Skeptics and non-atheists...

Imrational said:
By straddling the fence of agnosticism, don't you really believe in everything? I mean, there will always be the infinitesimal chance that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Atlantis, Rectal-probing Aliens, and Bigfoot really exist. You'll never know for certain.

Do the agnostics here believe in those things? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Actually, you have captured (at least) what I believe agnosticism to be. I don't hold some wishy-washy idea that God might or might not exist. Instead, I hold with conviction that nothing can be known with conviction. There is an infinitesimal chance that the Tooth Fairy does exist, but you're not going to have haul me away in a straight-jacket gibbering about 'fairies at the edge of my vision.'

Some atheists are not simply those without faith, but ardent supernatural origin/God deniers, so if I didn't capture every atheist in my glibness, then I apologize. Maybe there is a strong atheism that is closer to my jab, and a weak atheism which is closer to how someone described agnostics (atheists who lack the courage of their convictions :) ).

Regardless, my little story summed up my thoughts on pragmatism and skepticism. One is wise to choose a pragmatic or straightforward solution, rather than a contrived or improbable one, religious, atheistic or agnostic.

Edit: LOL Hunstman! posting the whole strong atheist/weak atheist thing...
 
Last edited:
Imrational said:
I just wanted to add...

By straddling the fence of agnosticism, don't you really believe in everything? I mean, there will always be the infinitesimal chance that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Atlantis, Rectal-probing Aliens, and Bigfoot really exist. You'll never know for certain.

Do the agnostics here believe in those things? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Hence, I am an agnostic as well as an atheist. About god, the aliens and all other similar insanity. I do not belive they exist. In fact, I believe they do not exist. I realize I might be mistaken. I won't hold my breath.

Rasmus,
strongly suspecting that there's a million threads on this already.
 
I think the original part of this thread was Randi basically stating..

“Just because you believe in a god does not mean you cannot be a skeptic”

This is a bit of a cop out and I think he says this because SOOO many people believe in a God and you don’t want to alienate most of your potential audience.

The simple truth though is .. If you believe in a God you HAVE surrendered your scepticism on at least that one particular piece of woo.

Yes WOO… just because belief in God is popular and MANY people we know and love believe in God and these same people are normal sceptics in EVERYTHING else… we cannot pretend belief in God is not every bit as WOO as breatharians !

The ONLY argument for a God is philosophical.. there is even less evidence for a God than for breatharians.

I liked Huntsman’s definitions (I usually do)… I would add that my own personal brand of atheism equates to disbelief of God in the same way I disbelieve in the Easter Bunny. That is it is so obviously not true I don’t even bother about it much !
 
There are some things that are less likely than others though. Astrology has been experimentally thoroughly debunked therefore it is safe to say that it's crap. However, there is a very real possibility that extraterrestrial life exists and that some species may rival or exceed our intelligence and technology.

I don't feel that i am in any position to say that god does or does not exist. Part of this problem is in definition. I think a single God is more likely than multiple Gods. I also feel that the anthropomorphic God is the least likely monotheistic God. I think that the problem we may run into is an atheist referring to an anthropomorphic God while a theist believes in an amorphic consciousnenss or a unifying force. If anything i personally think Spinoza had the best definition of God.

I agree with atheists on a lot of things but i think many atheists have a condescending view of theists. I don't think people who believe in God are stupid, gullible, or misinformed. I think a reasonable person can believe in God and a reasonable person can not believe in god. That's why I am an agnostic, I think both the existance and non-existance of god are very real possibilities, but nobody knows and nobody can ever know.
 
CACTUSJACKmankin,

I used to hold the same belief you refer to. I switched to atheism after many years of being an agnostic. Why'd I change?

If there is a god, but there is no evidence... why believe in one? It would not be able to affect us in any way. If it does affect us in any measurable way, then god exists and an atheist can switch to theism.

Furthermore, a scientific world view is built upon observation, theorizing, predicting and testing of the natural world. As far as I know, there is no way that science could ever acknowledge the existence of a god... it is outside its scope. Therefore, if you wish to be a rational person, holding a scientific worldview, god(s) do not exist.
 
Aussie Thinker said:
I think the original part of this thread was Randi basically stating..

“Just because you believe in a god does not mean you cannot be a skeptic”

This is a bit of a cop out and I think he says this because SOOO many people believe in a God and you don’t want to alienate most of your potential audience.[/i]
Click to expand...
I think this is rather a cheap view of Mr Randi. Maybe at least he looks at his actual audience. When we had a vote on whether the JREF should be officially atheist, 90% were against, including me. Including a clearly huge majority of us atheists.

Now I think it is quite right of the Amazing One to think that if he can have a community behind him formed of intelligent people, overwhelmingly atheist, who suppot him in word, deed, and financially, and agree that he's Amazing, and agree that there is no god --- and still don't want to consign theists to the looney bin --- then maybe we have a point.

The simple truth though is .. If you believe in a God you HAVE surrendered your scepticism on at least that one particular piece of woo.

Yes WOO… just because belief in God is popular and MANY people we know and love believe in God and these same people are normal sceptics in EVERYTHING else… we cannot pretend belief in God is not every bit as WOO as breatharians !
Click to expand...
But I certainly can argue than, say, kittynh is not as woo as a breatharian.

The ONLY argument for a God is philosophical.. there is even less evidence for a God than for breatharians.
Click to expand...
And, for the same reason, even less evidence against.
 
I never said that God was scientifically knowable, my agnostic position is that God is inherently unknowable. However, I don't think the question of God's existance or lack thereof is irrelevant. The question of God is philosophical and not scientific, in fact, I emphatically disagree with theists who try to justify their belief in God with science. I think philosophy is as much a search for reality as science is, the difference being is that science is the only search for reality that is solely fact based. That doesn't mean philosophy is wrong.
I just think that theists and atheists are both sane. I think it is just as insulting for a theist to say an atheist can't be moral, as for an atheist to say that the theist is a stupid. Nobody has the answer and nobody will.
I do have to admit that if I had to bet on whether or not a God exists, I'd bet it doesn't, but that doesn't justify a condescending tone towards theists.
 
Irrational Belief

Someone mentioned the term `irrational belief'. This is so commonly used that that I began to wonder if there were `rational beliefs'?

Perhaps gravity? I feel relatively certain that if I drop a pencil that it will fall. I `believe' gravity will work based on experience and past evidence, so it is a `rational belief'?
 
Yes.

Believing that the Earth is round is also a rational belief. Because in each case, the beliefs are backed by evidence.

Belief in Intelligent Design is not a rational belief, because it is nothing but a religious belief combined with a logical fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance).
 
I already had a thread about this once before & it settled the debate on the first post:
Being skeptical is an approach to an arguement and is only valid within the current context.

Eg:
I am skeptical of insurence salesmen but I am not skeptical of everything.


Eg:
I do not call myself 'a general skeptic' for two reasons. Firstly, other people automatically assume you don't beleive in anything. Their mis-assumption, not mine. It does not help me in arguments.

Secondly, its logically impossible to be a skeptic in every single scenario concievable.

It is my opinion that as long as you guys are after the definition of 'a skeptic', you will never reach a conclusion.
 
DavoMan said:
I already had a thread about this once before & it settled the debate on the first post:
Being skeptical is an approach to an arguement and is only valid within the current context.

Eg:
I am skeptical of insurence salesmen but I am not skeptical of everything.


Eg:
I do not call myself 'a general skeptic' for two reasons. Firstly, other people automatically assume you don't beleive in anything. Their mis-assumption, not mine. It does not help me in arguments.

Secondly, its logically impossible to be a skeptic in every single scenario concievable.

It is my opinion that as long as you guys are after the definition of 'a skeptic', you will never reach a conclusion.
Click to expand...

It is indeed common for people to interpret "skeptic" to mean "cynic". That's why I like the term "critical thinker". *shrug*
 
Yeah its a shame that certain labels aquire the wrong attributes because of things made up by the ignorant.
Much like how 'Hacker' basically means 'internet-criminal' now instead of guy who messes with his 386.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom