Atheism Exposed! Someone's on to the evil skeptics!

[shawmutt]

http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/atheism-exposed-skepticism/

Consider this: If a dog really did eat your homework, how’re you going to prove it? You could examine the bowel movement of the animal. However, assuming your homework was written on paper, it would have already become an indistinguishable, finely digested mulch at that point. The teacher’s skepticism about your story is palpable though, largely because of their inability to prove it and the unlikelihood of its occurrence. Does your teacher’s doubt about your story prove that it isn’t true? No. Yet, this is how skeptics think. They believe that whatever can be doubted is not likely to be true. Skeptical Atheists love this technique for asserting the “likely” non existence of God. While that is true on some level, it’s easily the worst way to make any kind of assertive proof of anything.

Skeptics are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt. Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea (which curiously, was actually developed in an attempt to prove the existence of God!). Their system of structured belief applies not just to religion, but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue against religion or theism as a matter of specific contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective.

I'm dumb and slow, and working on a response. Maybe some smarter folks can get their own comments in before I get done (wink wink, nudge nudge).

[arthwollipot]

Hm. Strawman. This isn't how skeptics think at all. I'm not at all sure that the author understands the principle of skepticism. Example: "the worst way to make any kind of assertive proof of anything". Since when to skeptics attempt to make any kind of assertive proof of anything? A skeptical atheist will say "I don't believe that there is a god because there is insufficient evidence of its existence." That is not an assertive proof. It's not even close.

"Skeptics are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt." Equally untrue. Skeptics doubt everything and they believe in the things that can stand up to this doubt.

[theMark]

Meh, sounds like someone who hasn't come to terms that it's perfectly okay to say "I don't know" and mean it... but I'm no good at forum discussions, either.

[Sideroxylon]

A dog eating homework doesn’t require changes to our current model of the universe, unlike say psychic powers.

[UnrepentantSinner]

skeptic =/= atheist
atheist =/= skeptic

[KingMerv00]

Skeptics are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt.

Precisely backwards. Skeptics doubt what they believe.

[Shrike]

So we can find proof of God's existence in dog crap?
Or am I reading this wrong?

[ponderingturtle]

skeptic =/= atheist
atheist =/= skeptic

I do wonder though what supernatural beliefs like god can someone have and still be reasonably considered a skeptic. Are the people who do the "I'm skeptical of skepticism" bit skeptics or not?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I do wonder though what supernatural beliefs like god can someone have and still be reasonably considered a skeptic.

You? Shocking! Perhaps I'm not as orthodox a skeptic as you are.

Are the people who do the "I'm skeptical of skepticism" bit skeptics or not?

Not. :D Or at least they demonstrate they're not about 10 minutes after they start discussing another subject.

[YeahDude]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm..................

Strawman!

[brodski]

You? Shocking! Perhaps I'm not as orthodox a skeptic as you are.

well, there is an easy way to tell, do you eat corn-dogs on a Friday?

[Dave Rogers]

Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea (which curiously, was actually developed in an attempt to prove the existence of God!).

Never having considered the possible Cartesian origins of my own system of belief, I can't comment on whether this is true; however, the assertion that an attempt to prove the existence of God has given rise to the philosophy behind doubting that very existence is itself hardly a convincing argument in favour of the existence of God.

Dave

[PixyMisa]

Is he really comparing religious belief to "my dog ate my homework"?

I mean sure, it's apt in many ways, but I don't think it helps his case.

[paiute]

"the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted"

Is exactly summed up in my sig. Apply as needed.

[Correa Neto]

How can you prove it was not a werewolf?

[ponderingturtle]

You? Shocking! Perhaps I'm not as orthodox a skeptic as you are.


So no serious responce. It is fully possible to believe in ESP and make no testable claims. So all sorts of true believers can also be skeptics. You can believe in Young Earth Creationism and make no testable claims, so creationism is compatable with skepticism.

[HansMustermann]

It does't strike me as a particularly "OMG they're evil" description, though. A bit mis-represented, to be sure, but not the worst such exercise by far. Especially...

Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective.

... seems a decent enough position to hold, not as much from an empirical perspective, as just from an elementary logic perspective. You can't infer anything at all from an "X => Y" if X is not known to be true. So religion, or as he says anything else unproven, is indeed a rather useless thing to accept rationally.

The further point that he seems to miss though is that here we don't just have an uncertainty as to whether X is true, but what X is at all.

Which god should I believe in? Kali, who wants human sacrifices murdered in her name? Odin, who wants you to die in battle or doing some crazy fearless thing (regardless of whether you lived a good or evil life!) to inherit eternal life? The jewish or muslim god who'll get ticked off if you eat pork? The absence of a deity at all, like in buddhism? Ba'al who apparently wanted babies sacrificed to him? (It might be the original blood libel, but he seems to agree that you can't rule it out just because you doubt it.) Huitzilopochtli and generally the Aztec merry bunch of gods which required an assembly-line-like human sacrifice operation just to keep the universe working? Etc.

What can I infer there as the thing to do?

Plus, if he's against non-believing in something just because you doubt it, can he assert that his god is true and Huitzilopochtli isn't? How does he really know the universe isn't heading towards a spectacular stop as the aztec gods stopped receiving nourishment and are getting rather emaciated by now? :p

[Apathia]

Is he really comparing religious belief to "my dog ate my homework"?

I mean sure, it's apt in many ways, but I don't think it helps his case.

God ate my homework!

[supercorgi]

A dog eating homework doesn’t require changes to our current model of the universe, unlike say psychic powers.

My dog eats my papers all the time, and believe me, it does show up in the end product. OMG, I just realized that my dog probably ate god!!!

[FSM]

Thank you for your well-written arguments. I think you should know that we are discussing some of your points on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140334

I think that it is only fair to invite you to that thread. There are some assumptions you have made about skepticism that seem to be mistaken.

Additionally, in your points listed above 1-5, could you tell me if you similarly believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, why not?

http://www.venganza.org/

Or if you'd like something less silly, do you believe in Islam? Hinduism? Why aren't you Jewish? Or why don't you believe in Zeus? Or Thor?

If not, why not? If not, does that make you an unreasonable stubborn skeptic, prone to doubt for no reason?

Thank you for giving your time and effort to respond to my questions. And I really hope to see you posting at the JREF!

Take care,

FSM
Yeah, I went there. Typographical errors and all.... :) Oooooooo I hope he comes, I hope he comes... I tire of KK and DOC and yyreg's horrible spelling/grammar...

[arthwollipot]

:popcorn1

[yy2bggggs]

I'm dumb and slow, and working on a response. Maybe some smarter folks can get their own comments in before I get done (wink wink, nudge nudge).

You're joking! This responds to itself!

Consider this: If a dog didn't really eat your pupil's homework, how’s he going to prove it? Examining the bowel movement of the animal won't work--assuming your homework was written on paper, it could have already become an indistinguishable, finely digested mulch at that point. Your skepticism about his story is palpable though, largely because of his inability to prove it and the unlikelihood of its occurrence. Does your lack of certainty about his story prove that it is true? No. Yet, this is how believers think. They believe that whatever can possibly be believed is true. Believers love this technique for asserting the "possible" existence of God. While that is true on some level, it’s easily the worst way to make any kind of assertive claim of anything.

Believers are people who only believe because they can possibly believe. Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea. Their system of unstructured belief applies not just to religion, but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue for religion or theism as a matter of specific contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven false can be rationally accepted, especially from an emotional perspective.

[themusicteacher]

Precisely backwards. Skeptics doubt what they believe.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. When I first read that statement, I had to laugh because it is a complete mischaracterization of the skeptic position and lines of thinking. Once again: if you can't beat them, lie about them!

[ziztur]

Consider this: If a dog really did eat your homework, how’re you going to prove it? You could examine the bowel movement of the animal. However, assuming your homework was written on paper, it would have already become an indistinguishable, finely digested mulch at that point. The teacher’s skepticism about your story is palpable though, largely because of their inability to prove it and the unlikelihood of its occurrence. Does your teacher’s doubt about your story prove that it isn’t true? No.


Said teacher would be very reasonable in his or her doubt. Also, the more extraordinary the kid's story got, the more reasonable said teacher would be in disbelieving it. OP is sort is equating "dog ate my homework" with "god ate my homework" and saying the teacher's doubt does not prove it is not true.

Doubt by itself does not prove or disprove anything (by anything I means anything concrete, I;m not talking of abstractions I.E. doubt proves that doubt exists). Doubt is a vessel by which to look critically at evidence, make observations, experiment, and then use rational thinking to come to a conclusion.


Yet, this is how skeptics think. They believe that whatever can be doubted is not likely to be true.


Incorrect. Skeptics think in different ways. The way *I* determine whether something is not likely to be true is by observation, experimentation, and rational thinking by myself or others.


Skeptical Atheists love this technique for asserting the “likely” non existence of God. While that is true on some level, it’s easily the worst way to make any kind of assertive proof of anything.


Which is why "skeptical atheists" are probably not making assertive proof. OP seems to be equating "skeptical atheist" with "strong atheist", and then straw-manning the strong atheist's position. It is also not the worst way to make assertive proof of anything. A worse way would be to to make an assertive proof of anything is to make assertive proof when one has no evidence.


Skeptics are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt.
[/quote/]

Really? Yet another strawman.
"Skeptics are people."

Agreed. I can say with reasonable certainty that we are people.

"who only believe in what they cannot doubt"

I won't speak for everyone but I personally prefer knowledge over belief. My knowledge comes from observation, experimentation and rational thinking. I try not have have "beliefs" in concrete things, though I will say I have "beliefs" in abstractions (I believe my boyfriend loves me. I surely can doubt that. He could be deceiving me.)

My position of knowledge is based on reasonable certainty rather than absolute proof. One cannot have absolute proof of things, but the OP is arguing that skeptics only believe what they "cannot doubt" which is basically the same as "absolute proof".

[quote]
Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea (which curiously, was actually developed in an attempt to prove the existence of God!). Their system of structured belief applies not just to religion, but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue against religion or theism as a matter of specific contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective.



Again op seems to be confusing absolute certainty with reasonable certainty.

[ziztur]

double post

[godless dave]

Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective

Damn right we do. I love it when people try to expose us and end up complimenting us.

[Beerina]

A dog eating homework doesn’t require changes to our current model of the universe, unlike say psychic powers.


Ding, FTW!




The teacher doesn't believe "a dog ate my homework" because the child is probably lying, not because it's implausible on a physics level.

Now if the brat were to come in and say, "A level 12 Drow Wizard used a wand of disintegration on it!" then the teacher would be correct in doubting the story because it's physically impossible.


It's identical with claims of a god planning to throw you into Hell. It's that simple.

[linusrichard]

Skeptical Atheists love . . .

And I'm done reading.

As surely as "No offense, but" precedes an offensive comment, and "I'm not racist, but" precedes a racist comment, "Skeptical Atheists love" precedes a strawman.

[Magyar]

funny how you can't seem to post, or at least they won't approve, comments.

Wonder why?

[X]

It's strange.

His main point seems to be that the complete and utter lack of proof for God means it is unreasonable to not believe in God.

I suppose it is unreasonable to not believe in Bigfoot, merely because there is no proof of it's existence.
Or Nessie, for the same reason. Or UFOs. Or that CAM works. Or ESP.

I have to wonder if the author believes every single claim hypothesized by anyone, even (perhaps especially) if it has no proof.

If I tell him that I am a famous opera star on my home planet of Jioabsty, but have no proof of that, his position says it is perfectly reasonable to believe me. And unreasonable not to.

I'm not straw-manning, either.



6. God is Not Provable

Argument: It is impossible to prove or disprove that God exists simply because there exists no methodology to quantitatively do so.

Counter-Argument: Inability to prove only proves inability. It does not constitute any empirical justification for non-existence. In fact, this proves that picking either side of the meta-physical fence is only a matter of personal conviction - which by proxy is also proof that atheism is a faith.


Mind you, it's also worth pointing out that he, like most other theists, has defined his own God. One that he finds comforting, and that he therefore thinks is correct (and everybody else wrong, probably because they have no proof...). He uses this preferred definition to attempt to work around the typical problems associated with the concept of god.

Of course, he still lacks any proof.
And I have no reason to believe in something espoused by one man without proof.
After all, you don't believe I'm an alien opera star, do you?

[Lucian]

So we can find proof of God's existence in dog crap?
Or am I reading this wrong?

We could find proof in dog crap, but sadly it has been destroyed by the doggy digestive process.

A side-note concerning the existence to God as it relates to canine eating habits:

A few months after my father died, I was visiting my mother and taking her to do errands (she doesn't drive). We were going to the bank so she could deposit her federal tax refund and Social Security check, among other things. When we got to the car, my mother realized she didn't have the checks with her. Apparently, they had fallen on the floor where they were discovered and nibbled by the Golden Retriever, very uncharacteristic behavior for him. Most of the checks were unscathed, but the tax check and the SS check had been rendered undepositable.

If there were a benevolent god, don't you think he would have sufficient respect for human dignity that he would not place an eldery woman in a situation where she is forced to go to two federal agencies and say, "The dog ate my check"?

[YeahDude]

6. God is Not Provable

Argument: It is impossible to prove or disprove that God exists simply because there exists no methodology to quantitatively do so.

Counter-Argument: Inability to prove only proves inability. It does not constitute any empirical justification for non-existence. In fact, this proves that picking either side of the meta-physical fence is only a matter of personal conviction - which by proxy is also proof that atheism is a faith.


This is the kind of thing that aggravates me. Because I require proof, I am using faith? HUH?

[shawmutt]

You're joking! This responds to itself!

Consider this: If a dog didn't really eat your pupil's homework, how’s he going to prove it? Examining the bowel movement of the animal won't work--assuming your homework was written on paper, it could have already become an indistinguishable, finely digested mulch at that point. Your skepticism about his story is palpable though, largely because of his inability to prove it and the unlikelihood of its occurrence. Does your lack of certainty about his story prove that it is true? No. Yet, this is how believers think. They believe that whatever can possibly be believed is true. Believers love this technique for asserting the "possible" existence of God. While that is true on some level, it’s easily the worst way to make any kind of assertive claim of anything.

Believers are people who only believe because they can possibly believe. Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea. Their system of unstructured belief applies not just to religion, but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue for religion or theism as a matter of specific contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven false can be rationally accepted, especially from an emotional perspective.

Hmm...I need to get better at linking. When I link a post like this, I only quote a portion, but I'm referring to the whole article. The first premise is the easy one (well, honesty they all are), but trying to write up a consise reply is the difficult part.

[Pardalis]

Wow, agnostic fundamentalism. Who would have thunk it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

So no serious responce.

Not for you. I've beaten my head against enough immutable and immovable true non-believers here know I'd be wasting my time. I'd rather use it discussing the issue rationally with people who aren't so insistant on atheist orthodoxy for skepticism.

It is fully possible to believe in ESP and make no testable claims. So all sorts of true believers can also be skeptics. You can believe in Young Earth Creationism and make no testable claims, so creationism is compatable with skepticism.

:confused: Whatever point you think you're making, it's a little too obtuse.

[FSM]

Ding, FTW!

The teacher doesn't believe "a dog ate my homework" because the child is probably lying, not because it's implausible on a physics level.

Now if the brat were to come in and say, "A level 12 Drow Wizard used a wand of disintegration on it!" then the teacher would be correct in doubting the story because it's physically impossible.


It's identical with claims of a god planning to throw you into Hell. It's that simple.


Exactly!

Also, to torture this cliched metaphor even further (and Roadtoad was pissed because of the chair metaphor... wait'll he sees this dog crap metaphor!)

A more accurate comparison would be thus:

The child would have to say, "The dog ate my homework."

His best friend would have to say, "I believe he didn't do his homework at all."

His mother would have to say, "I believe he did his homework, because he's such a good boy, but he dropped it somewhere on the way to school."

And his sister would have to say, "He's an ass and as such I believe he rolled it up and smoked it."

The teacher (being the non-skeptic that she is) might want to weed through all of these and perhaps pick one. How would that process go, exactly? How do you suddenly employ logic and require evidence and support when you have programmed yourself to think that doubt is bad or an unacceptable position from where to begin?

Perhaps the teacher would just blindly choose the first excuse that came to her attention and then stand by that until the bitter end out of stubborness? Then she would have to cover her eyes and ears and sing really loud "LA LA LA!" when the best friend, the mother, and the sister show up with different beliefs. Or maybe the teacher would start a fancy blog, with pretty waterfall pictures and spend hundreds of words doing logistic gymnastics consistent with the first story she got about the homework?

How difficult!

If I was the teacher I'd be okay saying that I didn't know how his homework didn't get to class. I'd say there isn't enough to go on. I don't think I'd accuse him of lying unless I had some sort of conflicting information.

Then I'd say I don't really care how his homework didn't get turned in.

I'd say that it's still a student's responsibilty to keep homework safe from canine threat and that not having it completed and turned in is a problem no matter the excuse.

(I know that last part makes no sense in terms of the metaphor... but that's what I'd do... :) )

[arthwollipot]

Wow, agnostic fundamentalism. Who would have thunk it?I believe in Strong Agnosticism if that helps.

Strong agnosticism is where it is fundamentally impossible to know whether or not a god exists. The upshot of this is that a god cannot have any possible measurable effect on the universe - otherwise its existence would be knowable.

Therefore a universe with a god is functionally and operationally indistinguishable from a universe without a god.

[SusanB-M1]

#36 fsm

:d:d

[ImaginalDisc]

I believe in Strong Agnosticism if that helps.

Strong agnosticism is where it is fundamentally impossible to know whether or not a god exists. The upshot of this is that a god cannot have any possible measurable effect on the universe - otherwise its existence would be knowable.

Therefore a universe with a god is functionally and operationally indistinguishable from a universe without a god.

Um, why would it impossible to know whether or not a god exists? Lightning bolts hurled at unbelievers, miraculous limb regrowth, and stopping the sun in the sky with a prayer would be perfectly fine evidence.

The only god ho would be unprovable is an impotent one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I need somewhere to park this until I can get back to it at a later time.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jennifer+F.+Conversion+Diary

[Rodibidably]

So no serious responce. It is fully possible to believe in ESP and make no testable claims. So all sorts of true believers can also be skeptics. You can believe in Young Earth Creationism and make no testable claims, so creationism is compatable with skepticism.
Umm, actually Young Earth Creationism by definition makes testable claims, the least of which is the age of the earth being young (it's in the name and everything)....
ESP makes testable claims, such as there being more sense then the "typical" 5 known senses.

Got any other examples?

[FSM]

I need somewhere to park this until I can get back to it at a later time.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jennifer+F.+Conversion+Diary

"All I can say is that I am not intentionally stating an untruth when I say that my life changed in a radical, profound way, inside and out, when I began giving God's existence the benefit of the doubt, and that I am certain it came from something outside of myself. When I have acted as if God exists, setting aside cynicism and approaching it with humility and an open heart, I have seen the results that you would expect to see if he did exist. When I have followed the prescription that it is said the Perfect Doctor has prescribed, it has indeed worked to heal, even when I was sure it wouldn't."

Once she was blind but now she sees.

It seems that she is happy, and for that I am glad for her.

But I see her a conversion ancedote and raise her this one:

“And I thought and thought and thought. But I just didn’t have enough to go on, so I didn’t really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn’t know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe, and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins’s books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker, and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I’d take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.”

Douglas Adams The Salmon of Doubt, p 99.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

Additionally, we might be gaining...

http://video.thechurchofgoogle.com/religion/religion-video/losing-your-religion-survey-growing-number-of-atheists-religion-declining.video

[Magyar]

miricles of miricles, not a single discending comment questioning the wisdom of the author. I wonder why ?

[shawmutt]

Douglas Adams The Salmon of Doubt, p 99.

I have that book sitting on my shelf and have yet to read it (package deal from Amazon for the leatherbound HGTTG). I'll have to give it a read.

In any case, it seems the author of this blog is not interested in entertaining comments or discussion, so yet another bookmark gets deleted. Back to the front!

Thanks for your comments all, they were very helpful and insightful.

[ponderingturtle]

:confused: Whatever point you think you're making, it's a little too obtuse.

That you can not separate a belief in god from a belief in a lot of woo. There are three classifications of beliefs, those supported by evidence, those contradicted by evidence and those who can not be supported or contradicted by evidence.

Woo claims about the same thing can be in either of the latter two categories, it does not depend on what the claim is about but the specifics of the claim. One can believe that the royal blood line are gods on earth, that would be a belief in god that can be tested. One can also believe in a biblical literal creation, if one believe that this is supported by science then they have a belief that can be contradicted. IF they believe that god or the devil or some other supernatural agency concealed all the evidence so that there can not be any evidence of the true creation of the earth, why can't that person be a good skeptic?

So creationists vs skeptics would be a false dichotomy.

[ponderingturtle]

Umm, actually Young Earth Creationism by definition makes testable claims, the least of which is the age of the earth being young (it's in the name and everything)....

No, it is easy to say that as proof would errode faith, that the evidence of all this would be concealed by god. Or that the devil is trying to lead people astray from the true faith and planted all the evidence against it.

Scientific creationism makes claims, but Young Earth Creationism can make testable claims or not.

ESP makes testable claims, such as there being more sense then the "typical" 5 known senses.

You can't dismiss such claims with out looking at the specific claims being made by an individual. IF you believe in precognition but not in any kind of testable fashion, then it becomes impossible to test.

[Pardalis]

I believe in Strong Agnosticism if that helps.

Strong agnosticism is where it is fundamentally impossible to know whether or not a god exists. The upshot of this is that a god cannot have any possible measurable effect on the universe - otherwise its existence would be knowable.

Therefore a universe with a god is functionally and operationally indistinguishable from a universe without a god.

Then why bother with the concept of god to begin with?

[UnrepentantSinner]

That {snip}

You seem to have missed the important part of my post above.

Not for you. I've beaten my head against enough immutable and immovable true non-believers here know I'd be wasting my time. I'd rather use it discussing the issue rationally with people who aren't so insistant on atheist orthodoxy for skepticism.

[arthwollipot]

Um, why would it impossible to know whether or not a god exists? Lightning bolts hurled at unbelievers, miraculous limb regrowth, and stopping the sun in the sky with a prayer would be perfectly fine evidence....that is entirely missing.

The only god ho would be unprovable is an impotent one.Which is kinda my point.

Then why bother with the concept of god to begin with?By George!

Strong agnosticism is, in my opinion, the most convincing argument for atheism. My opinion will probably change in the future. After all, it has in the past.

[FSM]

... god ho ...

I might have to ask for a new Custom Title... :)

[Roadtoad]

Wow. Dog crap as a metaphor for god.

Why does that seem oddly appropriate, given those who speak for him?

[JetLeg]

http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/atheism-exposed-skepticism/



Consider this: If a dog really did eat your homework, how’re you going to prove it? You could examine the bowel movement of the animal. However, assuming your homework was written on paper, it would have already become an indistinguishable, finely digested mulch at that point. The teacher’s skepticism about your story is palpable though, largely because of their inability to prove it and the unlikelihood of its occurrence. Does your teacher’s doubt about your story prove that it isn’t true? No. Yet, this is how skeptics think. They believe that whatever can be doubted is not likely to be true. Skeptical Atheists love this technique for asserting the “likely” non existence of God. While that is true on some level, it’s easily the worst way to make any kind of assertive proof of anything.

Skeptics are people who only believe in what they cannot doubt. Their system of belief is based on the Cartesian principle of the same idea (which curiously, was actually developed in an attempt to prove the existence of God!). Their system of structured belief applies not just to religion, but to science, philosophy, politics and everything in between. As such, they don’t argue against religion or theism as a matter of specific contention. Rather, they argue for the general idea that what cannot be proven cannot be rationally accepted, especially from an empirical perspective.

I'm dumb and slow, and working on a response. Maybe some smarter folks can get their own comments in before I get done (wink wink, nudge nudge).


It is true that Descares wanted only to believe in what he couldn't doubt.

(Some view it as a major problem of his system. ).





It is just not true to call this view skepticism. It is usually called the cartesian method of doubt, or the cartesian method of categorical doubt. And it is just wrong to say that most modern atheists hold this view.
Just read what they say, and you will find it wrong.

----

By the way, we can doubt that evolution is right. This is why we use science to come to conclusions - not to give us the truth that can't be doubted, but to give us the idea that is the most likely true.

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to have missed the important part of my post above.

So any discussion of what people can believe or not and legitimately claim to be skeptics is pointless. Everyone who applies the title to themselves is equally skeptical.

[KingMerv00]

I do wonder though what supernatural beliefs like god can someone have and still be reasonably considered a skeptic.

What if a person comes to the wrong conclusion because they are constantly bombarded with bad information or trust in bad authorities?

(Please don't tell me you don't get some information from certain authorities.)

[ponderingturtle]

What if a person comes to the wrong conclusion because they are constantly bombarded with bad information or trust in bad authorities?

(Please don't tell me you don't get some information from certain authorities.)

I don't really have a good answer, I just recognise that you can't make clean distinctions between acceptable supernatural beliefs and unacceptable supernatural beliefs. A deist position is not very different than at least some biblical literalist creationist positions. As long as the belief makes no evidencial claims why should you distinguish them?

[ImaginalDisc]

...that is entirely missing.

Which is kinda my point.

By George!

Strong agnosticism is, in my opinion, the most convincing argument for atheism. My opinion will probably change in the future. After all, it has in the past.

I think one or both of us are confused about what agnosticism is.

From the wikipedia article.

—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

I know of no organized religion which claims and entirely distant, uninvolved, and unprovable God, so the Strong Agnostic position may win points in an entirely academic debate but it does nothing to address the god claims of actual religious people.

The only person you could conceivably have that sort of discussion with is a deist and there's precious little for an atheist and a deist to argue over.

[Beerina]

Exactly!

Also, to torture this cliched metaphor even further (and Roadtoad was pissed because of the chair metaphor... wait'll he sees this dog crap metaphor!)

A more accurate comparison would be thus:

The child would have to say, "The dog ate my homework."

His best friend would have to say, "I believe he didn't do his homework at all."

His mother would have to say, "I believe he did his homework, because he's such a good boy, but he dropped it somewhere on the way to school."

And his sister would have to say, "He's an ass and as such I believe he rolled it up and smoked it."

The teacher (being the non-skeptic that she is) might want to weed through all of these and perhaps pick one. How would that process go, exactly? How do you suddenly employ logic and require evidence and support when you have programmed yourself to think that doubt is bad or an unacceptable position from where to begin?

Perhaps the teacher would just blindly choose the first excuse that came to her attention and then stand by that until the bitter end out of stubborness? Then she would have to cover her eyes and ears and sing really loud "LA LA LA!" when the best friend, the mother, and the sister show up with different beliefs. Or maybe the teacher would start a fancy blog, with pretty waterfall pictures and spend hundreds of words doing logistic gymnastics consistent with the first story she got about the homework?

How difficult!

If I was the teacher I'd be okay saying that I didn't know how his homework didn't get to class. I'd say there isn't enough to go on. I don't think I'd accuse him of lying unless I had some sort of conflicting information.

Then I'd say I don't really care how his homework didn't get turned in.

I'd say that it's still a student's responsibilty to keep homework safe from canine threat and that not having it completed and turned in is a problem no matter the excuse.

(I know that last part makes no sense in terms of the metaphor... but that's what I'd do... :) )



Teacher: Hmmm. Kid says a dog ate it. Mom is sure he did it and must have lost it on the way to school. So I guess the kid thought to himself, "Golly! The teacher will never believe I did it but lost it on the way in. So I'll say something far more believable like a dog ate it." From this I conclude the child is an idiot, and probably would have gotten an E on the assignment anyway. E!

[FSM]

Yeah!

Or alternately the person torturing the already stupid metaphor is an idiot.

:)

An E!

[KingMerv00]

I don't really have a good answer, I just recognise that you can't make clean distinctions between acceptable supernatural beliefs and unacceptable supernatural beliefs. A deist position is not very different than at least some biblical literalist creationist positions. As long as the belief makes no evidencial claims why should you distinguish them?

I think being skeptical isn't about the beliefs you have, it is about what you do with the information available to you.

Those of us with access to the internet may scoff at Stone Age beliefs but I don't think most of us would believe differently if we were thrust into that time period.

[ponderingturtle]

I think being skeptical isn't about the beliefs you have, it is about what you do with the information available to you.

Those of us with access to the internet may scoff at Stone Age beliefs but I don't think most of us would believe differently if we were thrust into that time period.

This is very close to what I believe. That you can have skeptical beliefs, and try to apply skepticism to your beliefs but everyone has beliefs that are not based on evidence. This is about value judgments and the like. It is the idea that some supernatural beliefs are better than others.

I don't see any real difference between deism and non evidential biblical literal creationism. It just bothers me when we pretend that mainstream religion is any different from more fringe beliefs.

This is different from holding beliefs that are disproved by evidence. Scientific Creationism would be a perfect example of such a belief.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So any discussion of what people can believe or not and legitimately claim to be skeptics is pointless. Everyone who applies the title to themselves is equally skeptical.

Straw men are so easy to knock down once you set them up.

[arthwollipot]

I think one or both of us are confused about what agnosticism is.

From the wikipedia article.



I know of no organized religion which claims and entirely distant, uninvolved, and unprovable God, so the Strong Agnostic position may win points in an entirely academic debate but it does nothing to address the god claims of actual religious people.

The only person you could conceivably have that sort of discussion with is a deist and there's precious little for an atheist and a deist to argue over.Hey, I didn't say it was a mainstream point of view. It does, however, hold a certain kind of logic.

[ponderingturtle]

Straw men are so easy to knock down once you set them up.

Good to know that all creationists follow creation science then. No one actually holds the position that fossils were planted by a supernatural agency to test/misslead the faithful.

edit:Kurt Wise must be a straw person then