.

It is possible to argue that the natural world is produced by god, and is therefore evidence of his existence. This claim is not falsifiable, as long as it does not include any attributes that would be inconsistent with it not being produced by a god - at that point, we have something that can be tested.

Of course it is possible to substitute "Zeus", "Odin", or "Brahma" for "god" in the above paragraph. It is also possible to substitute "invisible pink unicorns". Make of that what you will.

I personally don't care how convinced you are. Reality is what counts. And since you, nor I or anyone, has surveyed all of space and time, we don't know, and no level of "convinced" can change that fact.

Of course we don't know. But we seem to have a situation that does not require such a god. Why create unnecessary postulates?

I note here that it is far easier to prove the existence than the non-existence of such a god. It is interesting that the defence here appears to require me to take on the latter task while the challenger ducks the former.