Who's Gained the most Ground?

bjb said:
I think too many of us skeptics are skeptical about other people's beliefs, but non-skeptical when it comes to their own. To me, this is the real challenge of skepticism, to hold yourself to the same standards that you would impose upon someone who is promoting strange beliefs. I think this is the greatest payoff of skeptical thinking, to rid yourself of your own strange beliefs, but a lot of skeptics aren't willing to go this far. Some skeptics do admit they hold irrational beliefs for irrational reasons and that's probably the most that can be asked of them.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Unfortunately it took me many years to develop the ability to hold myself to my own skepticism. I believe that it is simply a matter of maturity. Both maturity in general, and maturity as a skeptic.
 
Zygar said:
I agree completely. Unfortunately it took me many years to develop the ability to hold myself to my own skepticism. I believe that it is simply a matter of maturity. Both maturity in general, and maturity as a skeptic.
Click to expand...

I have to agree as well. It can be very difficult to give up personal beliefs that, while unsupported by evidence, may be extremely comforting.
 
I used to believe in all sorts of things; some as a comfort, but most because I simply hadn’t thought about them. Now I find myself questioning any incoming information, often to unexpected results.

With regards the OP, I think the reality is that more ‘believers’ have become ‘sceptics’ than vice versa, because the sentence ‘I used to be sceptic, but now I believe **** that isn’t backed up by evidence’ doesn’t actually make sense!

I agree with John Jackson (and others); the term sceptic has become synonymous with ‘unbeliever’. I even tend to avoid describing myself as a sceptic. I usually say rationalist, or that I try to think critically. However, this thread has made me think such misinterpretation of the word ‘sceptic’ should be addressed as often as we can. I shall now endeavour to use the ‘s’ word, and work through the immediately aggressive defensiveness of believers.

Not meaning to offend anyone, but I don’t understand how one can be a ‘sceptic’ and believe in a deity. I try not to judge people by their beliefs, it’s just something I don’t comprehend.
 
rats said:
Not meaning to offend anyone, but I don’t understand how one can be a ‘sceptic’ and believe in a deity. I try not to judge people by their beliefs, it’s just something I don’t comprehend.
Click to expand...

The deity delusion is perhaps the hardest to relieve oneself of. It is often engrained in a person from childhood, supported by a family structure, reinforced by weekly brainwashing sessions, and reaffirmed by periodic appeals to God for assistance which are rewarded due to self-fulfilling prophesy.

I am definitely a skeptic. And I am definitely an Athiest. But I believe strongly in freedom of religion. I cannot expect others to slough off the god delusion simply because I have. It was an extremely long, painful, and complicated process. You can be a skeptic without reaching the athiest conclusion. But being a skeptic means that you should also examine your religion skeptically. Given time, you will make your own conclusion, and that is all we should expect of anyone.
 
Minarvia said:
So I guess I was born a "sort of" skeptic, became a "sort of" woo person, and now returned to non-woo and more than "sort of" sanity. At least I hope so.
Click to expand...

I'm the exact opposite. I was brought up in a strongly Catholic family until I was a teenager and it struck me how absurd my kin's beliefs were. I was a rationalist atheist for a decade or more, but slowly began to find that (unlike most members of this forum) this approach didn't ring true for me either. Today I am a Woo, albeit a post-conventional one; eg: I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is.

I think that the "former skeptics" who come to my Spiritualist church are actually just people who've been through a kind of psychological demolition process when they realized that whatever belief they held before just wasn't true. they then settled into a new view of the world. It's possible that some of the ex-Woo rationalists on this forum know what I mean.
 
skeptigirl said:
No true skeptic ever becomes a woo. There might be a few who thought they were skeptics who caved in to religious superstitions, but that would be about it.

I know this from pure speculation using logic mind you, don't need any evidence. ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree. Maybe I wasn't a "true skeptic" by your definition, but I was someone who very much synched with what I read today in Skeptic literature.
 
rjh01 said:
The Internet will slowly destroy the woos as it allows information to be easily obtained. Then it will be a matter of people opening their minds to the correct information, and realising that woo information is plainly wrong. That will be the major benefit of the Internet.

It will take a long time, but it will happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I can see the future as a world where rationalism and skepticism will flourish, but so will unspecified spiritual and mystical beliefs. The expansion of both will be at the expense of today's organized religions. The future spirituality will be pantheistic and gnostic, rather than the scripture and superstition-based religion of today.
 
In my youth, I got involved with a lot of freaky-deaky stuff *because* I'm a skeptic. Sure, there were elders telling me it was all bunk. But then again, some of these same people believed that Jesus rose from the dead, so what the **** did they know?

Seemed to me (and still does) that you have to test things for yourself.

I tried a lot of angles, and some were valid, and others were bogus. But if you never really give the weird stuff a shot -- whether it's quantum mechanics or psi -- you're in no position to say what holds water and what doesn't.

The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.
 
Piggy said:
In my youth, I got involved with a lot of freaky-deaky stuff *because* I'm a skeptic. Sure, there were elders telling me it was all bunk. But then again, some of these same people believed that Jesus rose from the dead, so what the **** did they know?

Seemed to me (and still does) that you have to test things for yourself.

I tried a lot of angles, and some were valid, and others were bogus. But if you never really give the weird stuff a shot -- whether it's quantum mechanics or psi -- you're in no position to say what holds water and what doesn't.

The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.
Click to expand...

That's the best description of skepticism that I've ever seen.
 
Porterboy said:
I don't think so. I can see the future as a world where rationalism and skepticism will flourish, but so will unspecified spiritual and mystical beliefs. The expansion of both will be at the expense of today's organized religions. The future spirituality will be pantheistic and gnostic, rather than the scripture and superstition-based religion of today.
Click to expand...


The only sentence that I do not agree with is the first one. Yes many forms of religion will exist for a long time. The details are mostly unknown, so cannot argue with you on anything after your first sentence.

About all what can be said for them is that the woo religions will be individually small and without much power. They will however, have more power than what their numbers will suggest.
 
bjb said:
I think too many of us skeptics are skeptical about other people's beliefs, but non-skeptical when it comes to their own. To me, this is the real challenge of skepticism, to hold yourself to the same standards that you would impose upon someone who is promoting strange beliefs. I think this is the greatest payoff of skeptical thinking, to rid yourself of your own strange beliefs, but a lot of skeptics aren't willing to go this far. Some skeptics do admit they hold irrational beliefs for irrational reasons and that's probably the most that can be asked of them.
Click to expand...

This can be a very painful process. I like to read the snopes website, but sometimes I have to stop. It is too painful to learn that I've been bamboozled.

LLH
 
Piggy said:
The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.
Click to expand...

I think this is something I've never seen a true believer acknowledge. I've seen skeptics painted as close-minded bigots plenty, but never the simple fact that being skeptical means asking for proof, and accepting when evidence points in other directions.

I would love to have mystic powers. I would love to be able to move things with my mind and travel through time and live forever. The evidence does not support those kind of desires, sadly. As a skeptic I choose to accept this, even in those cases when it isn't the most wonderful and fun situation.

As others have said, that's what made religion (of the wishy-washy, God loves everyone variety) hardest for me to examine critically. I wished there was a protector up in the sky who would allow me to be eternally happy when I died. I have seen no good evidence of that, but it was a very hard belief to give up.
 
Porterboy said:
I'm the exact opposite. I was brought up in a strongly Catholic family until I was a teenager and it struck me how absurd my kin's beliefs were. I was a rationalist atheist for a decade or more, but slowly began to find that (unlike most members of this forum) this approach didn't ring true for me either. Today I am a Woo, albeit a post-conventional one; eg: I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is.
QUOTE]

Wow, that is well said, and I can't say that I've ever personally met anyone like you. I think most of us here are indeed your opposite. To me Atheism rings truer than when I was Catholic. But I fully appreciate the feeling of "not ringing true" whether it stems from beginnings like mine or from yours.
Click to expand...
 
Porterboy said:
I was just wondering how many skeptics are former woos and how many woos are former skeptics?
Click to expand...

All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.

That's why saying one is a former skeptic is pretty meaningless.
 
Dogdoctor said:
Your problem is you classify religion as woo. Only certain beliefs are notably woo. There are probably as many skeptics who are not atheists as one who are. Of course if you think all religion is woo then carry on.
Click to expand...
While there are many skeptics who can't let go of that last ingrained belief of a god and an afterlife, it doesn't make religion any less woo.

If my statement isn't true then tell me, what distinguishes faith in a religion from faith in the supernatural or faith in homeopathy or faith in 'you name the woo'?

The Earth isn't flat, the Sun does not orbit the Earth, the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. We let those myths go. Isn't it time we let the myths of gods go as well?
 
T'ai Chi said:
All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.
Click to expand...

Not for me, it doesn't.

That's like saying you're a vegetarian if you don't eat pork, but figure poultry and beef are ok.

A skeptic is someone who applies skeptical principles to his or her life.

If you only apply those principles to some things and not to others, then you're a person who is sometimes skeptical, sometimes not. And anyone can do that.
 
Dogdoctor said:
A more significant way to look at this in my opinion is what is the sum total of woo beliefs in a given population today compared to a time in the past? Have we dispelled more woo than we have gained? If you look at things from this perspective I would say we are making ground.
Click to expand...
Most definitely in the long run, "we've come a long way, baby." Two steps forward, one step back as far as dispelling religious myths.


But as to skeptics, I don't fault the skeptics who can't let go of that last thread of religion they were brought up to believe in. That's a very big leap for some people. For those folks, I'm happy if they just buy into science for the rest of their belief systems.
 
Porterboy said:
I disagree. Maybe I wasn't a "true skeptic" by your definition, but I was someone who very much synched with what I read today in Skeptic literature....I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is.
Click to expand...
(two post's quotes combined)

As a skeptic one looks for evidence. In your case from how I read your posts you were disillusioned by Catholicism. That can occur by lots of means and skepticism is only one of them.

Also being an atheist doesn't automatically equate with skepticism.

So what do you define skepticism as? Merely disregarding the religion you were brought up with, drifting a while, then finding your own version of religion? Or seeing the world as defined by evidence? And if evidence is how you determine what is real, what exists, then what 'evidence' brought you to the conclusion there is a god after all? Can you test that hypothesis?
 
T'ai Chi said:
All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.....
Click to expand...
One definition of skepticism is doubting something. But I would wager the majority of people who consider themselves skeptics as the term is applied in this group and in the affiliated groups like Skepchicks, The Skeptics Friends Network and the Skeptics from the Skeptical Inquirer site, that isn't the meaning we apply to ourselves at all.

Being a skeptic means you accept an evidence based world. A skeptic looks to the scientific process and tests what appears to be true rather than taking one's brain reflex belief as conclusive, and as Piggy put it, "The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did."

Skeptics recognize our minds evolved to look for patterns of cause and effect. We resist the reflex to assume coincidences are meaningful until the scientific process is applied to sort the coincidences out from true associations and true cause and effect relationships. Skeptics go where the evidence leads rather than looking for evidence to validate existing beliefs.

Skeptics look to the scientific process to discover the wonders of the Universe. We don't look to ancient texts and long held beliefs to understand our Universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom