Why Penn Jillette’s remarks really, REALLY bother me

[shanek]

For those of you who attended TAM2, you’ll recall some remarks made by Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller, saying (in effect) that any skeptic should be an atheist and calling people who believe in a deity "f*cking retarted," a remark which seemed to have a good amount of support from the audience. This didn't really bother me at first, since I'm not exactly a theist, but the more I think about it and the more I discuss it with others, the more it bothers and upsets me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge P&T fan and admire them both greatly. But Penn is human, after all, subject to the same failings and foibles as the rest of us, and the impression I'm left with is that he needs someone to whack him upside the head (metaphorically speaking—I would never condone violence) to remind him of it. Skepticism is NOT about the conclusions we draw; it is about the process we use to come to those conclusions. Reasonable people can disagree, as long as they disagree reasonably. And Penn's disagreement is NOT reasonable. Is he saying that everyone who joins the skeptics movement must agree with every single conclusion held by the majority? And if not, then why is this one issue so important?

Even worse, who the F*CK is he to go calling people who disagree with him "f*cking retarded"? Here's a little tip for you: The assertion that there definitively is no god is exactly as irrational as the assertion that there definitively is a god. You could make the argument that it is reasonable to conclude the absence of a deity in the lack of evidence for the existence of one, but the absolute rejection of the idea that a reasonable person could believe in a god is as unreasonable and intolerant as the Christian Fundamentalists that get (and deserve) so much vitriol. I believe that, if you're going to rely solely on skeptical thought to reach a conclusion on this issue, the most reasonable conclusion is, "Who the f*ck cares?" It doesn't seem to make any difference to anything at all that we have ever scientifically, skeptically, and rationally observed whether there is a god or not. That is obviously not the conclusion Penn has drawn. But I would NEVER call him "f*cking retarted" for it. He isn't; he is obviously an extremely intelligent man.

But he's an extremely intelligent man who should know better. He knows perfectly well of the lizard-brain we all have inside us; he's mentioned the effect in his show many times. But now, all of a sudden, this one issue becomes a litmus test for who is a skeptic and who isn't? And who is retarded or who isn't? Are we now only to allow people to join us who think the way we do? As a skeptic, I find that idea highly offensive, and so, I think, should other skeptics. This is about free thinking, not saying the right thing to please other people; and in that, we have to allow for the fact that some people just aren't going to agree with us even if we are a 6'7" celebrity with a loud voice. But the lizard-brain that lurks in the depths of our evolutionary past can swell up when we're not looking, especially in areas that have a particular emotional attachment for us. I don't know if such is the case with Penn or not, but there certainly seems to be a disproportionate amount of repulsion for theists, which for Penn is saying a lot. Was the surprisingly delightful Julia Sweeney "f*cking retarded" for most of her life? Did she suddenly stop being retarded when she switched to atheism? Is this a litmus test?

I, as most of you know, am a Libertarian, as is Penn. I came at my Libertarianism through years of skeptical examination of government and government programs. I fully believe that Libertarianism is the logical result of a skeptical examination of government, since it is such an abject failure in so many ways that it's bizarre to think that it could be relied on or be "reformed." And as many of you know, I don't have any qualms whatsoever about loosing my vitriol on those who engage in sloppy thinking and even disingenuity to try and avoid that conclusion. I am much like Penn in that regard. But I would NEVER call non-Libertarians "f*cking retarded," and no one here has ever seen me make such a blanket statement. The only time I get bent out of shape is when people abandon skeptical thought to do so.

All of this really bothers me, and I'd hate to think of Penn's position as being the perception that outsiders have of our movement. I admire him no less, although I do see him as a little more human than I did before, but more and more I have the desire to go shout in his face, "What the F*CK is wrong with you? Disengage the lizard-brain that brought us tragedies like 9/11 and realize that reasonable people just might be able to come to a different conclusion to the one you have arrived at, and realize that there are many different paths to get to the same place, and that people need to think freely in order to use the tools of skeptical though to arrive there. As such, we will all be individuals who may not agree 100% of the time, but recognizing that the opinions of other skeptics deserve respect and consideration even when we do disagree. If we do that, who knows? We just might be able to come together and reach an even greater conclusion."

After all, isn't that what skepticism is really about?

[Cleopatra]

Has anybody of you expressed his/her disagreement to him?


Cleopatra the retarded.

[Nyarlathotep]

I am kind of torn on his comments myself. I don't like the idea of calling anyone who disagrees with ones view a retard, because so doing adds nothing to the debate except to make it more emotional, but I otherwise agree with his opinion. As you said, skepticism is about a process and not about the conclusions we draw, however I don't see how a skeptical process that leads to rejection of paranormal claims cannot also lead to the rejection of deities, provided that one is being equally honest with oneself in examining both things. In short, I agree with what he said, just not the way he said it.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Has anybody of you expressed his/her disagreement to him?


Cleopatra the retarded. I am an atheist, and I disagreed with Penn. Among my notes from that talk:

The claim that "they're mentally ill"
Is the worst kind of ignorant swill.
The way the brain works
Covers all kinds of jerks
Just as well as a "genius" it will.

[Foofer]

I think many skeptics have trouble understanding how a fellow skeptic could possibly believe in the existence of a god, just as it would be odd to hear a skeptic saying that he or she believes in astrology or reflexology.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Has anybody of you expressed his/her disagreement to him?

As I said, it didn't really bother me at first, only after I thought about it awhile. So the couple of times I had a chance to speak to him was before I really sat down and thought about it.

[Chanileslie]

I don't ever agree with calling people names, especially retarded - that is a sore point with me anyway due to my disabled child. But other than that, I have to say Penn Jillette's attitude is very similar to my own, he is just less nice about it. I agree completely that one must be honest in their viewpoints and should share those honestly.

Skepticism is about the process - to look at the facts and evidence and base your decisions on those rather than some etheral, magical excuse. I personally don't see how anyone who is a skeptic can not be an atheist - there is no evidence what so ever to point to the existence of a god, and to assume one may or may not exist or that one can not decide is as absurd to me as saying that I must withhold a solid opinion on whether fairies exist. I will say resolutely that no fairies or gods exist. If evidence to the contrary should appear, then I will reconsider my position, but I am positive in my own mind that no such evidence exists. I think it is important that we use our critical thinking skills, and I don't think that we should stop being skeptical about a particular issue just because we want to believe or because a good majority of people insist that it is true. That being said, I can accept that others may hold a different opinion.

Do I think you are an idiot to believe or to withhold an opinion on whether a god exists or doesn't exist? No, but I also don't think you are completely rational on that issue either. But god is a prevalent belief in our world, and I think that unfortunately clouds many people's judgement on the issue and I can understand that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I am kind of torn on his comments myself. I don't like the idea of calling anyone who disagrees with ones view a retard, because so doing adds nothing to the debate except to make it more emotional, but I otherwise agree with his opinion. As you said, skepticism is about a process and not about the conclusions we draw, however I don't see how a skeptical process that leads to rejection of paranormal claims cannot also lead to the rejection of deities, provided that one is being equally honest with oneself in examining both things. In short, I agree with what he said, just not the way he said it.

That isn't the point, though. His remarks were very exclusionary and heavily implied that you couldn't be considered a skeptic if you believed in God. It was a real us-against-them rant, that had more to do with the lizard-brain than the skeptic.

[Girl 6]

Shane,

I totally agree with what you have said in your opening remarks in this thread. In fact, I was planning to start a thread on this yesterday, but I was still too tired from all of the events.

Let me just add that I observed what is close to what I would call a REVIVAL during Penn's comments. Yes, people. I felt like I was in a church! And, yes, I know about these things because I was once a believer. All the congregation needed to do was to say "Amen."

Further, I stood up to address this very same thing during the last chance we had to ask questions of Randi. But, unfortunately, Hal decided that we were "behind" schedule. So, I never got a chance to express my disgust for the name-calling and bashing that I saw in full effect at the conference.

I also overheard, to my dismay, that some deists were so uncomfortable that they declared they would stop supporting the JREF. That is NOT a good thing and we should address this.

G6

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
I personally don't see how anyone who is a skeptic can not be an atheist - there is no evidence what so ever to point to the existence of a god, and to assume one may or may not exist or that one can not decide is as absurd to me as saying that I must withhold a solid opinion on whether fairies exist.

There is a difference: If fairies exist, then there are ways of testing that. Photographs (like the ones taken by those two little girls who fooled Arthur Conan Doyle) would be nice, provided they could be shown not to be faked. There are ways we could try to find fairies, mermaids, unicorns, etc., so those are examinable claims, and in the absence of such corroborating evidence it is very reasonable to conclude that fairies don't exist, and that those who believe in them are not skeptics.

Likewise, many of the claims of theists are testable: the healing power of prayer, for example. Again, in the absence of corroborating evidence, and in light of studies that show no statistical effect, it is reasonable to conclude that prayer does nothing for healing, and that those who believe it does are not skeptics.

The god thing itself is an entirely different manner. How would you test, for example, the Deist version of God, as being one who jump-started the Universe and then just left it running? How does the existance or otherwise of a god or gods have anything to do really with how we view the universe? We reasonably conclude that there is no god, not because the idea has been tested and not verified, but because the idea cannot be tested at all and we're going solely by Occam's Razor. That's a fine, debatable point, but again, saying that it's a logical conclusion of skepticism is NOT the same thing as saying that theists aren't "true" skeptics. That's the point I was making with Libertarianism above: Libertarianism is arguiably the inevitable result, I believe, of a skeptical examination of government, but I would never say that non-Libertarians aren't "true" skeptics or are "f*cking retarded."

It's one thing to reach a conclusion. It's another thing entirely to use that conclusion for an "us-against-them" exclusionary worldview. Every human being is intelligent and capable of rational thought, and ideas you've grown up with your whole life aren't easy to just discard. Further, intelligence is no guarantee of anything—I know of many intelligent people who believe all kinds of weird woo-woo stuff.

It's fine to conclude there is no god; that is my conclusion as well. But it is NOT fine to exclude others solely on the basis of one issue that doesn't seem to really measure up to things like homeopathy. It's hateful, it's disrespectful, and it accomplishes nothing.

Do I think you are an idiot to believe or to withhold an opinion on whether a god exists or doesn't exist?

I never said I was withholding my opinion. I've concluded that there is no god. But again, that's not the point.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


That isn't the point, though. His remarks were very exclusionary and heavily implied that you couldn't be considered a skeptic if you believed in God. It was a real us-against-them rant, that had more to do with the lizard-brain than the skeptic.

I guess it depends on how you define skeptic. For example could I say I am a skeptic but I believed in the Loch Ness Monster, even though I have no evidence for the Loch Ness Monsters existence? What makes a claim that God exists any different than a claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists? I don't see it as us-against-them so much as I see it as not giving a specific claim (the existence of God) a free pass. Granted, I still wouldn't call a believer in God a "mentally ill retard" anymore than I would call a believer in the Loch Ness Monster a "mentally ill retard" but anyone who claims that God does exist should expect that claim to be met with the same level of skepticism as would the person who claims that the Loch Ness Monster exists. That's my opinion on it anyway.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Let me just add that I observed what is close to what I would call a REVIVAL during Penn's comments. Yes, people. I felt like I was in a church! And, yes, I know about these things because I was once a believer. All the congregation needed to do was to say "Amen."

That is absolutely the impression I got as well. I was wondering if I was the only one.

I also overheard, to my dismay, that some deists were so uncomfortable that they declared they would stop supporting the JREF. That is NOT a good thing and we should address this.

I hadn't heard that...that IS bad.

[Clancie]

I wish someone had asked Penn if he considers deist (and co-CSICOP founder) Martin Gardner a "f*cking retarded."

And why not call non-atheists "stupid" rather the (now gratuitous insult that I thought only "stupid" people used) "retarded"? "Retarded" is actually a specific word for a specific disability--one that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's belief system. Not a very impressive skeptical "critique".

Narrow-minded bigotry is far worse, imo, than a non-proselytizing belief in God could ever be.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
What makes a claim that God exists any different than a claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists?

Because the latter is a testable claim and the former isn't. We know where Nessie should be, what size, etc. We have photographic, sonar, ultrasound, and other technologies that should tell us if something big is down there. With every real test, we have seen nothing. Again, although many of the tenets of believers are testable, the core belief in god is not, and therefore outside the realm of what we can skeptically examine. How would a universe with a god be any different than a universe without a god? How can we answer these questions when people can't even get together and agree on what god is?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Clancie
Narrow-minded bigotry is far worse, imo, than a non-proselytizing belief in God could ever be.

No.

Our lack of confronting Penn and others about their intolerance is the worst thing of all. I certainly don't want to think that my silence means acceptance.

G6

[Phil]

Perhaps you're making too much of this.

I agree with Ny and Chani. Loud and forceful is the way he presents his ideas. Penn is an admitted carnival freak, a fire-eater, a huckster type, a barker for god's sake. You say you're a fan, so you know that he's an in-your-face entertainer. He had an audience, man. He was speaking in front of four hundred fairly like-minded people and he used the opportunity to get a reaction. That's all.

He's no more a top leader of the skeptic movement than Al Franken or Bill O'Reilly are political leaders. They're entertainers. Period.

[EvilYeti]

I would not have a problem with Penn's comments, in general, as I of course support his right of free expression. If he chooses to make himself look like a bigoted jackass, hey more power to him.

What I do have a problem is with him using the panel discussion as pulpit to endorse his political and religious beliefs. And mark my words, Penn's particular brand of atheism is just as dogmatic, fundamentalist and intolerant as any conservative X-tian or Muslim fundie.

Such ranting does nothing to further the mission of the JREF. I even heard one anecdotal report of a conference attendee not wanting to have anything to do with the JREF as a result of his outbursts. Not good.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Phil
Perhaps you're making too much of this.

I agree with Ny and Chani. Loud and forceful is the way he presents his ideas. Penn is an admitted carnival freak, a fire-eater, a huckster type, a barker for god's sake. You say you're a fan, so you know that he's an in-your-face entertainer. He had an audience, man. He was speaking in front of four hundred fairly like-minded people and he used the opportunity to get a reaction. That's all.

He's no more a top leader of the skeptic movement than Al Franken or Bill O'Reilly are political leaders. They're entertainers. Period.

He's not a leader, but he IS a role model to some people.

And yes, I'll allow for the fact that he is an entertainer, but other presenters shared his viewpoint. So, for all intents and purposes, he was representing the mainstream opinion.

Besides, we need someone to pick on besides, Hal... ;)

G6

[shanek]

Originally posted by Phil
I agree with Ny and Chani. Loud and forceful is the way he presents his ideas. Penn is an admitted carnival freak, a fire-eater, a huckster type, a barker for god's sake. You say you're a fan, so you know that he's an in-your-face entertainer. He had an audience, man. He was speaking in front of four hundred fairly like-minded people and he used the opportunity to get a reaction. That's all.

He's no more a top leader of the skeptic movement than Al Franken or Bill O'Reilly are political leaders. They're entertainers. Period.

Not really. One of the things that makes me such a big P&T fan is the respect that they have for the truth. And when I see him make a blanket statement like that that borders on bigotry, I feel I just have to call him on it.

[Chaos]

I agree with Shanek on this topic.

If it was proven that god doesn´t exist, I´d have no problem with Penn calling deists whatever invective he likes.

But as things are, the existence of god is a (though probably very unlikely) theory - which I chose to consider wrong, by the way.

Okay, it is, IMHO, not possible to disprove god´s existence, but I guess proving that there is no "divine influence" anywhere in the universe would achieve just about the same. Since that did not yet happen (god might, for example, have been the one who "set" the laws of physics), I think it is too early to call deists names.

On the other hands, had Penn limited his remark to fundamentalists of any kind, I would have agreed whole-heartedly.

[Pirate_Lad]

I hadn't even given Penn's comments a second thought until I read this post.

Being a guy that is used to heavy, heavy sarcasm, I laughed and clapped at his ranting. I admit, I found it amusing. It was nice to have someone slamming (har-de-har) christianity for a change. A turning of the tables, so to speak. My circle of friends has a wide range of beliefs. We call each other all kinds of nasty names, thinking very little of it. So a tangent like Penn's isn't nearly as surprising to ME as it probably was to many in the audience. Obviously, this doesn't make it right.

Usually, I have a hard time sympathising with christians over their percieved woes. But after reading through some excellent points brought up by Shanek, I think I agree with him. The comments made by Penn were much more suitable for one of the after-parties at the bar and not an educational conference.

If some of the christian members of the JREF were so offended by Penn's remarks that they are considering withdrawing their support, then perhaps he was more out of line than I first thought.

I would like to remind any christian members reading right now, who were well & truly offended by Penn's remarks to try to keep in mind that like any large body of people, we have our extremes. Obviously, everyone will not agree with some aspects of Penn's rant, just as some people will contend with certain aspects of Mr. Randi's opinions, and so on & so forth. Just because he said some offensive things at TAM doesn't mean every atheist skeptic agrees with him.

More on this later, provided the flames don't get too hot.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
For those of you who attended TAM2, you’ll recall some remarks [...] calling people who believe in a deity "f***ing retarded," [...]
Start with the statement, "A person who believes in a deity is not a Bright."

Start making statements that are more emphatic and, before you know it, you arrive at the remark.

[Foofer]

I guess I’m in the minority here, but I rather appreciate Penn’s style. He elicits a strong reaction from people, which I think is great. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he gets people thinking. It’s easy to get complacent with our ideas and I like the thought of someone shaking things up. It would be a shame if some deists pulled support for JREF just because Penn’s remarks were not polite and many of the audience agreed with him. It’s not the Penn Jillette Educational Foundation, after all. Anyone that thinks the job that James Randi is doing is vital should support JREF, regardless of the opinions, and style of expressing those opinions, of Penn or anyone else. We’re all different with diverse views and I think that’s good. If we politely agreed with each other all the time, life would be terribly dull.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Shane,

I also overheard, to my dismay, that some deists were so uncomfortable that they declared they would stop supporting the JREF. That is NOT a good thing and we should address this.

G6

I think it would be sad if someone were to choose not to support the JREF because they disagree with the opinion of another person, but the point is that it is tantamount in my opinion to emotional blackmail - I don't like his opinion, so I'm taking my ball and going home. There were several other members of the panel that took an opposite stance from Penn's. I think these are sad people if they choose to eshew an entire organization based on one opinion or a differing opinion. Quite frankly, during the panel discussion, several panel members voiced opinions with which I completely disagree.

I don't agree with name calling though.

[Clancie]

Posted by Shanek

One of the things that makes me such a big P&T fan is the respect that they have for the truth. And when I see him make a blanket statement like that that borders on bigotry, I feel I just have to call him on it
Ummm....well, its good you brought it out into open discussion here...but who's going to share this constructive critical feedback with Penn? :confused:

[The idea]

Originally posted by Foofer
If we politely agreed with each other all the time, life would be terribly dull.
If we politely disagreed with each other, would life be terribly dull?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Foofer

{snip}

It’s not the Penn Jillette Educational Foundation, after all. Anyone that thinks the job that James Randi is doing is vital should support JREF, regardless of the opinions, and style of expressing those opinions, of Penn or anyone else. We’re all different with diverse views and I think that’s good. If we politely agreed with each other all the time, life would be terribly dull.

It's one thing to disagree and another thing to resort to name calling. I disagree with believers, but I have tried not to get to the point of calling them names or disrespecting them. I have only flamed ONE person on this forum since my inception. Frankly, I have regretted that.

Respect should be given to all people unless they are absolute monsters.

G6

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Foofer
I think many skeptics have trouble understanding how a fellow skeptic could possibly believe in the existence of a god

Since when skepticism means atheism?

I understand that since PJ felt that he was talking to a friendly audience he felt that he could exaggerate a bit. I understand that skeptics felt comfortable in resorting to name calling. These are normal.

What interests me is the feeling the Girl 6 observed. The feeling that she was in church :)

Was Michael Shermer present to this discussion? How come he didn't remind him of Michael Gardner as Clancie said, after all Shermer mentions Gardner to his books as an example of a skeptic-theist all the time.
edited to add: Personally I don't care at all if people think that I am retarted because I am not an atheist.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


Because the latter is a testable claim and the former isn't. We know where Nessie should be, what size, etc. We have photographic, sonar, ultrasound, and other technologies that should tell us if something big is down there. With every real test, we have seen nothing. Again, although many of the tenets of believers are testable, the core belief in god is not, and therefore outside the realm of what we can skeptically examine. How would a universe with a god be any different than a universe without a god? How can we answer these questions when people can't even get together and agree on what god is?

Yes but the real gist of my question is could someone honestly call themselves a skeptic if they said they accepted the Loch Ness Monster's existence even though they have no proof? If the answer to this is no, why should a claim about the existence of God be treated any differently? The fact that God may be unprovable (especially if he is unprovable because he has no effect on the universe) isn't relevant in my opinion because if he isn't provable, what reason is there to suggest his existence in the first place? I still don't see a reason to treat the question of God's existence differently than any other supernatural claim.

I also think the context of the statement is getting lost here. Granted, what I have just said in the previous paragraph isn't quite "Religious People are a bunch of mentally ill retards" and I never could agree with that particular statement (heck, the friend we had watching our kids while we went to TAM is religious and I would never put my kids in the hands of a mentally ill retard for four days) but his statements were in the larger context of a discussion of whether atheism and skepticism are the same thing and he was saying (in an unfortunate manner) that they were. I still agree with him on the larger point.

[Girl 6]

I find it fascinating that atheism and skepticism are being equated. If anything, this very fact will cause a schism in the so-called skeptical movement.

G6

[darling]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Has anybody of you expressed his/her disagreement to him? I believe the phrase was more like "brain-dead retards"

I'm sure he knows. I'm sure he just said it to provoke a reaction.

But, I'm sure he wouldn't care if anyone called him a brain-dead retard for his opinion Miles Davis. It's just another umprovable belief after all.

[darling]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I find it fascinating that atheism and skepticism are being equated. If anything, this very fact will cause a schism in the so-called skeptical movement. I know at least three Christians who were there. I'm sure there were more deists.

I figure if you want to turn it into an atheist meeting, you should at least have the decency to say so up front.

On the other hand, I could never see Mr. Randi inviting an astrologer, or a homeopath onto the board of directors of JREF. The invitation to Hal is proof that deism isn't considered to be on that level.

[bignickel]

My thoughts:

1. I was embarrassed. If anyone I knew outside of JREF had heard that, I'd think they'd wonder "is this the kind of belief system that skeptics adhere to?"

2. Penn & Teller doing magic tricks = Entertainment
Penn & Teller sitting down talking to an audience at a conference = Public Speaking.

Even if Teller isn't there because he's feeling unwell, even if Penn's words are somewhat entertaining... it's not for show. I hold him to the same standard I hold to anyone else up there. Even Randi.

3. Skepticism only concerns itself with testable claims. If a person's beliefs about a diety are not testable, then skepticism has nothing to say on the manner. Therefore, calling theists 'retardos' is not a skeptical conclusion; it is an ad hominem. Ad hominems are logical fallicies, and as such, are supposed to be avoided by skeptics.

4. The skeptical movement has an extremely hard time getting it's message across. "What if there were ghosts?" will always trump "what if the claims of the existance of ghosts are untrue?" in the media. We are in a war with nonsense; one of us will get more airtime than the other.

One of the effective talents of a general is the ability to pick his battles. Is making skepticism a battle not only between science and pseudo-science, but also between science and religion a sound strategy? Do we really want to take on the majority of the world, and tell them that they must choose between science and their faith, especially when their faith doesn't necessarily conflict with science? How are we going to get our message across if we shoot ourselves in the foot this way? What if the news media decided to run with Penn's remarks in their headlines? Do we really, really want them associated with the JREF?

5. By Penn's logic (or nomenclature), most of the Founding Fathers of our Country, who created the Constitution and Bill of Rights to guarantee the Freedoms that Penn is so happy to enjoy... are retardos. The majority of men & women who are willing to defend our country, and Penn's freedoms, at the risk of death... are retardos. The majority of the his neighbors (ie the citizenry) and the government are... retardos.

How can Penn stand to live in such a place?

6. Finally, and most importantly, there are WAYS that GENTLEMEN behave. To call non-theists names that denigrate their thinking processes is RUDE and BOORISH. The mark of a civilized society is it's ability to agree to disagree, without resorting to violence. When our arguments are reduced to calling each other names, then we are heading away from reason and civilization, and back to caves and savannahs.

Since when does a "Marketplace of Ideas" necessitate rudeness?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by shanek
His remarks were very exclusionary and heavily implied that you couldn't be considered a skeptic if you believed in God.

I have most of the skeptical traits (including being an atheist) and yet I wouldn't care less if I am considered a "skeptic" or not. It sounds like a cult characterization to me, and a poorly defined one for that matter.

In any case, calling theists "retarded" is not a skeptical thing to say since we all know that many bright scientists have been believers. How unskeptical of him...

[geni]

A sceptic producing a statement that does not show critical thinking? And this is ment to suprise me how?

Most people on this forum claim to be soft athiests/agnostics and yet when someone posted a poll on a varation of pascals wager that got round the which god problem most of the respondents did not act rationaly within the framework of their postion.

Sure there are plenty of sceptics around but there is also a worrying group who have created a dogma of sceptism to take the place relgion. It is a very attractive dogma because you will almost always be right but it is a dogma non the less.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Yes but the real gist of my question is could someone honestly call themselves a skeptic if they said they accepted the Loch Ness Monster's existence even though they have no proof? If the answer to this is no, why should a claim about the existence of God be treated any differently?

Because belief in god is a much more personal thing than belief in the Loch Ness Monster. People believe in god because it gives them certain feelings, or a certain power, what they consider to be definite tangible benefits. We may say they're deluding themselves, we may say they're acting with no proof at all, and that's fine. But again, that's not the same as being all divisive and exclusionary based on what someone personally chooses to believe. What if that someone freely acknowledges that they have no rational basis for their belief, but they choose to believe because of the benefits that belief gives them? Who are we to slam the door on them?

[Clancie]

Posted by Nyarlahotep

...his statements were in the larger context of a discussion of whether atheism and skepticism are the same thing and he was saying (in an unfortunate manner) that they were. I still agree with him on the larger point.
Actually, I think you'd have a hard time philosophically making the case that "atheism and skepticism are the same thing". Skepticism is a method of thinking and analyzing; atheism is a conclusion.

If Penn had said that, to him, atheism was the logical outcome of skepticism applied to religious philosophy...well, that would have been a significantly different point, a personal opinion and point of future discussion...debate...etc.

When he says instead, in effect, "anyone who doesn't agree with my conclusion about God, not only isn't a real skeptic, he is a f*cking retard!" he is making a very different point.

I'm sort of surprised/disappointed that in a room with hundreds of skeptics no one spoke up....

[Phil]

Originally posted by geni
A sceptic producing a statement that does not show critical thinking? And this is ment to suprise me how?

Most people on this forum claim to be soft athiests/agnostics and yet when someone posted a poll on a varation of pascals wager that got round the which god problem most of the respondents did not act rationaly within the framework of their postion.

Sure there are plenty of sceptics around but there is also a worrying group who have created a dogma of sceptism to take the place relgion. It is a very attractive dogma because you will almost always be right but it is a dogma non the less.
Well said, geni. And you even used capital letters.

[geni]

Originally posted by bignickel
with nonsense; one of us will get more airtime than the other.

One of the effective talents of a general is the ability to pick his battles. Is making skepticism a battle not only between science and pseudo-science, but also between science and religion a sound strategy? Do we really want to take on the majority of the world, and tell them that they must choose between science and their faith, especially when their faith doesn't necessarily conflict with science?

The battle between science and relgion was fort a long time ago. Since then major religions have altured their position to acomidate science. Sure there are still a few people who haven't quite got to grips with this and they can be debated with. But the major religions have pretty much made themselves science proof for anything short of the invention of a time machine.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Clancie
. . . If Penn had said that, to him, atheism was the logical outcome of skepticism applied to religious philosophy...well, that would have been a significantly different point, a personal opinion and point of future discussion...debate...etc. . .
But this is what he did say. But he said it as Penn Jillette would say it, not as Clancie would say it, or as Randi or Michael Shermer would say it.

I ask each of you again to consider the source.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Clancie


{snip}

I'm sort of surprised/disappointed that in a room with hundreds of skeptics no one spoke up....

No.

I did try to speak up during the last question session, but Hal was controlling the mike and essentially didn't allow me to say anything since he was concerned about the time. So, please do not assume that no one wanted to speak up.

Furthermore, I wrote about my concern in the feedback form and signed it with my name. So, I invite Randi and the JREF to comment on this.

However, I did my best to address the concerns of theists during the breaks. I was VERY concerned about them and the chilly reception they probably felt.

G6

[bignickel]

Originally posted by geni

The battle between science and relgion was fort a long time ago. Since then major religions have altured their position to acomidate science. Sure there are still a few people who haven't quite got to grips with this and they can be debated with. But the major religions have pretty much made themselves science proof for anything short of the invention of a time machine.

But that really doesn't address my point. Especially since those who believe in a 'theistic force that created the universe but hasn't touched it since' faith haven't altered their beliefs one iota. They don't HAVE to, since it doesn't conflict with science in any way.

We're trying to get the skeptical message out. We're trying to get more people to use the skeptical toolkit. We're trying to reach young people before their thoughts calcify into stale 'what ever makes me happy, I believe."

What chance have we got when we're calling theists 'retardos' while we're telling people that they should exercise rational thinking? WHY would we want to convince people that we thought were 'retardo' that they should exercise rational thinking? They are, after all, RETARDO.

You want an example of that kind of sales job, check out the timecube.com guy.

[geni]

Originally posted by bignickel


But that really doesn't address my point. Especially since those who believe in a 'theistic force that created the universe but hasn't touched it since' faith haven't altered their beliefs one iota. They don't HAVE to, since it doesn't conflict with science in any way.


Ah sorry I forgot to say that I was try to support your point.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by geni

Ah sorry I forgot to say that I was try to support your point.

Ah, well, I'm glad that I didn't start calling people names! :p

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Phil]

Originally posted by bignickel
. . . We're trying to get the skeptical message out. We're trying to get more people to use the skeptical toolket. We're trying to reach young people before their thoughts calcify into stale 'what ever makes me happy, I believe."

What chance have we got when we're calling theists 'retardos' while we're telling people that they should exercise rational thinking? WHY would we want to convince people that we thought were 'retardo' that they should exercise rational thinking? They are, after all, RETARDO. . .
I know you weren't addressing me BN, but whether we like it or not, Penn Jillette is going to influence more young people than any other person at that conference, despite his methods. He speaks to the rebellious side of people and who is more rebellious than a teenager?

I'd say with a man like Penn, we have a great chance to bring in a lot young people to the skeptical movement. Simply because they're going to listen to him. The average kid isn't going to read "Flim Flam" or "How We Believe", but they'll watch South Park or go see a Penn & Teller show.

Think of all the young people buying Britney Spears CDs. That makes me cringe, but what happens is, they become interested in music and eventually find artists like Diana Krall or Alicia Keys or whomever else you want to mention that has real talent.

Bottom line --- I wouldn't present skeptic ideas the way Penn does, but I do agree with the underlying meaning, and I think once a kid starts to examine the ideas a bit more closely, the initial presentation thereof becomes irrelavent.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Phil

I know you weren't addressing me BN, but whether we like it or not, Penn Jillette is going to influence more young people than any other person at that conference, despite his methods. He speaks to the rebellious side of people and who is more rebellious than a teenager?

I'd say with a man like Penn, we have a great chance to bring in a lot young people to the skeptical movement. Simply because they're going to listen to him. The average kid isn't going to read "Flim Flam" or "How We Believe", but they'll watch South Park or go see a Penn & Teller show.

Think of all the young people buying Britney Spears CDs. That makes me cringe, but what happens is, they become interested in music and eventually find artists like Diana Krall or Alicia Keys or whomever else you want to mention that has real talent.

Bottom line --- I wouldn't present skeptic ideas the way Penn does, but I do agree with the underlying meaning, and I think once a kid starts to examine the ideas a bit more closely, the initial presentation thereof becomes irrelavent.

Well, I find this interesting. Are you implying that young people would prefer hearing a message built on an extreme point of view? Please don't interpret this to mean that I disagree or anything.

I admit it never crossed my mind that the way Penn crafts the message is more appealing than the way more moderate skeptics would present it.

I'm not sure what to make of that. :D

G6

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I find it fascinating that atheism and skepticism are being equated. If anything, this very fact will cause a schism in the so-called skeptical movement.

G6

Well, I have already said my piece on the equating of atheism with scepticism but I don't think it will cause any schisms that don't already exist. If I have learned nothing about sceptics from my time here I have learned that we are a fractious lot and that getting us to agree on anything is a task akin to herding cats.

[Clancie]

Posted by Girl6

...please do not assume that no one wanted to speak up.
I never said no one wanted to. I said it seemed that no one did (for whatever reason).

However, I did my best to address the concerns of theists during the breaks. I was VERY concerned about them and the chilly reception they probably felt.
Well, I'm sure personal friendliness of participants could help dispel some of that negativity, but I wonder about the bigger issue. Is the question really only a question of theism or atheism? Isn't an even bigger concern if comments like Penn's make it seem that "Skepticism = Dogmatism"?

I'm not sure everyone accepts a definition of skepticism as "way of thinking" rather than as an intelligent thought process that invariably produces "correct ideas".

I don't think Penn is alone in his view that "right thinking produces right beliefs"* for those who use it correctly.



*with apologies for plagiarizing Mao Tsetung

[Brown]

Well, shoot, folks, I guess I'll have to wait for the DVDs to come out, but until they do, let me recount my recollections.

First, Penn (and others) voiced some pretty strong views on the subject of religion. Penn argued that the best approach, when discussing religious issues, is to be 100 percent honest about your views. In his case, that means that he has no qualms about saying that he's an atheist. Penn opined that people respect being told the truth about one's religious beliefs.

Second, Randi and Penn both stated publicly that a person who believes in a religion is not automatically stupid, and some religious people are indeed quite smart.

Third, since when must one be an atheist or agnostic to be a "bright?" I know of no reason why a deist cannot with good conscience define himself as a "bright." A Tom-Paine-Age-Of-Reason deist certainly rejects supernatural explanations, and seeks to understand the universe according to the way the universe actually is. I shall go further and I shall say that I believe it is possible for a person to define himself as a Christian and as a "bright." Not all people who define themselves as Christians buy into the supernatural.

Basically, I believe that there was a potential at the conference for (pardon the expression) a sort of "non-supernatural ecumenism." I think that what we agree about is far more weighty in quantity and quality than what we disagree about.

Personally, none of the religious comments offered at the meeting by any person offended me. I am a big boy and I can take it. Besides, no one got up and tried to argue that The Almighty wants people to fly airplanes into buildings or anything outrageous like that. In my humble view, public doctrinal disagreements were comparatively minor.

I would prefer that the JREF not take an official stance on religion, except to say that testable paranormal claims will be tested, whether made in the name of religion or not. And as I understand it, this is pretty close to JREF's position.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Well, I find this interesting. Are you implying that young people would prefer hearing a message built on an extreme point of view? Please don't interpret this to mean that I disagree or anything.

I admit it never crossed my mind that the way Penn crafts the message is more appealing than the way more moderate skeptics would present it.

I'm not sure what to make of that. :D

G6
No of course not. It's really got nothing to do with preference. It's just that is Penn is more visible to the average teenager than a Shermer or Randi. He does the voiceover work on Comedy Central. He's on Letterman and Leno and TRL and Bill Maher and shows like that. He's on MTV and a favorite of the comic book and Internet set. He's the fast food of skepticism, if you will, and Dawkins and Shermer are the gourmet meals. And as you know, fast food will often times give you an upset stomach. But who eats more fast food than young people? (That is until the reach an age where they appreciate the gourmet meal infinitely more than the burger.)

BTW, I prefer a gourmet meal.:)

[DanishDynamite]

There is no evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, just as there is no evidence for pink unicorns anywhere in the Universe, or that a teapot is orbiting Alpha Centauri. If someone nevertheless decides to believe in any of the above and perhaps even bases their world-view and manner of living on the assumed properties of these evidenceless existences, that person is not being skeptical. The one word which might be used to sum up skepticism is afterall EVIDENCE.

That being said, I agree that there is no need to use invectives of the type described in this thread to characterize someone who isn't being skeptical.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Phil

No of course not. It's really got nothing to do with preference. It's just that is Penn is more visible to the average teenager than a Shermer or Randi. He does the voiceover work on Comedy Central. He's on Letterman and Leno and TRL and Bill Maher and shows like that. He's on MTV and a favorite of the comic book and Internet set. He's the fast food of skepticism, if you will, and Dawkins and Shermer are the gourmet meals. And as you know, fast food will often times give you an upset stomach. But who eats more fast food than young people? (That is until the reach an age where they appreciate the gourmet meal infinitely more than the burger.)

BTW, I prefer a gourmet meal.:)

Yes, I like this description very much! :D I can get behind this!

G6

[renata]

I thought several people made it a point to speak up at various points. I am in a bit of haze now, after all the activity, so perhaps others can fill in. For one thing, Hal himself responded to Penn rather sharply about a retard line, to lots of applause. In addition, I thought there was a question during the second day panel about skeptical attitude to deism. Also, I note there was a panoply of speakers, each representing many different viewpoints-Penn is merely one of them. For example the speaker (either Hervey Peoples or Eugenie Scott, don't recall now who) talked quite a bit about deists (as opposed to creation scientists) and their thoughts about evolution and it was very well received.

Girl 6, I do not think everyone was silent, and as to the extent of people not being able to really debate Penn in the amount of time available and given the variety of questions for him- I think this gives us the opportunity to learn for TAM3. Perhaps an idea for a speaker?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by renata
Perhaps an idea for a speaker?

Yes, me! :D

But, seriously, Renata, this is the same thing we run across when we are in Paltalk. The moment someone stoops to calling a person a name or disrespecting him/her, the message gets lost.

I was just hoping that all of the speakers were above that. And, yes, I recognize that Penn is an entertainer, but no one is going to allow for that when they remember the over-arching message that was conveyed.

G6

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There is no evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, just as there is no evidence for pink unicorns anywhere in the Universe, or that a teapot is orbiting Alpha Centauri. If someone nevertheless decides to believe in any of the above and perhaps even bases their world-view and manner of living on the assumed properties of these evidenceless existences, that person is not being skeptical. The one word which might be used to sum up skepticism is afterall EVIDENCE.


And anyone who belives there is not a god is not being sceptical. I also feel that your first statement is that there is inserficiant evidence for the existance of god (remember there is evidence for for all paranormal claims. It is just not very good evidence (or all the evidence I have seen is not very good evidence)).

[renata]

Originally posted by Girl 6

I was just hoping that all of the speakers were above that. And, yes, I recognize that Penn is an entertainer, but no one is going to allow for that when they remember the over-arching message that was conveyed.



Well, I anticipated something of this sort from Penn & Teller...we know their track record, after all- Bullsh!t, rabbit killing, flag burning, person hanging.... :D But I think Randi commented that JREF takes no stand on religion when he was on the panel (when he talked about challengers and religion).

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


There is a difference: If fairies exist, then there are ways of testing that. Photographs (like the ones taken by those two little girls who fooled Arthur Conan Doyle) would be nice, provided they could be shown not to be faked. There are ways we could try to find fairies, mermaids, unicorns, etc., so those are examinable claims, and in the absence of such corroborating evidence it is very reasonable to conclude that fairies don't exist, and that those who believe in them are not skeptics.

Likewise, many of the claims of theists are testable: the healing power of prayer, for example. Again, in the absence of corroborating evidence, and in light of studies that show no statistical effect, it is reasonable to conclude that prayer does nothing for healing, and that those who believe it does are not skeptics.

The god thing itself is an entirely different manner. How would you test, for example, the Deist version of God, as being one who jump-started the Universe and then just left it running? How does the existance or otherwise of a god or gods have anything to do really with how we view the universe? We reasonably conclude that there is no god, not because the idea has been tested and not verified, but because the idea cannot be tested at all and we're going solely by Occam's Razor. That's a fine, debatable point, but again, saying that it's a logical conclusion of skepticism is NOT the same thing as saying that theists aren't "true" skeptics. That's the point I was making with Libertarianism above: Libertarianism is arguiably the inevitable result, I believe, of a skeptical examination of government, but I would never say that non-Libertarians aren't "true" skeptics or are "f*cking retarded."

It's one thing to reach a conclusion. It's another thing entirely to use that conclusion for an "us-against-them" exclusionary worldview. Every human being is intelligent and capable of rational thought, and ideas you've grown up with your whole life aren't easy to just discard. Further, intelligence is no guarantee of anything—I know of many intelligent people who believe all kinds of weird woo-woo stuff.

It's fine to conclude there is no god; that is my conclusion as well. But it is NOT fine to exclude others solely on the basis of one issue that doesn't seem to really measure up to things like homeopathy. It's hateful, it's disrespectful, and it accomplishes nothing.

I have to disagree with most of what you said. God is not a provable conclusion, but then again, nothing really is. But alas there must be evidence to support the existence of a higher being, and to accept that there is one or to believe that there is one because one wants to believe, is not a rational nor a skeptical approach.

I do not think that because one is a believer in that sort of thing that one can't be skeptical about other options, but I don't get how one can disallow one aspect and yet accept another just as baseless and evidenceless. That is not a rational postion, IMO. And a belief in god is baseless. In science, one makes a hypothesis, and then one tests that hypothesis; if no evidence shows up for that hypothesis, it will be discarded or ignored or changed; it does not automatically move up to a theory because one has come up with a hypothesis, nor does it become a fact. To accept it as truth or a possible truth without supporting evidence does not make sense. Also, I still see no difference between your example of looking for fairies and looking for god. One could simply say that fairies, unicorns, whatever magical, mythical being you choose, simply retreated to another realm, and so evidence would not be found. Both god and fairies are baseless assertations, and therefore not worthy of consideration until such time as evidence (which I am sure does not exist) is shown.

Also, I agree that name calliing, as I have already said, that is not appropriate. I also have said that I believe that there is room for dissenting opinion although I don't get it. I don't understand how anyone can believe in anything without evidence to support it.


I never said I was withholding my opinion. I've concluded that there is no god. But again, that's not the point.

I must apologize. I did not mean you in a specific sense, but you in a general sense. I should have perhaps used the term one instead of you, and I apologize for being lazy in my writing. But my point still stands.

[Julia]

Shane,

First of all, not only did I agree with your opening post, but I would also like to add that I appreciated how very well written it was.

Both the belief that only an atheist can be a skeptic, and the innappropriate, offensive use of "retard", reminds me of a certain 16 year old former poster who expressed these habitually.

However, Penn having a certain celebrity-type status, has also a certain amount of influence on some people, that of course Ken does not. It is that influence that I find disturbing.

I've always had a problem with people using the power and status that comes with celebrity to advance their personal beliefs and issues. We witness it frequently when a singer or actor tries to sway people politically, or to promote their church.

Not that it must always be negative. Those that are in a position to influence can help to achieve good things. But I think any power should come with responsibility. In that aspect, I found Penn to be irresponsible.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There is no evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, just as there is no evidence for pink unicorns anywhere in the Universe, or that a teapot is orbiting Alpha Centauri. If someone nevertheless decides to believe in any of the above and perhaps even bases their world-view and manner of living on the assumed properties of these evidenceless existences, that person is not being skeptical.

Pink unicorns have properties. They should have mass, density, color, a single horn, and only approachable by most people at Gamers Conventions.

Teapots have properties. Even those floating around Alpha Centauri. They should have mass, density, color, shape, a spout of some kind, and used in conjunction with a container they can make effective Brownian Motion Producers, particularly when moving about dried bits of organic vegetable sunlight collectors in water.

BOTH of these are therefore testable by science. If not today, then someday when we venture out to the stars to set up a Starbucks of Alpha Centauri, near the planet of Unicorns (where only Gamers may tread).

A god, or G_d, or diety, of any kind, which makes no testable appearance in the Universe, is OUTSIDE the perview of skepticism. It has nothing that skepticism/science can test.

To assume that 'rational thinking' must automatically lead to thinking that people that believe that there MIGHT BE things that are outside the realms 'that which we can test' is the height of hubris. Why? Because it is, in the end, OPINION.

And isn't that what post-modernists are accusing us of? Delivering our opinions as facts, that can not be challenged?

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I find it fascinating that atheism and skepticism are being equated. If anything, this very fact will cause a schism in the so-called skeptical movement.

G6

I don't think skepticism and atheism can be equated, but I do believe that atheism, just as a-paranormalism, a-homeopathy, etc. are a part a part of skepticism. It is hard for me to understand how one can be skeptic and yet not look hard and fast at a belief in a diety. I don't get it, but I can accept that others have different views. If there is a scism because there are those with different points of view, that is very sad because it shows an intolerance for those with a dissenting view.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


Because belief in god is a much more personal thing than belief in the Loch Ness Monster. People believe in god because it gives them certain feelings, or a certain power, what they consider to be definite tangible benefits. We may say they're deluding themselves, we may say they're acting with no proof at all, and that's fine. But again, that's not the same as being all divisive and exclusionary based on what someone personally chooses to believe. What if that someone freely acknowledges that they have no rational basis for their belief, but they choose to believe because of the benefits that belief gives them? Who are we to slam the door on them?

People get good feelings and other benefits from all sorts of things. People feel happy and whatnot based on things that John Edward says too, so I don't think that is a good argument for excepting the existance of God from the same thought process that we would apply to Edward.

I am not advocating "slamming the door" on anyone. I simply don't think that any belief should be immune to scrutiny and that includes belief in God. The fact that lots of people take comfort in the belief should not give it a free pass.

[SkepticScott]

Originally posted by Girl 6 (snip)
But, seriously, Renata, this is the same thing we run across when we are in Paltalk. The moment someone stoops to calling a person a name or disrespecting him/her, the message gets lost. (snip)I've seen something similar happen on PalTalk: people parodying a person that came into the room to ask for possible explanations for something they experienced. With rare exceptions, once you resort to insulting the other side for their opinions, IMHO you've lost. Point out their facts don't really exist, point out their reasoning is faulty, point out their fallacies, but don't call them a name.

I think Penn was presenting his opinion in a very forceful, Penn-like manner. It's not very different from a preacher roaring out that atheists are immoral and will burn in "hell"? I know I would never present my views that forcefully. I would have liked to point out that in most intellectual discussions Penn's approach would be out of place. Perhaps he's had more experience with non-intellectual debates though, and he might know it works better in those situations.

[Girl 6]

{hijack}

I'd actually like to have Penn comment on what we are writing here. That would be VERY cool. :)

{/hijack}

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I am not advocating "slamming the door" on anyone. I simply don't think that any belief should be immune to scrutiny and that includes belief in God. The fact that lots of people take comfort in the belief should not give it a free pass.

I'm not advocating giving them a free pass. I'm advocating giving people some respect. If someone came to me while I was a believer and told me that I was a "retard" or and "idiot" or "stupid", I wouldn't listen to what they had to say. That's only human nature, period.

There's no need for any of us to disrespect someone's infallibilities and humanity.

G6

[DanishDynamite]

geni:And anyone who belives there is not a god is not being sceptical. Depends what you mean by "believe". If it means "100% certain" then he is certainly not skeptical as nothing is 100% certain. If it means "given there isn't a smidgin of evidence for said proposition I will disregard it until such time as there is any evidence at all", then it is the skeptical position.
I also feel that your first statement is that there is inserficiant evidence for the existance of god (remember there is evidence for for all paranormal claims. It is just not very good evidence (or all the evidence I have seen is not very good evidence)). There is no reliable evidence for god, yes. And there is much evidence that the concept of "god" is a figment of the human brain.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by geni


And anyone who believes there is not a god is not being sceptical. I also feel that your first statement is that there is inserficiant evidence for the existance of god (remember there is evidence for for all paranormal claims. It is just not very good evidence (or all the evidence I have seen is not very good evidence)). Both this statement, and the one you were replying to, assume that the believer (or disbeliever, as the case may be) has access to the information you do.

Remember that, in science for instance, a good skeptic would have been opposed to Einstein's views, and then in agreement with them. The difference between time A and time B is simply the amount of evidence for the view. A good skeptic with one set of data may draw a very different conclusion from a good skeptic with another.

And what might be in the data set? We heard again and again that very smart people can have blinders on when it comes to seeing things outside their own narrow areas of expertise. Most examples given at the conference were of scientists falling for conjuring tricks, but it may also be that a physicist has a lack of knowledge about her own perceptual systems, or that a geologist may not have the necessary expertise in biology to combat some of the claims of a creationist. None of us (well, aside from me, of course) have anything approaching a perfect knowledge in all relevant topic areas.

I have seen (and shown in my class) a video of a physicist (who shall mercifully remain nameless) describing how the spoonbending of Sai Baba was absolutely unexplainable by physics, and therefore must be paranormal! Why did he think that physics was the only place to look for explanations? Why, he is a physicist, of course! He is using the best tool at his disposal to examine the claim. The fact that it is the wrong tool does not make him stupid, just ignorant. (If he is later shown an explanation and denies it, this is another story. Interestingly, this is not wholly irrational, either, but this is another topic for social cognitive psychologists to debate.)

I would prefer that, rather than point fingers, call names, and generate heat, we instead examine human belief systems and shed light on how it is that what appear to be the exact same processes can lead to science on one hand and superstition on the other. Both involve our looking for covariation--this goes with this. It takes a bit of sophistication to see whether it was the medicine or the incantation that had an effect.

[DanishDynamite]

bignickel:Pink unicorns have properties. They should have mass, density, color, a single horn, and only approachable by most people at Gamers Conventions.

Teapots have properties. Even those floating around Alpha Centauri. They should have mass, density, color, shape, a spout of some kind, and used in conjunction with a container they can make effective Brownian Motion Producers, particularly when moving about dried bits of organic vegetable sunlight collectors in water.

BOTH of these are therefore testable by science. If not today, then someday when we venture out to the stars to set up a Starbucks of Alpha Centauri, near the planet of Unicorns (where only Gamers may tread).Agreed,

A god, or G_d, or diety, of any kind, which makes no testable appearance in the Universe, is OUTSIDE the perview of skepticism. It has nothing that skepticism/science can test.If it has had no influence on the Universe and will have no influence in the future, then yes, it has nothing that skepticism/science can test. It is also irrelevant and would qualify for most definitions of "non-existant".
To assume that 'rational thinking' must automatically lead to thinking that people that believe that there MIGHT BE things that are outside the realms 'that which we can test' is the height of hubris. Why? Because it is, in the end, OPINION.No it isn't. To be able to test something simply means that the something must in some way be observable/detectable. If it (or its effects) aren't observable, even in principle, it is "non-existant".
And isn't that what post-modernists are accusing us of? Delivering our opinions as facts, that can not be challenged? I have no idea what post-modernists say, sorry. (I don't even know what they are.) ;)

[darling]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I'd actually like to have Penn comment on what we are writing here. That would be VERY cool. :) Like I said, I'm guessing he wouldn't have a problem with someone calling him a brain-dead retard for extolling the virtues of Miles Davis.

I suppose one of the problems with treating others like you'd like to be treated yourself...

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by budddyh
Like I said, I'm guessing he wouldn't have a problem with someone calling him a brain-dead retard for extolling the virtues of Miles Davis.

I suppose one of the problems with treating others like you'd like to be treated yourself...

:roll:

Miles Davis is God???? :D

G6

[bignickel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

No it isn't. To be able to test something simply means that the something must in some way be observable/detectable. If it (or its effects) aren't observable, even in principle, it is "non-existant".

I must strongly disagree.

Whatever preceded the single point that was the Universe before the Big Bang, is, by all definitions, un-knowable and un-detectable.

Are we therefore to conclude that nothing existed before the Universe, because we can never know it or detect it's previous existance?

[DanishDynamite]

Mercutio: Both this statement, and the one you were replying to, assume that the believer (or disbeliever, as the case may be) has access to the information you do.

Remember that, in science for instance, a good skeptic would have been opposed to Einstein's views, and then in agreement with them. The difference between time A and time B is simply the amount of evidence for the view. A good skeptic with one set of data may draw a very different conclusion from a good skeptic with another.Just a small quibble. A scientist presented with Einstein's views would not be without evidence. He would have the logical arguments stemming from previous knowledge which Einstein had presented him with. While this isn't "experimental evidence" it is nevertheless evidence. His agreement or disagreement would firstly be based on whether those arguments were sound. If convinced they were so, his quest for experimental evidence of the predictions would begin.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Girl 6


I'm not advocating giving them a free pass. I'm advocating giving people some respect. If someone came to me while I was a believer and told me that I was a "retard" or and "idiot" or "stupid", I wouldn't listen to what they had to say. That's only human nature, period.

There's no need for any of us to disrespect someone's infallibilities and humanity.

G6

I agree that respect needs to be shown to others regardless of their beliefs. I think his choice of words was uncalled for but I still agree with the point he was making when he said what he said, that atheism and skepticism are the same thing (though I personally think that they are different but so strongly linked that they may as well be the same thing, that however is a minor quibble).

[DanishDynamite]

bignickel:I must strongly disagree.

Whatever preceded the single point that was the Universe before the Big Bang, is, by all definitions, un-knowable and un-detectable.Why would you think so?
Are we therefore to conclude that nothing existed before the Universe, because we can never know it or detect it's previous existance? Let me ask you a counterquestion: Suppose we have a well-founded theory which explains everything since the beginning and which points to a particular set of circumstances at the very beginning. Is there some reason to suspect the theory isn't true?

In addition, is there some reason that knowledge of what occured before time began for our Universe must implictly be out of our range?

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
geni:Depends what you mean by "believe". If it means "100% certain" then he is certainly not skeptical as nothing is 100% certain. If it means "given there isn't a smidgin of evidence for said proposition I will disregard it until such time as there is any evidence at all", then it is the skeptical position.


So you would agree with the statement that "everyone who belives that there is no god is a "retard"?
Remeber there are people on this forum (including people in this thead) whoes actions only make sence if they belive that there is no god.


There is no reliable evidence for god, yes. And there is much evidence that the concept of "god" is a figment of the human brain.
A few studies that show that certian areas of the brain can produce experences that may be interpreted as relgious. What have I missed? Appart from that it seems to boil down there being no evidence the other way.

Remember if you are truly sceptical you can't get beyond "I think therfore there is thought" deitism is not irrational unless it is used as a justifcation for actions or as the builing block for a claim about reality.

[geni]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I still agree with the point he was making when he said what he said, that atheism and skepticism are the same thing (though I personally think that they are different but so strongly linked that they may as well be the same thing, that however is a minor quibble).

I think you are abbusing the term atheism. All atheism means is that the indivdual does not belive in god. I have met athiests who belive the moon landing was a hoax. Are they sceptics?

[Phil]

Originally posted by geni


I think you are abbusing the term atheism. All atheism means is that the indivdual does not belive in god. I have met athiests who belive the moon landing was a hoax. Are they sceptics?
No. Retards:D

[DanishDynamite]

geni:So you would agree with the statement that "everyone who belives that there is no god is a "retard"?Certainly not. As I said, there is no reason to call people names.
Remeber there are people on this forum (including people in this thead) whoes actions only make sence if they belive that there is no god.Really? And if so, what is the relevance?

[Ooops. I left out some of geni's reply]

A few studies that show that certian areas of the brain can produce experences that may be interpreted as relgious. What have I missed? Appart from that it seems to boil down there being no evidence the other way.Indeed there are suggestions that there is a religion area in the brain. Aside from that, there is the evidence that people in various areas and various times have each invented their type of god, with conflicting properties in regard to gods invented elsewhere.
Remember if you are truly sceptical you can't get beyond "I think therfore there is thought" deitism is not irrational unless it is used as a justifcation for actions or as the builing block for a claim about reality.Certainly you can go beyond "I think therefore there is thought". The way to get beyond this stage is to observe what inputs you are receiving, correlating, and finally making some basic assumptions (inventing Occam's Razor along the way).

[Edited for various lacks]

[bignickel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
bignickel:Why would you think so?
Let me ask you a counterquestion: Suppose we have a well-founded theory which explains everything since the beginning and which points to a particular set of circumstances at the very beginning. Is there some reason to suspect the theory isn't true?

In addition, is there some reason that knowledge of what occured before time began for our Universe must implictly be out of our range?

I will answer both in one: all time & space are, before the Big Bang, in 1 single point.

There is NOTHING that we can ever determine about what happened before the point. It is not possible.

The entire information complexity of the entire universe is been reduced to a single digit in binary: 1

With such limited information (to put it MILDLY), nothing can be learned about what preceded it. 0 or 1? Who knows? There simply is NOT enough information to know, or ever know.

Thus, under your definition: since we can't detect it, and never can detect it: it must not have existed. Nothing preceded the universe. Is this not an inevitable conclusion from your definitions?


To any who noticed: I've changed my sig from "No one is united, and all things are unkind. Perhaps we're boiling over inside." to the current.
We need to be united. If we're boiling over... we need to cool off. I hope my words are adequate to the task of conveying my thoughts.

[DanishDynamite]

bignickel;I will answer both in one: all time & space are, before the Big Bang, in 1 single point.

There is NOTHING that we can ever determine about what happened before the point. It is not possible.How do you know? For example, is there some reason to think that Einstein-Rosen bridges to alternate universes isn't possible? Or that entrance into our Universe from some other universe is implicitly impossible?
The entire information complexity of the entire universe is been reduced to a single digit in binary: 1

With such limited information (to put it MILDLY), nothing can be learned about what preceded it. 0 or 1? Who knows? There simply is NOT enough information to know, or ever know.Once again, we can't be sure that information external to our universe can't enter our universe. It might be impossibæe, but as yet we can't be sure.
Thus, under your definition: since we can't detect it, and never can detect it: it must not have existed. Nothing preceded the universe. Is this not an inevitable conclusion from your definitions?See above.
To any who noticed: I've changed my sig from "No one is united, and all things are unkind. Perhaps we're boiling over inside." to the current.
We need to be united. If we're boiling over... we need to cool off. I hope my words are adequate to the task of conveying my thoughts. Uhh...OK. ;)

[bignickel]

We ourselves can not get past the single point of the Universe before the Big Bang.

We are very complicated information. The Single point is one single digit in binary. We can't get past it.

If we travel to an alternate universe... then we can't get past THAT universe's single point. If there is one. Anything testable that can get into the our universe, is going to get after the Big Bang, and we can test it. Anything that got in BEFORE the Big Bang... is not testable to us: it's information will inevitably be reduced down to a single digit before the Big Bang occurs (or it can escape).

In either case: our visitor is outside our universe, and as such: is un-detectable, and according to your definition: non-existant.

But AHAH! you see: what happens if our visitor who appeared before the Big Bang, and then left, appears NOW and tells us what happened?
Well,
1. what happened before he arrived, before the SinglePoint (and thus, not in our universe)? He doesn't know.
2. Couldn't G_d do the same thing? In fact: the majority of people on this planet say he DID do the same thing, by revealing himself to the sapient lifeforms on this planet. But then we're heading to anecdote-town.... Just a thought.

But then again: what evidence do YOU have that there are alternative universes? You can't detect them, and there's nothing about them that says you ever will be able to. Must you then conclude by your own argument that they don't exist as well?

I can't reduce or explain it any better past this. Where are the dang physicists around this forum? I'm an English Major!

[CFLarsen]

shanek, bignickel,

Just once in a while, I do find myself agreeing with you. ;)

DanishDynamite,

If I don't see you there next year, I'll kick your butt. Shut up and BE THERE! :)

Originally posted by Clancie
I wish someone had asked Penn if he considers deist (and co-CSICOP founder) Martin Gardner a "f*cking retarded."

And why not call non-atheists "stupid" rather the (now gratuitous insult that I thought only "stupid" people used) "retarded"? "Retarded" is actually a specific word for a specific disability--one that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's belief system. Not a very impressive skeptical "critique".

Narrow-minded bigotry is far worse, imo, than a non-proselytizing belief in God could ever be.

I wish you would actually ask Penn yourself. (http://www.pennandteller.com/)

Instead of complaining about what other people might not have done (you would not know, because you were not there!), why don't you actually do something yourself?

Let us know what reply you got.

Originally posted by Clancie
Ummm....well, its good you brought it out into open discussion here...but who's going to share this constructive critical feedback with Penn? :confused:

You?

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm sort of surprised/disappointed that in a room with hundreds of skeptics no one spoke up....

I am not at all surprised that you did not show up at all. After all, it is far easier to slam people than actually doing something yourself!

Originally posted by budddyh
But, I'm sure he wouldn't care if anyone called him a brain-dead retard for his opinion Miles Davis. It's just another umprovable belief after all.

Indeed. Like Stockhausen. :D

Originally posted by Girl 6
{hijack}

I'd actually like to have Penn comment on what we are writing here. That would be VERY cool. :)

{/hijack}

Absolutely. Being at a TAMx bears certain responsibilities!

Penn? He needs ritalin. Like a lot of other people.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by geni


I think you are abbusing the term atheism. All atheism means is that the indivdual does not belive in god. I have met athiests who belive the moon landing was a hoax. Are they sceptics?

No, which is why I do make the distinction, fine as it may be, that they are not quite the same thing. However, atheism is as logical a conclusion of scepticism as the conclusion that John Edwards is full of it is. Thus, in my mind, they are strongly linked, if one is an atheist one usually (not always, I will admit) get's there by applying skepticism to the existance of God.

I consider it a minor distinction though, because we just don't have snappy words for a-John Edward-ists or a-Illuminati-ists or thousands of other things so we don't draw a dstinction between people who have concluded that John Edwards is a fake or that the Illuminati don't control the world. We do, however, have a word for people who have concluded that ther is no God, to me that really is the extent of the difference.

[DanishDynamite]

bignickel:We ourselves can not get past the single point of the Universe before the Big Bang.

We are very complicated information. The Single point is one single digit in binary. We can't get past it.You may be right. You may also be wrong. There is no preponderance of evidence either way.
If we travel to an alternate universe... then we can't get past THAT universe's single point. If there is one. Anything testable that can get into the our universe, is going to get after the Big Bang, and we can test it. Anything that got in BEFORE the Big Bang... is not testable to us: it's information will inevitably be reduced down to a single digit before the Big Bang occurs (or it can escape).

In either case: our visitor is outside our universe, and as such: is un-detectable, and according to your definition: non-existant.No. If the observer outside our universe has no means of communicating his observations, then his existence is unknown. We knew he existed previously, though.
But AHAH! you see: what happens if our visitor who appeared before the Big Bang, and then left, appears NOW and tells us what happened?
Well,
1. what happened before he arrived, before the SinglePoint (and thus, not in our universe)? He doesn't know.
2. Couldn't G_d do the same thing? In fact: the majority of people on this planet say he DID do the same thing, by revealing himself to the sapient lifeforms on this planet. But then we're heading to anecdote-town.... Just a thought.

But then again: what evidence do YOU have that there are alternative universes? You can't detect them, and there's nothing about them that says you ever will be able to. Must you then conclude by your own argument that they don't exist as well?No. There is evidence (in the form of logical arguments) which suggest that interaction between universes is possible. There is as yet no experimental evidence.
I can't reduce or explain it any better past this. Where are the dang physicists around this forum? I'm an English Major! You are doing very well for an English Major! :) (I'm serious).

[Edited to add: Yes, there is no experimental evidence for alternate universes. There are however logical extrapolations that they may exist and no evidence that they don't]

[DanishDynamite]

CFLarsen:DanishDynamite,

If I don't see you there next year, I'll kick your butt. Shut up and BE THERE! :) YES SIR! :)

Seriously, I'd like to go.

[bignickel]

But, in the end, there is nothing in the hypothesis about alternate unverses that say that can be detected or ever will be detected.

The Intelligent Design proponents argue that God (or a 'creator') can be detected by the evidence for his existance left behind in the Universe. But they have no way of detecting Him or It, nor is there any logical indication that they ever will. Their arguments are not under the perview of science, but of philosophy, and such, are not addressable by us (just as they can not address science).

The Alternate Universe proponents argue that theory indicates that there might be Alternate Universes. But there are no way of detecting them, and there is not any indication that we will ever be able to.

As such, under your definitions of "non-existance" we must say that neither a Creator or Alternate Universe exists. And thus, nothing existed before the SinglePoint before the Big Bang, because there is no way to detect what happened before it. (Since travelers from Alternate Universes don't exist, and neither does a Creator).

I can't boil it down anymore.

[darling]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Miles Davis is God???? :D Well, he didn't say that in so many words, but...

[geni]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


No, which is why I do make the distinction, fine as it may be, that they are not quite the same thing. However, atheism is as logical a conclusion of scepticism as the conclusion that John Edwards is full of it is. Thus, in my mind, they are strongly linked, if one is an atheist one usually (not always, I will admit) get's there by applying skepticism to the existance of God.

I think you need to be less US centric. From what I have seen what you are saying may be true in your country. It is not true in mine. If you can be an athiest and not a sceptic then I would contented that athiem is no different from thiesm in terms of scepterism. Athism may be scepticism applied to relgion (all though I think agnostism is closer) but it is not scepticism. A hard athiest is not a sceptic (unless they have information I do not have access to) and neither is a relgiuos fudermenterlist but for a weak thiest and a weak athiest the two postions are equaly valid.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There is no evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, just as there is no evidence for pink unicorns anywhere in the Universe, or that a teapot is orbiting Alpha Centauri. If someone nevertheless decides to believe in any of the above and perhaps even bases their world-view and manner of living on the assumed properties of these evidenceless existences, that person is not being skeptical. The one word which might be used to sum up skepticism is afterall EVIDENCE.


Uh, so are the physicists that are studying experimental fields like string theory, for which there is currently no experimental evidence, not being skeptical either?

Or how about SETI? Are all the people looking for signs of intelligent life in the universe not skeptics?

By your rationale, if there is no evidence for a phenomenon, then it doesn't exist. Therefore looking for it would be irrational and against the mores of skepticism.

Sounds like a pretty closed-minded approach to thinking, if you ask me.

[Jeff Corey]

I did not like or applaud Penn's remark. I've worked with training, and trained students to work with training, developmentally disabled people for over 30 years. If Penn had been deprived of oxygen at birth, for example, he might have been one of them.

But Penn's schick is to shock. I would have said ,"F*cking intolerant dorkheads", because many are. Especially my born agin cousin in law. It's "Armageddon this" and "Armageddon that."

"Armageddon tired of this and Armaggedon outta here." (Dan Devlin, my father in law)

So endeth the lesson.

[sparklecat]

I sent this as a PM last night, but since it expresses why I had a problem with Penn's remarks, I'll just give a (slightly edited) copy of it here. Yes, I am a Christian, and took offense at what Penn said, but the majority of my offense was not for personal reasons- I know well enough to not equate the remarks of one person with the JREF's official stance, or with skeptics as a whole. Nor is it any skin off my back if he or others think that; I know well enough that I can be a skeptic and a Christian at the same time. It all depends on how you approach it and whether you're claiming testability for your beliefs... and if so, on what grounds.



I talked to a few Christian friends of mine last night, and got asked about Vegas and how it went, and the antitheism of the meeting came up after a bit. The reaction was just the sort I'd have feared- not the shock and offense that I had, but rather people saying they weren't surprised that an atheist would say that to a mostly atheistic audience. As I said to them, thats exactly the point and the problem... its only a certain number that believe that sort of thing about theists, but that group manages to make it so that all atheists are seen as God and Christian haters. In fact, when I said that some of the atheists at the meeting took issue with what he said and didn't agree, I saw the most skepticism I thought I'd ever get from them.

But thats the problem- these people are my friends whom I care about deeply, and if they had been there at the meeting to learn more about the skeptical movement... well, how likely are they to ally themselves with a movement that they see as being virulently antitheist and outright hostile to their presence? I know some have been thinking along the same lines here, but I have a personal stake in this too. For me and my ascent out of fundamentalism, a big influence on me was a person who was patient, a friend to me where I was at, and was glad to see me getting out of that and returning to my skeptical mindset- not reviling me for my beliefs. If there's to be any hope of reaching more fundamentalist Christians and helping them learn to think more critically (my personal crusade I suppose), then the type of behavior Penn showed is the worst thing he could do, and undermines everything the organization stands for, in my opinion.

I tried to see if I was being hypocritical about this, because I didn't think that I would ever say someone could be a fundamentalist and a skeptic, but realized that wasn't quite right. Rather, to become a fundamentalist, you have to suspend your skepticism... so while you may be a skeptic, as I was, you suppress it for a time. Eventually though, you can't anymore. But skepticism doesn't come naturally to all, and they see the actions of the few as being representative of all, which just totally screws over my mission. Thats really what upsets and frustrates me about this- how far actions like that set us back and bring us to the level of those we're trying to reach.



Am I saying he or anyone else should lie about what they believe on this issue? Certainly not. And naturally Penn and all others have a right to their opinion. But when you're seen as speaking on behalf of an organization or group of people, I simply think its a good idea to be sure what you're saying really is representative of them.

Justine

[Jeff Corey]

Good points, Justine Sparklecat. My wife's family were all raised Catholic. Some are lapsed, some became fundamentalists, some returned to the church when they got older.
And El is an atheist, as am I. We never would state that christians are re****s. It is simply not true. El's mother volunteers in a thrift store to help people ("Do onto others...") and they are mainly doing what we would all consider moral things, whether there is a god or not.
I only object vociferously when people try to force their idiosyncratic religious beliefs on me and mine. Or others.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that Penn's remarks were over the top. Once the ad hominems start, the point is lost and the delivery method becomes the focus.

However, Penn is a celebrity shock jock. That's his gig. It's all about delivery method.

Also, we have to face one thing: Once a theistic would-be skeptic begins to dig deeply into skepticism, he cannot help but realize that belief in a deity has its logical problems, just like belief in any other "paranormal idea." There are problems with telepathy, homeopathy, transdimensional vortices, . . . and gods. All the pleasantries that we might use when approaching people---and I'm all for pleasantness---are just a veneer on top of the fundamental questions that arise when you become skeptical and begin to dig. Surely no one would suggest that questions about god be treated as off limits.

The veneer is fine, but it doesn't eliminate the difficult issues that are going to smack theists in the head in the long run. I think Julia Sweeney can attest to that.

~~ Paul

[Glenn]

Uh, so are the physicists that are studying experimental fields like string theory, for which there is currently no experimental evidence, not being skeptical either?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you may have just missed a word. Do you see the big difference between the verbs “believe” and “study”? I suspect that if you reread the post you were replying to, and your reply, you’d see the flaw in your logic. Your analogies don’t work because you equate scientific research to blind faith. You could have an argument if you were discussing the scientific research of God. But that’s a whole other kettle of dolphins. (wink)

[Larry Barrieau]

I have read some of Penn's writings on the P+T homepage. This is what I get from those entries:
Penn is intelligent. Penn is honest. Penn is a genuinly nice person. Penn has compassion. Penn is loving. Penn is loyal.

I got the same feeling when Penn was on the panel....until... he uttered (screamed) those words. Penn was wrong. He was wrong on two counts. One; Christians as a whole aren't f'n retards. Two; You don't get people to change their opinion by bludgeoning them.

I still believe all of the good things about Penn. I think he lost it in a heated moment and by being on stage. I doubt that would have been the reply if he had been talking to one of us one on one.

[clark]

With all due respect, I think some are taking Penn's comments way too seriously. As a comedic entertainer and unique performance artist, Penn says a lot of stuff partially tongue-in-cheek and for shock value. Penn is a guy who has a famous house built to look like a prison and had a jeep he painted pink and named it "Pink Death".

When Penn said the "retarded" comments, I took them largely as tongue-in-cheek, especially in context. Penn also repeatedly insisted that it was important to respect the intelligence of "the other side" - clearly not consistent with the view that "the other side" is retarded. He even told his story of pitching show ideas to Hollywood producers which were rejected because, I paraphrase, "they'll play in New York or California, but are over the heads of those in Omaha or Peoria". Penn replied, I paraphrase again, that "people in the Heartland perform surgery, program computers, fix machines, etc.", and said that they are no less smart than people in New York or California ("fly over country" tends to be more religious than New York or California).

I think we're making a mountain of Penn's mole hill. I really liked Penn's line, "I don't know why people believe in god. I just know there isn't one. That should be in quote books :).

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[geni]

Originally posted by clark

I really liked Penn's line, "I don't know why people believe in god. I just know there isn't one. That should be in quote books :).


But not in sceptical quote books. Unless he has acess to a different set of information to the rest of us he cantknow that there isn't one.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by clark
With all due respect, I think some are taking Penn's comments way too seriously. As a comedic entertainer and unique performance artist, Penn says a lot of stuff partially tongue-in-cheek and for shock value. Penn is a guy who has a famous house built to look like a prison and had a jeep he painted pink and named it "Pink Death".

When Penn said the "retarded" comments, I took them largely as tongue-in-cheek, especially in context. Penn also repeatedly insisted that it was important to respect the intelligence of "the other side" - clearly not consistent with the view that "the other side" is retarded. He even told his story of pitching show ideas to Hollywood producers which were rejected because, I paraphrase, "they'll play in New York or California, but are over the heads of those in Omaha or Peoria". Penn replied, I paraphrase again, that "people in the Heartland perform surgery, program computers, fix machines, etc.", and said that they are no less smart than people in New York or California ("fly over country" tends to be more religious than New York or California).

I think we're making a mountain of Penn's mole hill. I really liked Penn's line, "I don't know why people believe in god. I just know there isn't one. That should be in quote books :).

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

Welcome to the forum, clark! :D

I know that it may seem like we are nitpicking here. But, I'm not sure that the conference was meant to be some sort of "entertainment" venue. If we were paying him to entertain us, I think I would have not had as bad a reaction. But, here we are in a conference expecting some thought-provoking comments that I don't feel we got with him.

It is not thought-provoking to think of intelligent people as "retards."

G6

[Luciana]

I think it takes all kinds.

Different people react to different stimuli. Therefore, if we are to reach the masses, we need every kind of skeptics - the smooth-talkers, the science-oriented folks, the Julia Sweeneys of the world, Randi (being a magician), Phil Plait's knowledge and humor, the overly political correct ones... and Penn & Teller.

Penn has a very unique approach to the matter. But it certainly CAN reach some people that way. I think the skeptic movement needs folks like him as much as we need many other approaches.

Hal made it very clear, at the beginning, that Skepticism and Atheism were unrelated. Another lecturer (the white-haired one, who talked about creationism) said pretty much the same, even Randi clarified why the Foundation focused on verifiable claims and avoided religion. Therefore, I'm very sorry if some prefered to focus on the worst and ignore all that, and instead choose to get offended with Penn's opinion.

It's absolulely clear that his opinions do no reflect the JREF's. So, really, pick another fight. Some people just need to get offended at something. Come on. If they decide to stop supporting the JREF because of that, too bad, but then it's clear they didn't understand it well in the first place. Good riddance.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Girl 6

But, here we are in a conference expecting some thought-provoking comments that I don't feel we got with him.


In a backhanded way we did. I mean after all it has sparked this very thread where lots of people have offered their views on what skepticism is and isn't, whether scepticism=atheism, etc. And many people have offered up good points on all sides.

If nothing else, I would be willing to bet that it got a lot of people, even people who have not participated on this thread or who don't participate in the forum at all, to think about those very questions.

So his comments did provoke thought, only they did it indirectly.

Edited to add: This was actually posted by me,Nyarlathotep. I logged on as Chani and didn't realize it until I posted. I doubt the Mods can fix it so this message is all I can do to make sure that my words don't get put into her mouth.

[Glenn]

There are two issues being discussed here. One is Penn’s style. The other is the question of whether “skeptical theist” is a contradiction. Let me approach them separately:

1. Penn’s style

I think the only argument one could make against some of Penn’s remarks is that he was being over the top and engaging in name-calling. I think he did so with a purpose (part of which was probably shock humor), and since we were all adults there, it didn’t really bother me -- we could read between the lines and get his drift. But that’s a matter of personal style. Though I personally strongly dislike it when anyone uses “retard” as an insult, I took his remarks with a grain of salt. However, I do appreciate that people have a valid argument with him on the style count.

Don’t forget that Penn did explain why he’s so brash, when someone questioned him about it on one of the panels. He explained that for him, gentle polite folks had little affect on his thinking, but rather it was a loud, in-your-face, over-the-top skeptic who got him to rethink things and ultimately change his point of view on blind faith (or such). That’s what worked for HIM. Therefore, it’s reasonable for him to suspect that it might work for others, too. Plus, Penn knew exactly how brash he was being, and even made self-deprecating jokes about how he must come off to some folks. If every other skeptic with a soapbox is gentle and polite, then one loud & in-your-face dude doesn’t seem terrible to me. In fact, it’s refreshing. It sure got folks thinking and talking! Penn was the sole brash voice on the dais, very well balanced by everyone else. There were many viewpoints expressed, and even some who agreed with Penn’s underlying viewpoint disliked his style. I think one of the reasons he got applause & laughter was because many simply found it funny that he was so over the top. It’s the same reason some people laughed at “Something About Mary” -- they couldn’t believe they were getting away with that stuff.


2. Is “skeptical deist” a contradiction?

We all need time to come to certain conclusions. Some never come to them. But in general, I fail see how anyone could answer the above question with an honest, well-considered “no.” If they can, maybe we need to better define our terms for each other?

Someone in this thread said:

“Skepticism only concerns itself with testable claims. If a person's beliefs about a diety are not testable, then skepticism has nothing to say on the manner.”

I disagree entirely. Skepticism has something very clear to say: “No proof, no belief.”

For, what does it mean to “believe” in something? According to Webster’s, it means: “to accept as true, genuine, or real.” Skepticism here refers to critical/scientific thinking. Skepticism does not allow for one to accept something as true, genuine or real if there is zero evidence for it. That would simply be illogical.

One cannot use the tools of skeptical thought to arrive at a theistic conclusion. By definition it is impossible. One can be theistic for emotional reasons. One can believe in a supernatural entity because it makes them feel better, DESPITE their understanding that it’s irrational and indefensible by critical thinking. But that’s something wholly different.


Here is my understanding of the argument, sans name-calling. Please offer your reasoned critiques.


BELIEVER: I believe there’s an invisible, undetectable jackalope bouncing on my head.

NON-BELIEVER: There’s no such thing as jackalopes.

BELIEVER: This one exists.

NON-BELIEVER: Well, if it’s bouncing on your head, why don’t I see your hair moving?

BELIEVER: I told you silly, it’s undetectable.

NON-BELIEVER: Then how can we test if it’s really there?

BELIEVER: Oy. I’ll say it slowly: it’s un-de-tect-able. But it’s there nonetheless.

NON-BELIEVER: I thought you’re a skeptic. Why do you believe it’s there?

BELIEVER: If you can’t test its existence, then skeptical thinking doesn’t apply. End of discussion.

NON-BELIEVER: I beg to differ. That’s illogical. On what do you base your belief?

BELIEVER: I don’t have to base it on anything. It’s not testable, so I can believe for any reason I wish. But okay, I’ll answer you: personally I believe because it makes me feel better.

NON-BELIEVER: Okay, that’s antithetical to critical thinking, but it’s an honest answer. But I honestly can’t fathom how willingly turning off your critical thinking to consciously delude yourself about one thing could bring you any comfort. [N.B.: “delude” means to mislead the mind or judgment of.]

BELIEVER: Do you believe in the invisible, undetectable jackalope?

NON-BELIEVER: No, I do not believe in the invisible, undetectable jackalope.

BELIEVER: You absolutely don’t believe in the invisible, undetectable jackalope?

NON-BELIEVER: No, I absolutely do not believe in the invisible, undetectable jackalope.

BELIEVER: How can you say that?? What kind of a skeptic are you? You’re as bad as Christian Fundamentalists!

NON-BELIEVER: It is irrational to believe in a fantasy unsupported by evidence.

BELIEVER: Dogma! You’re spewing ajackalopic dogma!

[PaulK]

The first thing I recall Penn saying was "anyone who has figured out one card trick and is still a Christian, how much acid did they take?" Which was bit funny and obviously exaggerated (or that's the way I took it). I was struck more by his insistence that people who ARE atheists should say so and not sugar-coated by saying agnostic or non-believer or some softer language. Some people did publicly state that they disagreed, most notably Hal Bidlack. I find myself saying atheist as a relative term. Hmmm, like Teller is silent relative to the loud guy he hangs around with.:)
I didn't see in this thread a reference to Amazing Jonathan roast which would certainly tell you a lot about Penn and Teller. You can read about that at:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jan-17-Fri-2003/news/20497394.html
Also, Penn was not the only one making statements for atheism. Jamy Ian Swiss called atheism the "unified field theory of skepticism".
For myself, I find myself thinking that atheist=antitheist and I'm simply too disinterested to be "anti". I also harbor a hope (not a belief) that Human Knowledge will not turn out to be governed by entropy - a small philosophical point.

G6, please tell me that avatar isn't really you, it's making me crazy.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Glenn! Clark! We're being invaded. You guys didn't attend TAM2 by any chance, did you? Oh wait, of course you did.

Glenn reiterates an important issue. If theism is immune because it doesn't claim to provide evidence (= pure belief), then we've drawn a line in the sand that is awfully difficult to maintain. Lots of other things that we scoff at are quite close to pure belief, too.

I think we have to agree that if we are going to cut theism some slack, we are doing so on the basis that family and friends are theists, but we want to welcome them into the skeptical community. I'm all for that.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Holy cow, another new guy!

PaulK said:
For myself, I find myself thinking that atheist=antitheist and I'm simply too disinterested to be "anti".
For me, atheist=nontheist and not all that worked up about it, either. "Oh, I'm not going to go listen to my atheist wife sing gospel music in her chorus, because I'm a serious atheist!" Sheesh, lighten up.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

WOW! An impressive post Shanek. I absolutely totally agree with you. Is he the guy who shows how magicians and charlatans achieve what they do? I think that's really great. But he's just going to irritate and alienate people with that sentiment he expressed.

Hmmmm . . I wonder if he realises that he's shooting the skeptical movement in the foot? :confused:

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[...] family and friends are theists, but we want to welcome them into the skeptical community. I'm all for that.

~~ Paul

Here, here, Paul.

(Yes & No to your other question: I used to post a lot, but gave up the time-warping addiction about a year ago, and thus my membership was sundered. Having met so many cool folks at TAM2 I decided to return.)

[darling]

Originally posted by Glenn
I disagree entirely. Skepticism has something very clear to say: “No proof, no belief.” Could a skeptic wear a copper bracelet purely for the placebo effect, knowing there is no evidence that it is otherwise beneficial?

Could a skeptic express an opinion on the greatest jazz musician, knowing that such things are purely subjective?

[bignickel]

Well, glad you found the quote; I suggest you read the rest of the three pages.

Originally posted by Glenn
Skepticism has something very clear to say: “No proof, no belief.”

Check the above posts: according to this logic, it's foolish to believe that anything existed before the Single Point that was the Universe before the Big Bang, since there is no proof of it, and there never can be.

I'm not gonna go thru all the rest of it; just check my and DanishDynamite's posts above.


BELIEVER: I believe there’s an invisible, undetectable jackalope bouncing on my head.

NON-BELIEVER: There’s no such thing as jackalopes.

Well, from the proceeding discussion about a theoretical diety/force outside the universe, we've gone right into Python country.

No such thing as jackalopes? Wow, disproving a negative. I thought that skepticism can't disprove a negative, and Randi doesn't either, but, you know, 'have at it MacDuff, and damn he who cries hold'.

The rest of it pretty much a strawman. I hope I'm not coming off as mean here, but jeez: I hope you never meet a Jesuit. They're built for this kind of thing.

Especially this:
"BELIEVER: Do you believe in the invisible, undetectable jackalope?"

That's just clumsy. "Do you believe that there can't possibly be an invisible [something or other]?" is a heck of a lot more challenging. Especially since one of the credos of science is "All knowledge is tentative."

If you disagree with that, then your left with "Some knowledge is tentative." Which is what the theists believe: welcome to the club!

I prefer the conversation of "Kissing Hank's Ass", to be honest.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

[Interesting Ian]

If he rejects the notion of any type of God (not just the God of the gaps!), I'm just wondering what his arguments were? I presume he gave some? Were people allowed to take the piss out of his arguments supposedly justifying his atheism? I sure of hell would! LOL I have never come across any really decent arguments against the existence of a generic God. Maybe he would have surprised me :rolleyes:

[DialecticMaterialist]

I am somewhat disapointed in Penn for this. Though I admire his skepticism, and his style should be legendary by now, I think that statement was a ill-concieved.


Right now, because of Penn's past contributions to the critical thought movement, I am more or less putting it down as a "mistake", noting it, and letting it go.

I'm sure you wasn't completely serious, and meant it as a joke that was likely made in bad taste.

Now I do agree that skepticism, leads logically to atheism. But that is a controversial philosophical viewpoint, on which I would never call people retarded for disagreeing.


I don't disagree with some of the strong negative responses to Penn on this. To me they ignore much of the good he's done, the fact that he could have simply made a mistake due to carelessness.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


there is no evidence what so ever to point to the existence of a god,



Oh don't be such a complete and total moron! :rolleyes:

Does the sheer stupidity of people on this board know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

[DialecticMaterialist]

If you disagree with that, then your left with "Some knowledge is tentative." Which is what the theists believe: welcome to the club!


It's not so simple I believe as we have to go into what kind of knowledge is being said to be absolute, or tentative. Certainly the fundamentals of logic, math, and other intrinsically rational axioms/principals are one thing.

Conclusions about the existence or non-existence of an entity are entirely different.

Saying that because certain axioms in geometry are rational to believe with certainty, that likewise belief in telepathy is now ok to believe with certainty, or believe in punctuated-equilibrium as an absolute is a non sequitur. You are saying "If X is ok, Y is ok" and that simply doesn't follow without more evidence.

Such claims are very different in their intrinsic traits and consequences.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by budddyh
Could a skeptic wear a copper bracelet purely for the placebo effect, knowing there is no evidence that it is otherwise beneficial?

Could a skeptic express an opinion on the greatest jazz musician, knowing that such things are purely subjective?

The first is a good & interesting question. Except, there is solid evidence that copper bracelets do nothing. In this case, if the skeptic wore it in willful self-delusion, I'd opine that s/he was not being skeptical. Still, I need to think about it more.

The second question compares apples to orangutans. Matters of personal taste are in a different category than matters of objective truth. For your analogy to work, you'd have to ask "Could a skeptic say s/he believed that a particular jazz musician existed?" -- or, alternatively, "Could a skeptic express an opinion on whether they thought one god was the greatest of all gods?" Do you see the difference?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does the sheer stupidity of people on this board know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

That would depend upon whom we're talking about...

[Interesting Ian]

[i]Originally posted by

I personally don't see how anyone who is a skeptic can not be an atheist - there is no evidence what so ever to point to the existence of a god, and to assume one may or may not exist or that one can not decide is as absurd to me as saying that I must withhold a solid opinion on whether fairies exist. I will say resolutely that no fairies or gods exist. If evidence to the contrary should appear, then I will reconsider my position, but I am positive in my own mind that no such evidence exists.



WOW!! How breathtakingly stupid can you get?? :eek: You haven't got a faintest clue what "God" means do you? Still, don't worry about it. Neither have the vast majority of people on this board.

I just cannot get my head around how incredibly stupid a lot of people are! {shakes head sadly}

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My thoughts:

Penn is an over the top character. Remember that for years, he made some of the most ignorant, slanderous, gay bashing jokes (which were usually funny) about Sigfried and Roy. Then when the recent tragedy occured, it came out that they were friends. And remember, he referred to Lance Burton as a "drunken hillbilly" or something like that during they P&T show at the Rio. I would bet that they are good friends. And remember, how many times have we heard fundy xtian "leaders" referring to athiests as evil and perverted?

I also wonder if he is referring more so about perverts like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell when he makes a remark like that. I know personally, I have for years referred to the pope as a child molester. And when hard core catholics gasp "I'm offended", I always reply - "You should be". Now, do I think all catholics are child molestors? No. But it gets the point across that they belong to a sick cult.

Bottom line - it really didn't bother me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Does the sheer stupidity of people on this board know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

Another broken irony meter. :rolleyes:

[Pirate_Lad]

Okay, I'll bite:

Ian, tell me what exactly "God" means.

I sincerely hope my breathtaking stupidity doesn't offend you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]

I guess it depends on how you define skeptic. For example could I say I am a skeptic but I believed in the Loch Ness Monster, even though I have no evidence for the Loch Ness Monsters existence? What makes a claim that God exists any different than a claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists?


Nyarlathotep you're a complete idiot! How many times do you need to be fr*ggin told?? I'll paste in what I've said before on this board.

Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink unicorns etc is unfortunately a false analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with evidence for "X". But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality to be in the normal course of events.

Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3 criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person who is asserting the existence of "X" to

a) directly point at "X"

b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions

c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of "X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though there is no evidence for such galaxies).

Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a differing way from any putative physical existent "X". Many people in referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within the world. Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
I wish someone had asked Penn if he considers deist (and co-CSICOP founder) Martin Gardner a "f*cking retarded."

And why not call non-atheists "stupid" rather the (now gratuitous insult that I thought only "stupid" people used) "retarded"? "Retarded" is actually a specific word for a specific disability--one that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's belief system. Not a very impressive skeptical "critique".

Narrow-minded bigotry is far worse, imo, than a non-proselytizing belief in God could ever be.

Yes Clancie, absolutely! :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Narrow-minded bigotry is far worse, imo, than a non-proselytizing belief in God could ever be.


girl 6

No.

Our lack of confronting Penn and others about their intolerance is the worst thing of all. I certainly don't want to think that my silence means acceptance.

G6 [/B]

You should have savaged him girl 6, I would have done. :) It's absolutely unacceptable to call people retards! :mad:

[Glenn]

Hey, bignickel!

Yes, I’d already read everything you wrote, and everything everyone else wrote in this stimulating thread. I simply thought it unwieldy to quote back everything.

I always find it interesting that people equate the viability of belief in a sentient deity with questions about the nature of the beginning of the universe -- including the question of whether there was a beginning at all. There are 2 flaws with such comparisons, I feel. 1. One is a belief, the other is a process of asking questions and posing possible theories without conclusion. I see no similarity between the two. 2. Deities have as their origin fantasy and magical thinking, and understandable psychological need. Even though anything is possible, it is not reasonable to believe in such things. Do you see the distinctions I am drawing here? We may not be so very far off in our thinking.

I think you mean “prove a negative” rather than “disprove a negative.” It’s a common misconception that skepticism can’t prove a negative. But it does so all the time, given certain parameters. Consider this example: “Prove there is not an adult elephant in this room” can be scientifically satisfied. Granted, without parameters it’s harder or impossible to prove some negatives. But in my example, I am using a mythical creature of known mythical origin. It was meant to be akin to saying Mother Goose, or Peter Pan’s Never Land, does not exist. To be sure, I doubt we could prove such assertions, but I believe we are on safe ground to say we don’t believe in them and that it’d be irrational to do so. Why? Because we’re scientific thinkers, and we use a common language; we recognize that it’s a given that all facts are provisional... I don’t think we need to reiterate that with every breath; it’s part of our understood definition of the word “fact” or “truth,” no?

Anyway, though I love anything Python, I think you missed my point. Which could be my fault. My point was not to say that I can prove there is no such thing as invisible, undetectable bouncy jackalopes. My point was to say that to believe in such things is irrational, and further, that since nobody would object to such a statement about something as obviously ridiculous as the invisible jackalope, why should some react that way toward those who make the same statement about gods?

[kittynh]

Didn't read through this entire thread, so excuse me....

I really wish I had the same guts as G6. I will say as a deist I didn't mind his remarks as, well, it's Penn. I did hold his using the word retard against him, as that is a term that reflects badly on children with impaired mental ability. I wouldn't like it if he called someone a "polock".

My method of dealing with this was probably I felt to make Randi think not too highly of me. I got Hal's attention and and said the one name I knew could get the panel off the atheist question in a hurry....John Edward! The reason I think Mr.Randi thinks I'm an attention seeking jerk is that I asked that exact question of him at the workshop. But, I so wanted the panel to get away from the atheist issue, and more on the issue of testable claims.

I would say there was something VERY WISE said by the Times reporter during the skepchick interview. He assumed we were all atheists. I had to almost sheepishly admit, "well, I'm a deist." He looked at me and said, "well, as a fellow deist I must say that sometimes we need the skeptic movement more than the atheists. We tend to fall for things more easily, since we are more open." I think that is very true.

And I do like Michael Shermer who points out that people who fall for John Edwards and other scams are often very smart. One of the mistakes of the skeptic movement is to think that "I could never fall for anything like that, I'm too smart". Making fun of them isn't the way to educate them.

But, I DID learn a lot from Penn! I TOTALLY was moved by his loudly procliamed belief that we must be HONEST! His assersion that we can be honest and yet still be liked, and indeed we are insulting the other person by not being honest, has indeed changed my life. I have already tried to change my behavior and found to my astonishment that HE WAS RIGHT! People still like me, and in fact are MORE OPEN to me than they were before. In one day, I have concluded that this man was very very wise, and I THANK HIM, for sharing his wisdom with me.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Phil
Perhaps you're making too much of this.

I agree with Ny and Chani. Loud and forceful is the way he presents his ideas. Penn is an admitted carnival freak, a fire-eater, a huckster type, a barker for god's sake. You say you're a fan, so you know that he's an in-your-face entertainer. He had an audience, man. He was speaking in front of four hundred fairly like-minded people and he used the opportunity to get a reaction. That's all.

He's no more a top leader of the skeptic movement than Al Franken or Bill O'Reilly are political leaders. They're entertainers. Period.

Exactly! A sermon given to a varying subject is subdued compared to the "HELLFIRE" that is possible when preaching to the choir. Rarely can you find yourself in a place where you can scream at the top of your lungs on a subject that you believe in... Penn simply took advantage of the opportunity placed before him. Retards (?), I think not... Bright (?), obviiously not.

[Troylus]

A few thoughts here:

First, I am reasonably confident that what Penn actually said was that anyone who believed in God was an "insane retard." IIRC, Bidlack made allusions to those exact words several times afterwards.

Second, I think that Penn's position that one should merely "speak the truth as you see it" is provisionally good and works in public forums where the skeptic or atheist is not seeking to preserve or nurture a relationship with the listener. (Remember, he was specifically criticizing Dr. Scott because she "dodged" the issue during a television program).

However, we don't live in a world where our discussions about theology always take place between unrelated people. Rarely are they that sterile. Much more likely, when we discuss theology, we are interfacing with someone with whom we have an ongoing relationship - whether that be friendship, a common workplace, or whatever. In this case, I think that a bit more care is not only desirable, but necessary. Attacking someone else's cherished beliefs can often seem like an attack upon that person. We certainly don't want to blunder about beating up the people we care about by calling them (to one degree or another) "insane retards". We won't maintain too many relationships that way.

Much better, I think, is to sensitively express your position and then work to find some common ground between you and your listener. Once you've built that relationship of trust, they are more likely to become far more receptive to your point of view.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bignickel
[B]

Pink unicorns have properties. They should have mass, density, color, a single horn, and only approachable by most people at Gamers Conventions.

Teapots have properties. Even those floating around Alpha Centauri. They should have mass, density, color, shape, a spout of some kind, and used in conjunction with a container they can make effective Brownian Motion Producers, particularly when moving about dried bits of organic vegetable sunlight collectors in water.

BOTH of these are therefore testable by science. If not today, then someday when we venture out to the stars to set up a Starbucks of Alpha Centauri, near the planet of Unicorns (where only Gamers may tread).

A god, or G_d, or diety, of any kind, which makes no testable appearance in the Universe, is OUTSIDE the perview of skepticism. It has nothing that skepticism/science can test.



Indeed, and this also goes for any consciousnesses whatsoever. Science cannot detect either a God's consciousness or our consciousnesses. It can only detect the effects of consciousnesses. In our case some of our bodily movements, in the case of God the Universe and change within it as a whole.

[MoeFaux]

For those of you wanting to know what Penn thought about this thread and the opinoins expressed in it, I sent the link to him and asked if he wanted to comment. Here are his replies:


"I think I said at JREF what I wanted to say. I tried to tell the
truth as I saw it. Some words are used as hyperbole and for the sound of the words. There's some poetry involved. I also have very mixed feelings about the word "retard." I use it to evoke grade school taunts, and to give a lightness, but there is such sadness with that word that it's always a risk. It seems many times I use it someone points out that it hurts them more than I intend, so maybe it's time for another rethink. I'm going to run over my other options and maybe I'll replace that phrase. I think that "mentally ill" addresses the question of it being dangerous and, in some sense, not the victims fault and I like that. The combination (to me) is the grade school taunt with the clinical bulky phrase and I like that. I'm very bothered by the respect that theists are given. There's this sense, even among Atheists
that the theist thoughts are in some way important or, even worse, good.
It was belief in imaginary friends that killed those people on 9-11. Theists with their irrational and evil beliefs continue to kill, they
continue to enslave women and cut their bodies to pieces, they continue to slow down science and education and the Atheists get told they aren't being "nice." I contend that it's that hushed respect and gentleness that's part of the problem. These thoughts kill. As far as the use of the word "f*ck" and other obscenity. That's just a style thing. That has nothing to do with anything. I'm carny trash and I'm rock and roll trash. I'm careful about that sometimes, but at JREF I feel I'm among friends and that's more akin to having a Southern dialect than it is
part of the discussion.

As far as belief in god being wrong to state for sure either way, we're all talking about what we BELIEVE, that's the discussion. We're not talking about what has been proven. There is a difference. You can tell what I'm saying is my feelings and opinions because . . . . Well, I'm saying it. And I'm very open to some proof of god, very open .
Just give me some truth.

I'm pretty happy with my position as stated at the conference, but the points on "retard" and "mentally ill" are well taken, but dealing with theists in hushed tones is not really giving them respect, that's the respect that a teacher had for a child . That's the gentleness on condescension. I'm VERY happy to be called names and yelled at. I think that's one of the ways people interact. And to me, condescension is so much worse. I'd soon have someone say, "There is a god you f**king hateful retard" then "why do you feel you've lost your faith in
god, why is that?"

Not everyone likes me or my style and, of course, that makes me sad and I'm always adjusting. But, I'm doing the best I can. [Moe] asked me to skim over the comments. I can't read them carefully, because I'm not strong enough and they would break my heart. But, I tried to get the gist and I will think about it.

But, I know one thing for sure, there's no god.

But, that could change.

Love,
Penn"

"I just looked again. You might want to look up "deist." It's indistinguishable from the modern day idea of Atheist. It certainly has very little in common with "theist." I was not speaking on behalf of Randi or JREF, I was speaking for myself among friends. If people think this in inappropriate and my style is no appreciated, that offends me in no way. I was asked to donate my time and show and money, and if I'm asked not to, I'm fine with that too. Randi will be my friend and my hero forever. I would die for him in a second, and I will surely shut up for him. I liked being among friends and talking and getting excited and having fun, but if the powers that be think that hurts the "movement" (I'm against movements anyway), than I'm thrilled to step aside. I have room at the Slammer for my friends. Just pass me off as a nut and sell me out to all your christard friends. I'm a loose cannon and I know it."


"Okay, I read over more. If Randi lost more money from the people who stop support because of what I said, than the money I gave, I'll match all that money and step out. Randi won't lose a penny because of me. And how many times to I have to say, I'm not trying to convince. Trying to convince is to treat the other side with no respect. You think that if you don't yell, people can't tell you disagree with them? Do you think that christards are dogs who only respond to tone of voice and if you say nicely that they're wrong that that changes the message? How much do you hate and condende to these people? Theists are human beings and they deserve to be told the truth. If you're trying to convert them with nice words, you are more hateful than any bible-thumper. Your job is NOT to win people over to your side, but to keep looking for truth and telling the truth as you see it. If I thought I could win a theist over with tone of voice, I wouldn't do it. I don't want to win with phony charm, I don't want to win. I want to try to find the truth for myself and if I'm any help to others along they way -- that's wonderful. Anyone who sits and plans how they're going to talk to another person to win them over to truth -- doesn't give a f*ck about truth. But, maybe this organization is about pushing a POV and getting converts. I'm going to take a lot of convincing to hate theists that much."

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.

Good points. Some comments & questions...

1. I understand your definition of God, at least the portion thereof you've elucidated, but many theists would sharply disagree with you that yours is the "appropriately defined" one, if that's what you meant. (But kindly correct me if I misinterpreted your words.) Thus, I'd suggest that people are not stupid to ask certain questions about God, since they're clearly working with different definitions. No definition of God seems stupid to me, even though I believe in none of them.

2. I don't know if you were attempting to, but if so you've still offerend no rational argument for believing in such a God as you define. Supposing it/he/she might exist is one thing, however tenuous, but believing is quite another. Now if you eschew critical/scientific/skeptical thinking, then I totally see your point. But such thinking is the framework within which this entire discussion is taking place.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]I agree with the sentiments expressed here that Penn's remarks were over the top. Once the ad hominems start, the point is lost and the delivery method becomes the focus.

However, Penn is a celebrity shock jock. That's his gig. It's all about delivery method.

Also, we have to face one thing: Once a theistic would-be skeptic begins to dig deeply into skepticism, he cannot help but realize that belief in a deity has its logical problems, just like belief in any other "paranormal idea." There are problems with telepathy, homeopathy, transdimensional vortices, . . . and gods.



And we have to just trust you on this that there are all these logical problems? BTW, are you sure you mean logical problems rather than merely problems?

[Troylus]

Follow up:

Although I disagree with Penn and think that he is flat out wrong regarding how to successfully interface with believers (the big hairy retard that he is), I do respect his position and applaud him for speaking out strongly.

You see, I think that most skeptics are fairly tough-skinned and are able to distinguish between someone's personal opinion on a topic and a personal attack.

But, for many of the deeply religious, they are unable to make such a distinction. Attacking their beliefs is identical to attacking them. (I feel like I have some insight into this as I am a former Mormon missionary).

I'm not suggesting that we coddle religious beliefs. Far from it. I actively believe they are in error and am willing to say so. But, I think that we will have much more success in actually getting the message across if they are contemplating your words rather than just reacting to what they perceive as raw hostility aimed at them.

Penn is a smart guy. He'll come around and see that I'm right. Even if he is retarded.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm glad to read Penn's reply. And I agree with all he said. I hope he is welcome and attends all future events!

[Foofer]

Regarding Penn's comments -

Every time I think it's not possible to hold Penn in higher regard than I do, he says or does something that makes me respect him even more. Well said, dude.

[Interesting Ian]

Penn
It was belief in imaginary friends that killed those people on 9-11. Theists with their irrational and evil beliefs continue to kill, they
continue to enslave women and cut their bodies to pieces, they continue to slow down science and education


Er . . right . . so you get some morons who claim to believe in God who commit attrocious acts. Therefore they all do! :rolleyes: And why the flying f*ck should a belief in God slow down science and education for Chr*st sake??? :eek: It was the belief in God which kick started the beginning of modern science in the 16/17th centuries.

This guy is a complete dumbf*ck.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
For those of you wanting to know what Penn thought about this thread and the opinoins expressed in it, I sent the link to him and asked if he wanted to comment. Here are his replies:

[/I]

I was not at this TAM - as I've explained elsewhere, I probably won't be able to make it to one unless it's held geographically closer to me. As I was not present, I didn't see the event being discussed; however, I think from all the replies, I've got a pretty good idea of what happened. Yes, I think use of words like "retarded" and such was out of line, given the venue. As some other poster eloquently put it, it wouldn't have been such an issue if it had happened at one of the social events.

I'm a deist in the Paine/Jefferson sense, so most arguments against theistic viewpoints don't scathe my armor one bit. I am used to discussing such things as religion with both theists and nontheists, and many a time someone announces that they're absolutely certain viewpoint X is the truth, and anyone who can't see it is "stupid". When I'm with whomever it is, that hasn't bothered me, and I don't think it ever will. That's the problem with us deists, I suppose...given the nature of our views, we have so little stake in the discussion that we for all intents and purposes couldn't care less about other views. Having said that, I must also insist that if I weren't alone, and there were others present, I don't think such strong language should be used. I'm not getting all touchy-feely and concerned for others' "feelings" - if you think theism is wrong, unfounded, illogical, whatever, let everyone know! I just really don't think the atmosphere that derision creates is conducive to complete and open discussion.

From the comments Moe has posted, it seems as if Penn understands exactly what everyone is complaining about, and has decided to change it. Thus, I see the matter as closed. I will insist, however, that Penn's withdrawal from the next conference is unacceptable. There's still a very slim-to-slight chance I might make it to the next TAM, and I want to see him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This guy is a complete dumbf*ck.

LOL!!! You would be pooping in your panties if you ever met him!

[WonderfulWorld]

Definitions: I do not believe in fairies. I cannot disprove the existence of fairies, and in fact there is no way to do so. And it isn't my job to go about disproving silly and unsupportable notions. It is the job of those who claim that there are fairies to prove it. But I am not "agnostic" on fairies. I am not "open minded" on the subject. The notion is beneath rational respect. If you have evidence, I will listen, but until then please pardon my horse-laugh. I have a pretty damned good idea what sort of "evidence" will be provided!

I am also not "agnostic" or "open minded" on the subject of psychic powers, psychokinesis, dowsing, ghosts, santa claus, or the Easter Bunny. I do not propose to disprove their existence (I can only debunk specific examples), and I do not claim that it is possible to do so. The notion of such things is silly, and must be rejected as such until evidence is provided to the positive. As Randi (and others) says about his $1M Challenge -- it's the safest bet in the world.

To put a finer point on this: "Atheism" is not an argument about proof against "God", but rather about the complete absence of any evidence (logical or empirical) for a deity, and therefore the completely vacuous nature of the notion. To be a "skeptic" and yet "hold one's mind" on the notion of diety requires an epistemological double-standard: The quality of claims of the paranormal and of the supernatural are precisely the same. Actually, claims of the paranormal are frequently better, in that many claimants at least have the grace to provide some "evidence", however bad. You know, right before they offer excuses....

Penn was indeed inflammatory. He was angry, and with very good cause, in history and in current events. I cheered (quietly -- I probably laughed out loud) when he said what he did, because few people have the balls to say what he said so bluntly (and loudly) as he did, and it was about freaking time! He offends people, but rarely without cause.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Glenn
[B]

Good points. Some comments & questions...

1. I understand your definition of God, at least the portion thereof you've elucidated, but many theists would sharply disagree with you that yours is the "appropriately defined" one, if that's what you meant.



An appropriately defined one as in a particular conceptualisation of "God".




(But kindly correct me if I misinterpreted your words.) Thus, I'd suggest that people are not stupid to ask certain questions about God, since they're clearly working with different definitions. No definition of God seems stupid to me, even though I believe in none of them.



That's fine. So you disagree with me . .ok.



2. I don't know if you were attempting to, but if so you've still offerend no rational argument for believing in such a God as you define. Supposing it/he/she might exist is one thing, however tenuous, but believing is quite another.



I need an argument but you don't? That's interesting. Why is that?



Now if you eschew critical/scientific/skeptical thinking, then I totally see your point.



I certainly eschew pseudo-skeptical thinking. I prefer not to be irrational. Scientific thinking has nothing to do with God as I define it. Indeed scientific thinking cannot in principle address the concept of consciousness at all, whether we're talking about our own consciousnesses, or God's. I subscribe to critical thinking however.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I am still mulling over what to think about what Penn said, and, to me, more importantly, how he said it. But I must comment on this:

Originally posted by PaulK
Also, Penn was not the only one making statements for atheism. Jamy Ian Swiss called atheism the "unified field theory of skepticism".


I was baffled by this comment. The way I am interpreting it, it's wrong.

Atheism does not unify skepticism. Far from it. Skepticism is a process, a method. Atheism is a conclusion. Some people may reach atheism by using skepticism, others may not. But either way, atheism does not unify many theories of skepticism.

I think what Jamy meant, and again I am interpreting, is that atheism is an ultimate truth found by using skepticism. One of many. I am not saying I agree, I am saying I think this is what Jamy meant.

The way he said it, it sounds to me as if there is no unified field theory of skepticism, any more than there is a UFT of science in general, or religion. Skepticism -- saying "I doubt it, show me good evidence" -- is a way of finding truth, or the closest proximity thereof. In the process, one uses critical and rational thinking as well.

In fact, though, now that I think about it more, I propose that there may be something close to a UFT of skepticism-- that is, something which uses skepticism, rational thinking, and critical thinking: science. It's not really a unification, but it does embody all three processes.

[Glenn]

The word for Penn that comes to mind is mensch .

[Phil]

Originally posted by Glenn
The word for Penn that comes to mind is mensch .
The word that comes to mind for Phil is munch. I'm starving.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
An appropriately defined one as in a particular conceptualisation of "God".

Got it.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's fine. So you disagree with me . .ok.

No, that only applied if I misunderstood your "appropriately defined" quote, which I had. So never mind that.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I need an argument but you don't? That's interesting. Why is that?

Actually, I did offer an argument. But I'm not saying you "need" to do anything -- that'd be arrogant of me. But I am simply curious, and thus I am asking, what your reason is for believing in God. If you don't want to share your thinking, that's your perogative. But I am just honestly curious.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Phil

The word that comes to mind for Phil is munch. I'm starving.

!!!!!!!!!

(The word for Glenn is mooch, 'cause I'm hoping for a free meal tonight.)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does the sheer stupidity of people on this board know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:
Apparently not. Post some more.

[Jeff Corey]

Back to topic. Penn using the term "r*****s" disturbs me as much as hearing people say "n*****s, k***s, c***s, or m***** *****r. Ya know what I mean?
(edited to remove offensive term)

[Troylus]

After a bit more thought, I think I've isolated the error in Penn's thinking.

He, most likely, views ideas and people as independent entities. People move about within a marketplace of ideas, picking and choosing which ones seem the best to them. In their experience, should a person discover a new idea that, upon reflection, seems better to them, they discard the old one in favor of the new.

This seems reasonable and I think it also helps to further explain why Penn is so averse to any sort of "conversion" efforts . If you are trying to get someone to believe what you believe via some kind of slick and smarmy "program", you are polluting the marketplace. Instead of being an honest search for truth, it becomes an advertising campaign where glitz, charisma, and smooth-talking rule over free inquiry and investigation. Such efforts at "selling the idea" do, indeed, show great disrespect for the investigator. If the skeptical movement is all about "selling skepticism" then it is no better than any religion.

If this is Penn's position (and I think, based upon his comments that it is) then I agree with him in every respect - except one.

In the real world (and not this idealized one), people come to personally identify with their beliefs. Furthermore, a great many people do not possess the reason or the maturity to extricate their beliefs from themselves. And hence, such bold proclamations that someone is wrong can often be misconstrued as a personal attack. The believer will immediately feel defensive and not even give the idea a moment of consideration.

So, I agree with Penn that this shouldn't be about conversion at all. We're not "selling" skepticism here. We're not about evangelizing some other religious-belief.

However, we do feel that our message of skepticism is correct and we want others to consider it for themselves. We don't want converts who glom on because they were duped into it. Much rather, we want people to stop and think for themselves.

Penn, I think, may be evaluating this in terms of a false dichotomy. He appears to believe that there are only two ways to go:

1. Speak your mind boldly - the consequences be damned.
or
2. Sell the message and win converts via slimy techniques.

I suggest that there is, at least, a third option.

3. Ask polite and probing questions that inspire consideration and contemplation.

I think that this third option is the best because it automatically requires the believer to think. At the same time, it shows respect for them as a person. By asking questions of a believer, you are not trying to win them over to your point of view, instead you are encouraging them to re-examine their own points of view to see how well they withstand scrutiny.

It is my contention that Truth (whatever it may be) withstands scrutiny. Conversely, false beliefs will eventually crumble under the weight of investigation.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm all in favor of being gonzo as the next vocal skeptic but if I meet someone who thinks psychics are frauds, that magnet therapy is repulsive, that CAM can't and that cryptozoology is a wild yeti hunt - and yet they believe in God/gods... I'm not going to call them retarded or stupid or anything like that.

I figure the more allies we have in the skeptic movement the better. I find it highly ironic that Penn was talking about bringing the Goths and freaks and weirdos into skepticsm while at the same time shutting out anyone who is a religious believer.

I expect more out of him than a taller, more boisterous Lord Kenneth...

[bignickel]

I read Penn's post.

I then re-read my posts.

I then re-read Penn's post.

I still agree with the statements that I've made.

I agree with many of the statements that Penn made. I disagree on approaches. So what? If we all had the same approach to everything, the Law of Averages would be greatly upset. Then we'd have to make the Law of Averages an actual law to prevent buildings from collapsing when an entire state's population heads to it's top floor.
And who wants that?


What's the important issue here? I think perhaps... semantics. I suspect that everyone's not on the same page. Do we all have to be? No, but it certainly clears up misunderstandings between people when you can see what they're talking about.

Where I'm coming from:
Athiesm = There is no god
Agnosticsm = I have no evidence of a god.
Thiest = One who believes or suspects that there is a diety/entity/creator inside or outside the unverse, who may or may not interfere with the universe or reveal his/her/it's presense.

Skepticism = the approach of using a tentative approach to claims, based on rationalism, evidence, and natural philosophy.
Skeptic = someone who prefers the tools of skepticism when approaching claims.

Why the definitions? Because I think that once we start deciding that a skeptic believes this and can't believe that... we're heading to a club. And then to a church. And then to a dogma. Skeptics try to use their toolsets as best they can; we try to keep an open mind, and not a gaping one. We walk the thin line between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, between believing in nothing and believing in everything.

It's not for the timid.

I do not believe that you can convince anyone of anything. The only person that you can convince is... yourself.

Morality does not belong exclusively to religion, which is a collection of individuals with a particular belief in something outside skepticism. Morality belongs to humanity; it is not the exclusive property of anyone or any group. We are moral beings not because of anything outside of us; we are moral because we are human.

There are those that believe that X, or Allahaha, or the Great Green Arkleseizure has spoken to humanity. And given them orders to do their bidding; if that bidding impacts the destiny of humanity for ill, whether it's burning the Library of Alexander, or hijacking planes, then no: I won't be partiularly nice either. It's a testable claim, this 'I get my orders from X' business: either it happened, or it didn't, and someone is using theology to spread hate and destruction. We don't need them, and if they insist on enforcing their will on the rest of us, they should be removed.

We need Penn, the same way we need everyone who prefers to use skeptical tools. There are too few of us. He does use a sledgehammer. Sometimes a sledgehammer is necessary to shake up calcified belief systems. Sometimes a chisel is alot more effective, and alot less messy.

He has a sharp mind, a sharp intellect, and in the post-WTC environment, he is unafraid to speak his mind. We need more of him. Does he come in six-packs?

I respect him. Why would I want to hear what he had to say at TAM2 if I didn't? I try to respect everyone who has an open mind.

[Jeff Corey]

Apparently you "bRights" think it's OK to call people "retards".
Piss off. Then bugger off. And when you're done, sod off.

"So doff yer hat..."
(transition to...)
"Sod off, yer hat..."
Benny Hill

[clinttaylor]

Originally posted by Glenn


!!!!!!!!!

(The word for Glenn is mooch, 'cause I'm hoping for a free meal tonight.)

The word for Clint is mulch because that's what my salad sort of tasted like...:(

[Clancie]

Wow. Penn, you probably are indeed a mensch in many ways, just as Glenn said, but how can these remarks go uncommented on?
Posted by Penn
Some words are used as hyperbole and for the sound of the words. There's some poetry involved.
We're talking about the phrase "f*cking retard". Where's the poetry?
It seems many times I use it someone points out that it hurts them more than I intend, so maybe it's time for another rethink.
It's been pointed out "many times" that it hurts--you apparently care--but still keep right on saying it? :confused:
I think that "mentally ill" addresses the question of it being dangerous and, in some sense, not the victims fault and I like that.
Great. Now the new insulting label for non-atheists will be "mentally ill". How about just something factual?


I'm very bothered by the respect that theists are given.
Okay, so why not just say that? Why the need for name calling that, "evokes grade school taunts"? As intelligent adults, shouldn't our communication about ideas be able to be more than that?
It was belief in imaginary friends that killed those people on 9-11....These thoughts kill.
I disagree vehemently. Politics, not religion, was at the heart of 9/ll.

And evil has been done in the name of (some) religions, not all. That doesn't make all religious believers evil. Genocide has also been committed by those with no religion, or who are anti-religion, even atheists. :eek:
but dealing with theists in hushed tones is not really giving them respect, that's the respect that a teacher had for a child . That's the gentleness on condescension. I'm VERY happy to be called names and yelled at.
Well, that's you. Most people don't like it and are evem turned off to ideas of people who are insulting them.

And what makes insulting someone better than the, iyo, "condescension" of staying on topic, making an intellectual rather than purely emotional argument, and being polite? :confused:

As for the JREF donated time...friendship...etc. well, you're an amazing entertainer, generous with your time and talent, and I'm sure there's no one here who doesn't admire your work...maybe even admire your passion for what you believe in as well. But, that said, I don't think that anyone should feel guilty for offering constructive criticism about the speech.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
I have to disagree with most of what you said. God is not a provable conclusion, but then again, nothing really is. But alas there must be evidence to support the existence of a higher being, and to accept that there is one or to believe that there is one because one wants to believe, is not a rational nor a skeptical approach.

Look at it this way: "Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived" is not a provable conclusion; there is no evidence to support it outside of subjective opinion, so is it true that to accept that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived is neither rational nor skeptical?

And a belief in god is baseless.

So is a belief that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived. So what?

In science,

Who said we were talking about science?

I don't understand how anyone can believe in anything without evidence to support it.

I believe that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived, without any evidence to support it. Deal with that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
People get good feelings and other benefits from all sorts of things. People feel happy and whatnot based on things that John Edward says too,

And I would hope that we would not shun the John Edward believers or push them away. We need to educate them. These are grieving people who are vulnerable; I know the feeling because I had it after I lost my father. These people are NOT stupid; they need to be educated, and you don't educate someone by calling them stupid.

And again, John Edward deals with actual testable claims; a belief in a personal god is not testable in any way.

I simply don't think that any belief should be immune to scrutiny and that includes belief in God.

I never said it should.

The fact that lots of people take comfort in the belief should not give it a free pass.

When did I say to give them a free pass?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think Penn made some excellent points and handled himself with far more restraint then most would have in his position, to his credit. He also displayed a lot of courage by being very sincere with some of his deepest beliefs. He also most importantly admitted he may have made a mistake.

I agree that theists are often times given far too much credit, just because their beliefs are popular. Most atheists know the frustration of this. Especially with things like Bush's latest excessively religious state of the Union Adress and O"Riely's labeling of secularism as "the enemy" and saying things like "those who do not believe in a higher power offend me."

I however disagree (of course) that mere theism is insulting. Sure some like Falwell think we "deserved" stuff like 9/11. But most didn't.

Just like some atheists set up gulags in the USSR and forcibly evacuated cities in Cambodia.

IMO, theism is a vague belief, with many different trains of thought. Just like materialism, objectivism, and dualism. Some are good, and some are bad.

Again though, I believe many theist claims in our society are white washed. Especially the more homphobic, and hateful ones.

Bill Maur for example got his show cancelled for his 9/11 comments. Falwell and Robertson just had to apologize. That's an obvious double standard.

Personally I also think we should avoid charged language like cuss words as much as possible. Basically because issues like theism are charged with enough emotion and infusing more makes a volatile mix. I am admittedly concerned with changing people's minds (my beliefs are missionary) but that's not the only reason. Keeping language neutral imo, helps keeps discussions more objective, and people more rational. And objective/rational discussions help get us all closer to the truth then charged ones.

It all depends on context though. Which is a matter of taste of course.

I for example love Penn's carny style on Penn and Teller's ******** on the subject of creationism. Not so much on theism in general though.

But that's just my personal taste though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Uh, so are the physicists that are studying experimental fields like string theory, for which there is currently no experimental evidence, not being skeptical either?

Or how about SETI? Are all the people looking for signs of intelligent life in the universe not skeptics?

EXCELLENT points.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I reluctantly have to disagree with Yeti's points there.

The difference between SETI and String Theory is those are hypothesis being tested, scientific hypothesis which we cannot test the parsimony or coherence of compared to alternatives.

Theism however is an ontological/philosophical hypothesis, one which we can easily see is less parsimonious and coherent then materialism. Not to mention it doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics.

The comparison's then between SETI/String Theory and Theism are imo, superficial and vaccuous.

Thus one can clearly be seen as rational and one irrational. At least according to that criteria.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


Look at it this way: "Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived" is not a provable conclusion; there is no evidence to support it outside of subjective opinion, so is it true that to accept that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived is neither rational nor skeptical?

It is a subjective experience as to whether he was the greatest composer who ever lived - that is not evidence. What is supported by evidence is that he lived.



So is a belief that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived. So what?

It is your point. Once again, it is a subjective experience and is not related to whether Beethoven lived or not.



Who said we were talking about science?

Nobody is. I was giving an example. And my background is science. I require evidence to accept something to be true. Some evidence, any evidence. It is part of critical thinking.



I believe that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived, without any evidence to support it. Deal with that.

Once again that is a subjective experience, but we do not disagree that Beethoven existed. Now, if you want to claim your god is the best god ever, well then, that is a subjective experience. But we don't agree that god existed because unlike for Beethoven's existence, we have no evidence to support such a beings existence and to believe that such a being exist without evidence is not rational. Deal with that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
For those of you wanting to know what Penn thought about this thread and the opinoins expressed in it, I sent the link to him and asked if he wanted to comment.

Wow, Moe! You rock girl! Thanks!

Most of these are insightful, reflective comments which I appreciate. I do want to talk about some of the others, though.

I'm very bothered by the respect that theists are given.

This is odd, coming from the same man who made the most inspiring appeal to treat everyone with respect. After all, some of these theists are the ones who program computers, fix cars, and perform surgery (I believe was the way it went).

There's this sense, even among Atheists that the theist thoughts are in some way important or, even worse, good. It was belief in imaginary friends that killed those people on 9-11.

No, it was the lizard-brain that used that as an excuse to kill people on 9/11, and the other atrocities you mentioned. But the point here is well taken: Theists can be vulnerable. But we're ALL vulnerable, to varying degrees. None of us is perfect. Are we to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Loose your scorn for the lizard-brained @$$hole manipulators all you want, but don't lump the millions of good and innocent people who merely have the potential for such manipulation in the same category.

As far as the use of the word "f*ck" and other obscenity. That's just a style thing. That has nothing to do with anything.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with that. It was the general attitude and the basic point I took exception too.

As far as belief in god being wrong to state for sure either way, we're all talking about what we BELIEVE, that's the discussion. We're not talking about what has been proven. There is a difference. You can tell what I'm saying is my feelings and opinions because . . . . Well, I'm saying it. And I'm very open to some proof of god, very open . Just give me some truth.

This is exactly my point: What you believe, and what they believe, is a matter for discussion and disagreement, not shutting them out. Shutting them out is that same lizard-brain at work. If that isn't what you intended and I misinterpreted what you were saying, that's one thing. But the impression I got was that you were excluding all theists from the realm of skeptics, which I think is unreasonable to say the least. Since we're all vulnerable to varying degrees, and no one is a perfect skeptic (being imperfect humans and all), there is, I think, a continuum of skepticism, from total woo-woo on one side to pure skeptic on the other. It would just be a question of where do you draw the line and say, "Everyone on THIS side is a real skeptic!"

I'm pretty happy with my position as stated at the conference, but the points on "retard" and "mentally ill" are well taken, but dealing with theists in hushed tones is not really giving them respect, that's the respect that a teacher had for a child .

Personally, I don't see a lot of respect coming from either of those.

You think that if you don't yell, people can't tell you disagree with them?

Again, it wasn't really the yelling that got to me; it was the exclusionary nature of your comment. It had a real us-against-them flavor to it, which I don't think is appropriate in skeptical thought.

Not everyone likes me or my style and, of course, that makes me sad and I'm always adjusting. But, I'm doing the best I can. [Moe] asked me to skim over the comments. I can't read them carefully, because I'm not strong enough and they would break my heart. But, I tried to get the gist and I will think about it.

Who could ask for anything more? Penn, I'm still one of your biggest fans and you never lost my respect. I'm proud to have been a part of this discussion.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
...snip....


But, I know one thing for sure, there's no god.

But, that could change.

Love,
Penn"

[/I]

If you could pass it on to Penn, I liked what he had to say, and although I am not as brash as he is, I share a like opinion. I believe it is important to be honest, and I really doubt his comments hurt the JREF. He was a pleasure to listen to talk, and I found his attitude refreshing. I do appreciate his reconsidering the use of retard, but that is my own personal bias as my son is disabled. This is all a tempest in a teapot, and I think the world would be a much duller place if we didn't have difference of opinions and address, and if we didn't have Penns.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
It is a subjective experience as to whether he was the greatest composer who ever lived - that is not evidence.

And to many people the idea of God is completely subjective and personal.

It is your point. Once again, it is a subjective experience and is not related to whether Beethoven lived or not.

But the question is not whether or not Beethoven lived.

Nobody is. I was giving an example. And my background is science. I require evidence to accept something to be true. Some evidence, any evidence. It is part of critical thinking.

Okay, fine. But I know many Christians who say that knowledge of God is outside the realm of science and actually take offense at the thought of using science to try and discover God. Why? Because to them, God is very personal and subjective and private and intimate.

Once again that is a subjective experience, but we do not disagree that Beethoven existed.[/b]

Nor do we disagree that the Universe exists. But the property of the Universe that delineates "God" is, to many people, comparable to the property of Beethoven that delineates "great composer." It isn't to you and me, obviously, but it is to so many others.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

This is all a tempest in a teapot, and I think the world would be a much duller place if we didn't have difference of opinions and address, and if we didn't have Penns.

Or as Teller would say, a tempest in a tophat.

I'm off to bed; I think all those coughing/sneezers on the plane may have given me something. I hope not.

[Glenn]

Shanek,

The distinction you're making is interesting, but I think it's flawed. The point Chanileslie was making, and that I made earlier a bit further up, is that your analogy doesn't work because it lacks parallel construction.

You are trying compare the question of whether one believes that something actually exists to the question of how one feels about or rates something (regardless of its existence). No parallel construction, no analogy.

You can draw an analogy between how one feels about Beethoven and how one feels about God. Or you can draw an analogy between whether one believes in the existence of Beethoven or of God. But you cannot draw an analogy between the belief that one thing exists and how someone feels about or rates the other.

Originally posted by shanek
And to many people the idea of God is completely subjective and personal.

But they still make a claim that there is something (God) which exists (i.e., is real, as opposed to a figment of their imagination). That's what removes it from the realm of subjectivity. If they believe that God is only real for them, that it's only a concept in their own imaginations, then I totally agree with you, there's no argument with them. But that's not what we're discussing, I don't suspect.

Originally posted by shanek
But the property of the Universe that delineates "God" is, to many people, comparable to the property of Beethoven that delineates "great composer." It isn't to you and me, obviously, but it is to so many others.

That's a nonsense statement. Taste is not in any way comparable to existence. One can say they believe because it feels good, and they can believe that there's no possible proof. That's one thing. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with taste.

Still, your point about blind faith in God being very personal and intimate makes sense. That doesn't mean we can't ask the question, "WHY does the believer believe?" It's a fascinating question.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[b]WOW! An impressive post Shanek. I absolutely totally agree with you. Is he the guy who shows how magicians and charlatans achieve what they do? I think that's really great. But he's just going to irritate and alienate people with that sentiment he expressed.

Hmmmm . . I wonder if he realises that he's shooting the skeptical movement in the foot? :confused:[/i]
I would very much agree with you there Ian, but dont lower yourself down to Penn's level with comments like these:



Oh don't be such a complete and total moron! :rolleyes:

Does the sheer stupidity of people on this board know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

...

WOW!! How breathtakingly stupid can you get?? :eek: You haven't got a faintest clue what "God" means do you? Still, don't worry about it. Neither have the vast majority of people on this board.

I just cannot get my head around how incredibly stupid a lot of people are! {shakes head sadly}

...

Nyarlathotep you're a complete idiot! How many times do you need to be fr*ggin told??

Calm down a bit, here's a kitten:

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/77/04/b/770434b3c6c0e511b3a809046d9fb754.jpg

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, it was the lizard-brain that used that as an excuse to kill people on 9/11, and the other atrocities you mentioned. But the point here is well taken: Theists can be vulnerable. But we're ALL vulnerable, to varying degrees. None of us is perfect. Are we to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Loose your scorn for the lizard-brained @$$hole manipulators all you want, but don't lump the millions of good and innocent people who merely have the potential for such manipulation in the same category.


All you are doing is conflating proximate with ultimate causation.

Why did Billy go to the kitchen? Neural reactions in his reptilian brain, having certain genetic predispositions or the fact that he was thirsty?

Sure reptilian brains may have a lot to do with such religious atrocities, but so does religion. The two are not mutually exclusive. However the fact is, one comes with good, and is necessary, while the other is not. One we can more easily do something about, another we cannot not.

Religion also causes what I think to be indirect harms, by making traditions dogmatic, by confusing issues, by making political views more extremist, and by closing minds.

It's one thing to argue with your neighbor over land, its another to say "God promised me this land." It's one thing to say homosexuality is gross in your opinion, its another thing entirely to say "God condems it."

And of course supernaturalist belief is essential to supernaturalist dogma.

I don't see all religious people as the same (and I don't think Penn said he did either), but the fact that religious belief does sometimes lead to harm is indisputable. Whether or not indulging in such religions despite their harm (both direct and indirect) is a question of whether we personally believe the percieved costs are worth the percieved benefits.

[the_ignored]

What we should do:

Arrange for a debate or meeting between Penn Jillette and Cal Thomas (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1132016.html), the guy who once said that April Fool's day should be "the atheist's national holiday"!

[T'ai Chi]

Sorry, personally I wouldn't give my money or time (if I had any of either) to any organization who invites someone who basically insulted a large group of people, some of whom I happen to consider friends, family, and people who contribute(d) positively to the world.

With that said, I'd have nothing personal against that person or the organization, I'd just strongly disagree with the person's juvenille comments.

[Reginald]

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing bloody pictures of kittens on this forum.

[TomStockholm]

Originally posted by shanek


Because belief in god is a much more personal thing than belief in the Loch Ness Monster. People believe in god because it gives them certain feelings, or a certain power, what they consider to be definite tangible benefits. We may say they're deluding themselves, we may say they're acting with no proof at all, and that's fine. But again, that's not the same as being all divisive and exclusionary based on what someone personally chooses to believe.

The most personal belief I have is the belief that my football team (Hammarby IF, Swedish champions 2001, may god annoint the souls of all its players;) ) is continually victimised by referees, opponents, opposing fans, media etc. etc. I fully believe that every single time a goal is scored against us, or some w*nker decides that we shouldn't have had that obvious penalty when Pablo, our star forward, is hacked down in the box, that this is a part of an enormous conspiracy being played out against all Hammarby fans and towards me in particular.

This belief is not rational, the "evidence" I have for it would probably not bare scrutiny before an impartial audience, but I know that I am right, and above all, I know that it makes me feel a hell of a lot better.

I am absolutely certain that this belief that I have is far more active, far more passionate and above all, affects my personal life far more than the beliefs of a lot of the christians that I know.

I don't know but I am sure some Loch Ness Monster believer out there could quite easily argue his beliefs with equal passion and personal feeling as I argue football and some people argue their religious beliefs. People donate their lives for this kind of thing for Nessies sake. ;)


Originally posted by shanek
What if that someone freely acknowledges that they have no rational basis for their belief, but they choose to believe because of the benefits that belief gives them? Who are we to slam the door on them?


This I agree with wholeheartedly. I honestly don't think anyone is a 100% sceptic. We all have small chinks in our "sceptic armour", so to speak. Sceptisism is a very sound ideology. But there will always be something left somewhere inside us that doesn't quite match up to its goals.

Calling people retards is very counter productive

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, let me see if I can summarize what we've said here:

At TAM3, Penn Gillette and Interesting Ian will be invited to debate the existence of god.

They will not be allowed to use the word retard.

The debate will be judged by a disinterested agnostic who will award points for both style and substance.

The loser will be locked in an escape-proof box.


~~ Paul

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by Bad Astronomer
I think what Jamy meant, and again I am interpreting, is that atheism is an ultimate truth found by using skepticism. One of many. I am not saying I agree, I am saying I think this is what Jamy meant.
I interpreted it differently: Jamy simply expressed himself poorly. My argument about an epistemological double-standard was basically Jamy's point, I think: Skepticism and Atheism are the same thing. Gods, fairies, and psychic powers are all the same thing, in the big picture; they are simply manifestations irrational belief.

We, again, have a semantic problem. BigNickel's definitions of atheism and agnosticism are not shared by me or by most dictionaries, they are not shared by Randi (given previous statements he's made on the subject), and are not (apparently) shared by Penn. Here is my definition, put in BigNickel's form:
Athiesm = I don't believe in god
Agnosticism = Maybe there's a god, maybe not. (Cannot be proven or disproven)

Agnosticism is simply a waffle, like saying "Maybe there are psychic powers, maybe not, it can't be proven either way." There is not, and never has been, any rational evidence for God or psychic powers, and given that there have been thousands of years, now, of efforts to produce such evidence, all of which came up craps, it's about time that we treat the notions as the damned silly (and historically dangerous) B.S. that they are.

Originally posted by shanek
I believe that Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived, without any evidence to support it. Deal with that.
"Art" only permits a limited amount rational evaluation. The rest is opinion. Beethoven existed, he wrote music: That is open to proof. God and psychic powers either exist or they don't, and are open to rational proof. In other words: Apples and oranges, but nice try.

[Interesting Ian]

First of all guys, sorry for my language last night. But I was drunk, therefore it wasn't really me (according to materialism).

[i]Originally posted by bignickel

Why the definitions? Because I think that once we start deciding that a skeptic believes this and can't believe that... we're heading to a club. And then to a church. And then to a dogma.



To be honest, I think this is what it is. You couldn't have a skeptic who believes in telepathy could you? And more generally you couldn't be a skeptic who believes in the existence of any phenomena which challenges the idea that the world as a whole (the Universe) unfolds according to physical laws. Therefore you can't believe in any phenomena which comes under the umbrella term the "paranormal", but also you can't believe in free will as commonly understood (ie libertarian free will). In other words you must at least espouse naturalism and all this implies i.e. we are essentially machines living out our purposeless predetermined lives unfolding according to the laws of physics, and certainly you must believe there is no "life after death"!

So basically skeptics subscribe to naturalism, and any putative phenomena which challenges this naturalism will be deemed as an extraordinary claim. Thus they will prefer a convoluted naturalistic explanation to any simpler explanation which contravenes naturalism.

It seems to me that skepticism is at least at tension with any notion of a diety or a god.



Skeptics try to use their toolsets as best they can; we try to keep an open mind, and not a gaping one. We walk the thin line between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, between believing in nothing and believing in everything.



I don't agree at all. I see skeptics as being incredibly close minded. Basically they've been "brainwashed" into an unthinking acceptance of the basic common western metaphysic and they are loath to countenance the reality of anything which challenges this world view.

[geni]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
Skepticism and Atheism are the same thing. Gods, fairies, and psychic powers are all the same thing, in the big picture; they are simply manifestations irrational belief.



What part of atheism stops you from beliving that homeopathy works or the moon landing was a hoax?

[darling]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sorry, personally I wouldn't give my money or time (if I had any of either) to any organization who invites someone who basically insulted a large group of people I mentioned that I knew three Christians who where there. I should also have added that I don't think any of them were offended or insulted - they took it in the spirit it was intended. Sure, if you isolate those few words, then Penn sounds like an ass.

However, when you take everything he said as a whole, then the meaning is changed, softened. I don't think anybody who listened to him speak would believe that's all he feels. Right afterward Julia Sweeney shared how compassionate Penn had been toward her at a trying time when she was still a believer. At other points Penn made clear that he didn't think believers were necessarily stupid.

The point of TAM is to make people think and Penn succeded at that. I doubt he'd have much to do with me (unless he was in the market for some killer Buddy Holly bootlegs) but I do know TAM was so much stronger for his presence. We need more people like Penn and Teller and Julia Sweeney.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I reluctantly have to disagree with Yeti's points there.

The difference between SETI and String Theory is those are hypothesis being tested, scientific hypothesis which we cannot test the parsimony or coherence of compared to alternatives.

Theism however is an ontological/philosophical hypothesis, one which we can easily see is less parsimonious and coherent then materialism.

Er . .you're kidding right? Materialism is extremely unparsimonious. Much simpler is subjective idealism which complete abandons the idea of a physical realm (understood as a mind-independent reality). Instead of material objects accounting for our perceptual experiences we need simply hypothesis the existence of God who directly provides our perceptual experiences via the 5 senses (kinda like the Matrix except with God providing the "virtual reality" rather than a computer).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Glenn

Still, your point about blind faith in God being very personal and intimate makes sense. That doesn't mean we can't ask the question, "WHY does the believer believe?" It's a fascinating question. [/B]

How so? I think I have a pretty good feel of both why believers believe and why atheists disbelieve.

I would say believers believe in much the same way, although in a vaguer sense, as they believe that other people are actually conscious rather than unconscious automatons (or p-zombies as philosophers refer to it). They feel it, and it's psychologically more satisfying, and besides, there's no reason to disbelieve it.

We have feelings that there is an ultimate purpose to our lives and the Universe. We have feelings that the Universe is not cold and empty, but is suffused with meaning. That there is an infinite awareness embracing and transcending all things. That we all have some ultimate teleological destiny which we are striving towards, with this one life only constituting one very small party of that long journey.

We have no evidence or particularly compelling reasons to suppose the foregong is not true, and these beliefs are supported by the evidence from mystical experiences such as NDEs.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
I would very much agree with you there Ian, but dont lower yourself down to Penn's level with comments like these:


I wouldn't have said them when I was sober. I get more emotional when I'm drunk. And not just the "bad" emotions such as anger.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Okay, let me see if I can summarize what we've said here:

At TAM3, Penn Gillette and Interesting Ian will be invited to debate the existence of god.

They will not be allowed to use the word retard.



:(



The debate will be judged by a disinterested agnostic who will award points for both style and substance.

The loser will be locked in an escape-proof box.


~~ Paul

Nah, the loser should be bought a pint to cheer him up for losing the argument.

OK that's a date :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I wouldn't have said them when I was sober. I get more emotional when I'm drunk. And not just the "bad" emotions such as anger.

Ian I have a great respect for other people's drunkness but I cannot accept this excuse I am sorry.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nyarlathotep you're a complete idiot!

A rather ironic thread to say such a thing, don't you think? Especially since you have been coming down on the side that Penn should not have said what he said. And I could find a dozen more examples on this thread if I cared to cut and paste them.

Wait a minute, I get it. You and people who share your beliefs are allowed to call people such things but not people who disagree with you. I see. How very convenient for you.

You are a hypocritical @sshole of the highest magnitude.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ian I have a great respect for other people's drunkness but I cannot accept this excuse I am sorry.

Why not?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why not?

Because you can stay away from people if you have noticed that alcohol makes you behave in a way that makes you regret the next day.

A drunk person is protected even by the Law when somebody tries to harm him by taking advantage of his condition but drunkness is not an acceptable excuse for offending or harming others.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


A rather ironic thread to say such a thing, don't you think? Especially since you have been coming down on the side that Penn should not have said what he said. And I could find a dozen more examples on this thread if I cared to cut and paste them.

Wait a minute, I get it. You and people who share your beliefs are allowed to call people such things but not people who disagree with you. I see. How very convenient for you.

You are a hypocritical @sshole of the highest magnitude.

Am I indeed. At least I don't need to be repeatedly told the most mind- numbingly obvious things. In common with almost all other atheists I have communicated with, you have a seriously impressively stupid idea of what "God" is. I've said it before, but it's worth restating - no wonder you lot are all atheists. :eek:

Honestly, you are all utterly clueless.

Incredible.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Am I indeed. At least I don't need to be repeatedly told the most mind- numbingly obvious things. In common with almost all other atheists I have communicated with, you have a seriously impressively stupid idea of what "God" is. I've said it before, but it's worth restating - no wonder you lot are all atheists. :eek:

Honestly, you are all utterly clueless.

Incredible.

I have to at least give you points for honesty. You not only don't deny that you are a hypocrite but you proceed to give a further example. Honesty like that is a rare thing these days.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
I talked to a few Christian friends of mine last night, and got asked about Vegas and how it went, and the antitheism of the meeting came up after a bit.

Ello Justine! I will just speak to my comments towards you that night. Indeed I suggested the audience was mostly atheist/agnostic therefore in a broad sense antitheistic. That part was a guess. I asked what did you think the audience that took in Penn's comments were generally composed of. To which you replied mostly atheists/agnostics.


The reaction was just the sort I'd have feared- not the shock and offense that I had, but rather people saying they weren't surprised that an atheist would say that to a mostly atheistic audience.

Why do you fear such? I find that a logical conclusion. I don't care to suggest how athiests should act or come to conclusions, it is not my agenda.


As I said to them, thats exactly the point and the problem... its only a certain number that believe that sort of thing about theists, but that group manages to make it so that all atheists are seen as God and Christian haters. In fact, when I said that some of the atheists at the meeting took issue with what he said and didn't agree, I saw the most skepticism I thought I'd ever get from them.

Really? What percentage of atheists believe that theists are ***** mental retards? Where can I find this number? This is of course far different than those that proclaim one should say this publically at the meeting. I still contend the assertion and comment rings true in an atheists mind. I am also not offended by such. Yeah, I am also a skeptical Christian. Recall the conversation was almost exclusively between you and I. I suggested that they still agreed with what he said, just didn't think that was the place to express such.


But thats the problem- these people are my friends whom I care about deeply, and if they had been there at the meeting to learn more about the skeptical movement... well, how likely are they to ally themselves with a movement that they see as being virulently antitheist and outright hostile to their presence?


I view these boards, I think I can get a good idea of what the so called skeptical movement entails. I ally myself with those that care to respect my process of coming to conclusions. I have never cared to find that to be a majority of any entity or organization.


I know some have been thinking along the same lines here, but I have a personal stake in this too. For me and my ascent out of fundamentalism, a big influence on me was a person who was patient, a friend to me where I was at, and was glad to see me getting out of that and returning to my skeptical mindset- not reviling me for my beliefs.

I don't know if this refers to me or not. I know I encouraged you as I would encourage others to evaluate their beliefs honestly and critically, although I am of the belief that within the Christian thought "circle" faith plays some part. Not the sole part, but a part.


If there's to be any hope of reaching more fundamentalist Christians and helping them learn to think more critically (my personal crusade I suppose), then the type of behavior Penn showed is the worst thing he could do, and undermines everything the organization stands for, in my opinion.

Perhaps I am not aware of how your personal crusade is aligned with the "organization". Where is this crusade expressed within the manifesto?

I tried to see if I was being hypocritical about this, because I didn't think that I would ever say someone could be a fundamentalist and a skeptic, but realized that wasn't quite right. Rather, to become a fundamentalist, you have to suspend your skepticism... so while you may be a skeptic, as I was, you suppress it for a time. Eventually though, you can't anymore. But skepticism doesn't come naturally to all, and they see the actions of the few as being representative of all, which just totally screws over my mission. Thats really what upsets and frustrates me about this- how far actions like that set us back and bring us to the level of those we're trying to reach.

Once again, I took what Penn said as coming from Penn. I know his schtick. I am aware of his beliefs. I saw his "rebuttal" to some comments made about him on these very boards. In fact I am impressed with his defense of his comments and not surprising. I don't say that meaning I believe him to be an idiot. As I don't think he is such. He is honest. I can deal with that, rather than a posture that is portrayed to advance an agenda.


Am I saying he or anyone else should lie about what they believe on this issue? Certainly not. And naturally Penn and all others have a right to their opinion. But when you're seen as speaking on behalf of an organization or group of people, I simply think its a good idea to be sure what you're saying really is representative of them.

Justine

I see him speaking to a group, not on behalf of a group. I also don't look for one person to represent a whole, or some sort of groupthink. I don't care to protect or direct people's perceptions if they cannot see clearly.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[B]

Because you can stay away from people if you have noticed that alcohol makes you behave in a way that makes you regret the next day.



But when I'm drunk I don't wish to stay away, therefore I won't. I'm averse to suppressing emotions. The only emotions I might feel inclined to suppress would be the "bad" emotions if I felt I was going to hurt someones feelings. This most definitely doesn't include pissing people off though.

And incidentally, on that note, if I have hurt anyones feelings (and this certainly includes you Penn should you be reading this), I apologise.

Anyway, the fact that I might regret it the next day I don't really see as being relevant. Besides, that advice is absolutely ludicrous. I mean, as if I could not think to myself whilst drunk that I'd better not say something because I might regret it later. Does my free will miraculously evaporate when drunk?? :rolleyes:



A drunk person is protected even by the Law when somebody tries to harm him by taking advantage of his condition but drunkness is not an acceptable excuse for offending or harming others.

Agreed. But it would be if materialism is correct.

PS I think people might think I'm a lot different in real life than I might come across on here on occasions. Even when drunk in "real life"!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I have to at least give you points for honesty. You not only don't deny that you are a hypocrite but you proceed to give a further example. Honesty like that is a rare thing these days.

I'm a hypocrite? How so??

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



And incidentally, on that note, if I have hurt anyones feelings (and this certainly includes you Penn should you be reading this), I apologise.



I have a suggestion of something you might do to yourself. Hint: It rhymes with duck.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm a hypocrite? How so??

duck off and fie @$$wipe. This conversation is over.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Glenn
Still, your point about blind faith in God being very personal and intimate makes sense. That doesn't mean we can't ask the question, "WHY does the believer believe?" It's a fascinating question.

When did I say we couldn't? Your entire post is missing the point: I'm not saying it shouldn't be debated, or anything like that. I'm just saying that, for many people, the concept of God is outside what can be tested and reasoned. And for that reason, it should be treated differently than beliefs in unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Religion also causes what I think to be indirect harms, by making traditions dogmatic, by confusing issues, by making political views more extremist, and by closing minds.

And if Penn had directed his remarks to the dogmatic, the extremists, the closed-minded, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But from my own experience I know for a FACT that that does not describe all theists. The Christians I know would be horrified at the idea of a holy war, for example.

It's one thing to argue with your neighbor over land, its another to say "God promised me this land." It's one thing to say homosexuality is gross in your opinion, its another thing entirely to say "God condems it."

Again, if Penn had targeted those types in his remarks, I would have had no problem with it.

[deBergerac]

First I want to say that it is great to see all you people who were at TAM here in the forum after having had the pleasure of meeting you irl.

It is not easy to comment on all the things in this thread but I did listen to what Penn said and the part about not being afraid and respect the “other side” enough to speak ones mind was good. But it can of course be done in a different way then to tell the “other side” which one respect, that they are “retarded” or “mentally ill” (Jamy Ian Swiss). The sincerity of ones respect could be questioned if one uses that kind of language.
It was very interesting to witness a room full of sceptics behaving more and more like fundamentalist (religious or not) it was clear “we against them” rhetoric’s even with stupid arguments. (Why would anyone who had a card trick explained to them become an atheist?) It was not meant very serious but even stupid jokes offend people. I suppose that the strange obsession with religion typical for the US is to blame to some extent for that atheist feel a need to get even and thus imitated the behaviour of the fundamentalists.
I think shanek is right in his warning that scepticism should not be about belonging to a certain group with certain believes written in stone. In my opinion the existence of god is a matter of belief there are no way to design a general test for the existence of god, unlike for teapots in space and unicorns. The difference is that we really do not know what god is (what characteristics to test fore). Some religious people make it easy for a sceptical rebuttal since they proclaim that god can do this or that; others do not. The rational thing to do would of course be to through out every non-testable belief; as science to become science had to declare god an unnecessary hypothesis. But everything people do is not rational.
It has been stated earlier in this thread that atheists are not necessarily sceptics and in my opinion it is not necessary for a sceptic to be an atheist. Thus I can think of myself as a sceptic and a christian since I am an at times irrational human being.
The discussion about if scepticism implies atheism is interesting but should perhaps be continued in a separate thread. Penn did say many good things and his way of saying things is not so far from the way of an evangelist or a demagogue as he might want to believe. The ‘we’ against them theme is easy to play and can promote the feeling of being a collective in a group of very different people, and we sceptics is a group of very different people. But should it be done using “we-them” rhetoric?
I know that I did not feel offended by what Penn said, shocked perhaps, because I do not consider him to be an authority on either the existence of god or on what it means to be a sceptic. But if he wants to speak his mind in such a blunt way it is up to him and he has a right to do so, or has he? What is the appropriate tone to tell someone that one disagrees with him/her?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I have a suggestion of something you might do to yourself. Hint: It rhymes with duck.

At least I don't resort to your childishness :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

Ian, your last reply to me reminded me of Kenneth that I have missed very much.

Thanks for that :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


duck off and fie @$$wipe. This conversation is over.

You're doomed to many more incarnations :(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ian, your last reply to me reminded me of Kenneth that I have missed very much.

Thanks for that :)

You're welcome. :)

[Troylus]

Pardon my ignorance (as I'm new around this joint) Interesting Ian, but what precisely, is your position on the existence of diety?

[Sidhedevil]

I think deBergerac makes some fine points here (it was great to meet you, deB!)

My take on Penn's comments is this:

Penn has inhabited the same persona, on and off stage (as far as I know), for almost 30 years. In some ways, he's a "professional *******"...today's version of the Renaissance court fool.

Penn's persona is all about being blunt, provocative, and edgy. It's hard to imagine him being diplomatic for even a nanosecond.

As a churchgoing theist, did I feel personally attacked by Penn's bellowings? Maybe a little bit at first. But, although I would defend to the death Penn's right to say that theists are idiots, I personally think that it's a basically silly stance to take.

The way I think of it is this: I love chocolate (as those of you who saw me swooning over the Tim Tams might have gathered). I adore it, passionately.

I know how it works when I eat chocolate--the lipids carry complex carbohydrate chains to my taste buds, which are absorbed through the gustatory pores, triggering an electrical sequence in my CNS, etc.

But you can't explain the "love" part--it's not just that I'm craving magnesium or fat, or that it stimulates endorphins. It's more than that.

And you can't talk me out of loving chocolate, no matter how much anyone tells me that chocolate is cloying, over-sweet, bad for me, glutinous--whatever!

The religious sentiments, vague as they are, that I feel are like my love of chocolate. I can't reason my way out of them (though I thought Shermer's talk about the evolutionary advantages of ethics was very interesting!)

My religious sentiments are so subjective and so personal that they are irrelevant to intellectual inquiry, and it to them. I can only be skeptical about them up to a certain point--just as I can only be skeptical about my love for chocolate up to a certain point. Eventually, I get to a place where reason is no longer relevant.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


And to many people the idea of God is completely subjective and personal.

I wouldn't doubt that. But they believe because they want to believe, not because there is any evidence to support such a belief. God does not exist and you have not shown here why it is rational to not come to that conclusion. You have drawn an inaccurate analogy.



But the question is not whether or not Beethoven lived.

Ah but it is. The question is whether god exist, and you brought up your subjective belief in Beethoven being the greatest composer. To make the correct correlation, one must equate Beethoven's existence to god's existence. Unlike god, Beethoven did exist and he did write music and you can make a subjective statement about how you liked his music.



Okay, fine. But I know many Christians who say that knowledge of God is outside the realm of science and actually take offense at the thought of using science to try and discover God. Why? Because to them, God is very personal and subjective and private and intimate..

That is fine if they find it to be a personal experience, I am not questioning that. I am questioning whether or not god exists. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion and to insist that one exists without evidence is to irrationally insist on believing what you want to believe no matter what. There are many things I want to believe, but sadly there is no evidence to back it up, so although I would like something to be true that does not make it true.

And one must question why some theists would take offense to an attempt to find evidence of a god? Is it because deep down they know no such evidence exists? And are they afraid if they delve to deeply into their belief system, they will find that it is naught but crystal shards suspended in a framework of spun sugar that will crash down and shatter into a thousand bits at the first drops of rain? I don't know, but it is what I suspect.


Nor do we disagree that the Universe exists. But the property of the Universe that delineates "God" is, to many people, comparable to the property of Beethoven that delineates "great composer." It isn't to you and me, obviously, but it is to so many others.

Once again, you are dealing what one wants to belief as opposed to what is. Once again, I state with no evidence to support such a being, there is not rationality to believing in such a being. I will reiterate, because one wants something to be true, that does not make it true.

[Sidhedevil]

Chani, I think that rationality doesn't come into it. There is no reason for loving chocolate (or hating chocolate).

Similarly, I believe that one could not find evidence for God's existence any more than one could find evidence for chocolate's deliciousness.

"God does not exist" is an unprovable statement, just as "God does exist" is.

If one were to take a William James -y perspective, it might be better to say "So-and-so has a feeling of God" and "So-and-so has no feeling of God".

I have a feeling that chocolate is delicious; my friend L. has a feeling that chocolate is disgusting. I have a feeling that the universe has a noumenal (to use Kant's term) aspect as well as a phenomenal aspect; Penn has a feeling that my feeling is retarded.

It's not clear to me what the utility is of debating these utterly subjective matters--even with someone as delightful as you (or your Elder God)!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shanek


And if Penn had directed his remarks to the dogmatic, the extremists, the closed-minded, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But from my own experience I know for a FACT that that does not describe all theists. The Christians I know would be horrified at the idea of a holy war, for example.



Yes this is what annoyed me. Obviously there's a lot of religious loonies out there. But the suggestion that anyone who believes in God is such a loony is utterly absurd. Both theists and atheists commit atrocious acts. Likewise we get both theists and atheists who are kind and considerate people who wouldn't dream of hurting a fly. Like me :) Well ok, normally I try to get the damn flies out of my apartment in the summertime, but if after 30 mins of attempting to do so, I fail, then I might be disposed just to swat the damn thing.

Er . .where was I? Yeah . . .so that's what annoyed me about what Penn said. Now the "f*cking retard" remark. Hmmmm, I suppose it is a bit over the top, but I don't really see it as a huge crime (yeah I know I might have said otherwise last night, but I'm just winding people up. My sense of humour you know :) ).

You see I certainly believe we should initially try to carry out a constructive debate. There comes a time, however, when you've explained things very patiently, you've repeated yourself many times to the same people. Yet still they don't understand and continue to spout forth irrelevancies. At that point one might suppose by putting ones viewpoint across in a more forceful and emotional manner, that people might , yes get angry, but also actually sit up and take notice of what that person is saying. In other words, speaking in a forceful rude manner might achieve where previous attempts failed.

So perhaps this is basically how Penn feels?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Troylus
Pardon my ignorance (as I'm new around this joint) Interesting Ian, but what precisely, is your position on the existence of diety?

I don't believe in a diety. I believe in an all-embracing tanscendental awareness encompassing and partaking of all things. This awareness does not exist within the Universe. Rather the Universe is a manifestation of this universal awareness. My position maybe can best be expressed by panentheism (NB not pantheism).

[frisian]

"I responded: Gabriel, you must remember that inventing a deity greatly simplifies life for the believer, and makes thinking unnecessary. If there's a puzzle — "why am I here? — for example, the "God" card trumps all others, immediately and completely, with no discussion or work needed. No, the invocation of a deity doesn't explain a difficult quandary, but it makes an answer unnecessary, for the believer.

Gods are children's blankets that get carried over into adulthood."

From Randi's latest commentary...

Says the same thing as Penn to me in essence.


:p

[Troylus]

don't believe in a diety. I believe in an all-embracing tanscendental awareness encompassing and partaking of all things. This awareness does not exist within the Universe. Rather the Universe is a manifestation of this universal awareness. My position maybe can best be expressed by panentheism (NB not pantheism).


Thanks for the reply! This is very interesting. I am somewhat familiar with Baruch Spinoza's notions of Pantheism, but your belief seems to be something different from this.

I have two follow-up questions:

1. How does your belief influence your worldview?

2. Why do you believe this "panentheism"? How did you arrive upon this belief and in what significant ways does it differ from, say, atheism?

[darling]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
Once again, you are dealing what one wants to belief as opposed to what is... I will reiterate, because one wants something to be true, that does not make it true. Would it help if the example was changed from Beethoven to G. Arnold Porter of Moab, UT?

Is it rational to believe that our Arnie is the greatest ever composer?

[Brown]

A couple of points:

First: There are some folks who call themselves Christians who are fond of piously quoting from the book of Psalms: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." If these folks insist upon saying such things, then they should not be heard to complain when someone suggests that belief in God is foolish. If they can dish it out, then they'd better have the maturity to be ready to take it. (And many of them do dish it out.)

Secondly: I do not consider the Bible to be authoritative on the question at hand. I do not consider the Pope to be authoritative. I do not consider any minister (whether a televangelist or a minister who actually works for a living) to be authoritative. Nor do I consider Penn Jillette to be authoritative, and it appears to me that Penn does not wish his views to be taken as such.From Penn's remarks:
Your job is NOT to win people over to your side, but to keep looking for truth and telling the truth as you see it.I applaud Penn for for stating his views in such a manner that I know where he stands. I may agree with him on some points and I may disagree with him on other points, but I appreciate that he makes his stand clear. I wish I could say that others (many of whom have considerably more influence than Penn) were as straight with other people as Penn Jillette was.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Brown
A couple of points:

First: There are some folks who call themselves Christians who are fond of piously quoting from the book of Psalms: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." If these folks insist upon saying such things, then they should not be heard to complain when someone suggests that belief in God is foolish. If they can dish it out, then they'd better have the maturity to be ready to take it. (And many of them do dish it out.)

Secondly: I do not consider the Bible to be authoritative on the question at hand. I do not consider the Pope to be authoritative. I do not consider any minister (whether a televangelist or a minister who actually works for a living) to be authoritative. Nor do I consider Penn Jillette to be authoritative, and it appears to me that Penn does not wish his views to be taken as such.I applaud Penn for for stating his views in such a manner that I know where he stands. I may agree with him on some points and I may disagree with him on other points, but I appreciate that he makes his stand clear. I wish I could say that others (many of whom have considerably more influence than Penn) were as straight with other people as Penn Jillette was.

:clap:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Er . .you're kidding right? Materialism is extremely unparsimonious. Much simpler is subjective idealism which complete abandons the idea of a physical realm (understood as a mind-independent reality). Instead of material objects accounting for our perceptual experiences we need simply hypothesis the existence of God who directly provides our perceptual experiences via the 5 senses (kinda like the Matrix except with God providing the "virtual reality" rather than a computer).
This is as parsimonious a god-of-the-gaps argument as I've ever heard. No muss, no fuss. There is a gap, and it be god.

Now, about those five senses: Are they the same fundamental existent as god? As my mind? Why do I need senses at all? Why can't god just make me experience whatever he wants without needing senses? Why five? Why make the experiences appear as if they originate externally?

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot. Parsimony allows you to complete ignore these tough questions.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by deBergerac


It was very interesting to witness a room full of sceptics behaving more and more like fundamentalist (religious or not) it was clear “we against them” rhetoric’s even with stupid arguments. (Why would anyone who had a card trick explained to them become an atheist?)



Who knows?? It's the bizarre way that skeptics think. A few months ago there was this TV programme on mediums. One of the spokepeople advocating the reality of survival (life after death) was limited to about 60 seconds to try and explain the evidence. This complete tosser Randi was allowed 5 mins at the end showing a card trick! :eek: How the hell does a card trick prove there is no "life after death"?? Sensible TV programmes on the paranormal in the UK are biased against the paranormal. Hell, about 90% of such programmes feature either one of the well known skeptics Richard Wiseman or Susan Blackmore! (Wiseman was the one who recently said that the Hampton Court Ghost might well be real. It was an extremely obvious fake! One wonders what his game is?)



In my opinion the existence of god is a matter of belief there are no way to design a general test for the existence of god, unlike for teapots in space and unicorns. The difference is that we really do not know what god is (what characteristics to test fore). Some religious people make it easy for a sceptical rebuttal since they proclaim that god can do this or that; others do not. The rational thing to do would of course be to through out every non-testable belief; as science to become science had to declare god an unnecessary hypothesis.



I take it you mean throw out?

You could do. But then you would need to also conclude that other people are not (phenomenally) conscious. Remember the naturalist (and therefore materialist) think that the physical world is closed (for those who don't know, this means that all change in the Universe can be described by physical cause and effect). Thus everything that we ever do is simply caused by our environment and processes occurring in the brain. So consciousness would then be superflous and therefore is scientifically an unnecessary hypothesis. Just like God!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
So consciousness would then be superflous and therefore is scientifically an unnecessary hypothesis.
What if consciousness is helpful for survival?

You think it would be superfluous because you insist on treating it as if it must be a BIG THING.

~~ Paul

[Girl 6]

Well, I see that we are still boiling the water in a teapot here. :)

I have a few things to comment on.

First of all, Glenn... You ought to know whether those are my legs or not! ;)

Second of all, Ian... If I may bo so bold as to suggest that you NOT post while you are drunk. I can always tell when you are and so your arguments are then much more weakened in my eyes. :) Otherwise, I always think you bring up some fabulously controversial points that we do all think about.

Thirdly, my thanks to Moe... For conveying some of the messages from this thread. I'm glad that he got a chance to reply to us.

Lastly, my "props" to Penn... I may disagree with his methods, but I REALLY do hold a high respect for anyone who is willing to consider these remarks of ours as constructive criticism. The fact that he is willing to reconsider the use of his language and terminology says a LOT to me. This more than anything is why I hold critical thinking and skeptics in such high regard. People who are skeptics ARE willing to examine their thoughts and/or beliefs and consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

If nothing else, I would like to go on the record as saying that I will make a BIG stink (and you guys know I'm capable of this) if Penn were NOT invited to the next conference.

We need MORE people that have open minds NOT less. And we need MORE speech, not less!

So, my thanks to Penn for taking the time to post on our thread via Moe and for considering our thoughts on this. Even if he hadn't indicated that he would think about it, I would still hold the same amount of respect that I've gained for him now. In the end, it's about sharing ideas and examining thoughts. I can only respect more the people that give of themselves in this manner.

G6

[hammegk]

by Paul
Now, about those five senses: Are they the same fundamental existent as god? As my mind? Why do I need senses at all? Why can't god just make me experience whatever he wants without needing senses? Why five? Why make the experiences appear as if they originate externally


Materialists can't and will never answer those questions either. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What if consciousness is helpful for survival?


~~ Paul

If you mean phenomenal consciousness (hard problem of consciousness as Chalmers refers to it), then it can't be, otherwise it wouln't be materialism. It would be interactive dualism.

Remember that the materialist thinks that consciousness is just a physical thing, but a physical thing of which its phenomenal aspect cannot be objectively detected by any means whatsoever. If it cannot be objectively detected, then it is not scientific. If it is not scientific then why suppose it exists? In other words why don't you just suppose that everyone else apart from you are just consciousless robots? (p-zombies). To be consistent, if you reject God because it is not scientific, then by the same reasoning, you should reject the existence of other people.

OK, I'm waiting for the complete non-sequitur ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Materialists can't and will never answer those questions either.
You're so convinced this is true that you invent a god to fill the gaps.

Ian said:
Remember that the materialist thinks that consciousness is just a physical thing, but a physical thing of which its phenomenal aspect cannot be objectively detected by any means whatsoever.
Nonsense. It's phenomenal experience can only be experienced by the experiencer. Its existence can be detected in many different ways. For example, we're talking about it.

If it cannot be objectively detected, then it is not scientific. If it is not scientific then why suppose it exists? In other words why don't you just suppose that everyone else apart from you are just consciousless robots? (p-zombies).
Because they describe internal experiences that are similar to the ones I feel. I see no particular reason to think that my experiences are unique. As usual, Ian, you make a false dichotomy between hard objectivity and direct experience.

To be consistent, if you reject God because it is not scientific, then by the same reasoning, you should reject the existence of other people.
Perhaps you mean I should reject the existence of other consciousnesses. The people are certainly here. See above.

~~ Paul

[Sidhedevil]

Originally posted by Girl 6
...my "props" to Penn... I may disagree with his methods, but I REALLY do hold a high respect for anyone who is willing to consider these remarks of ours as constructive criticism. The fact that he is willing to reconsider the use of his language and terminology says a LOT to me.

Girl6, I could not agree more.

This more than anything is why I hold critical thinking and skeptics in such high regard. People who are skeptics ARE willing to examine their thoughts and/or beliefs and consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

If nothing else, I would like to go on the record as saying that I will make a BIG stink (and you guys know I'm capable of this) if Penn were NOT invited to the next conference.

I agree here, in thunder.

One thing, though--Penn suggests that deism and theism are incompatible. My own experience in my Christian religious denomination (Episcopal Church USA) is that, apart from a belief in the importance of shared ritual observance, the world view expounded from the pulpit of my church is pretty much the same as Thomas Jefferson's, or Einstein's, or most of history's other famous deists (as a quick summary (http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm) from our friends at ReligiousTolerance.org describes them).

Even the "Jesus as Son of God" thing is pretty optional in the Anglican Communion--the last Archbishop of Canterbury didn't buy it.

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To be honest, I think this is what it is. You couldn't have a skeptic who believes in telepathy could you?
Not an intellectually consistent (or intellectually honest) one, anyway, no.

And more generally you couldn't be a skeptic who believes in the existence of any phenomena which challenges the idea that the world as a whole (the Universe) unfolds according to physical laws.Again, not an intellectually consistent or -honest one, no.

but also you can't believe in free will as commonly understood (ie libertarian free will). In other words you must at least espouse naturalism and all this implies i.e. we are essentially machines living out our purposeless predetermined lives unfolding according to the laws of physics, and certainly you must believe there is no "life after death"!
Well, one out of three, almost....

So basically skeptics subscribe to naturalism, and any putative phenomena which challenges this naturalism will be deemed as an extraordinary claim.Any putative phenomenon for which there is no evidence will be deemed an "extraordinary" (your word) claim. What that phenomenon "challenges" is entirely beside the point. In fact, "challenge" is welcomed (and delightful), so long as it is rational, i.e. based on evidence (empirical or logical).

Why do some people feel the need to multiply entities beyond the natural into the supernatural? I have never understood that, and I was raised a Baptist. (Obviously, it didn't take.)

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by budddyh
Would it help if the example was changed from Beethoven to G. Arnold Porter of Moab, UT?

Is it rational to believe that our Arnie is the greatest ever composer?

Once again, it is a subjective experience which is up to individual likes or dislikes. My question is, is G. Arnold Porter of Moab, UT real? Can we quantify him? :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You're so convinced this is true that you invent a god to fill the gaps.



Sorry. You are wrong. My worldview as an idealist monist has no "gaps". That's the problem one has when they chose / believe / accept-as-true "body" or "both".

[Lisa]

Okay, I really haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I had to backtrack to catch Penn's remarks.
I felt at the conference he was merely stating his opinion. Looking through the literature that was handed out, I saw no requirement to agree with everything 100% at the conference. I happen to agree with most of what Penn said, but what the heck, I've been accused of being somewhat of an *sshole myself. Don't bother asking what I did or did not agree with. That stuff is my opinion just as Penn's remarks were his opinion.
The very nature of the JREF is education, science, critical thinking and debate. For example, Penn's remarks have resulted in a (thus far) 5 page thread. Discussion is good, and far superior to taking another's word as (pardon) gospel.
Did he come across as being a bit angry? Do you think atheists are angry? Damned straight.
We have senior officials in our government stating that perhaps atheists shouldn't have American citizenship. Same officials have suggested that atheists shouldn't be in the military. I will happily put my military record up against this person's. At least I can follow a direct order and manage to show up at my duty station.
So yes, atheists are a bit peeved. We're supposed to politely take the shots from the theists while treating the theists with kid gloves. Wouldn't want to bruise any egos by pointing out we don't belive in their sky fairy, right?
Sorry folks, but Bullsh*t.
If, due to his remarks, Penn is not invited to TAM III, I will happily stand with Girl 6 to create a Big Stink. For those of you who know us, do you really want to p*ss us both off at the same time?

[Interesting Ian]

[i]Originally posted by Paul C.

Ian said:
Remember that the materialist thinks that consciousness is just a physical thing, but a physical thing of which its phenomenal aspect cannot be objectively detected by any means whatsoever.

Paul
Nonsense. It's phenomenal experience can only be experienced by the experiencer. Its existence can be detected in many different ways. For example, we're talking about it.


So what? That doesn't mean to say it's been detected. Remember that the totality of my behaviour is due to physical cause and effect. No phenomenal consciousness need be evoked, just as we do not need to evoke phenomenally consciousness in a boulder when it rolls down a hill. According to the naturalist/materialist our behaviour follows physical laws, just as the boulder's does. And just as we cannot infer phenomenal consciousness in the boulder because of its behaviour, neither can we infer phenomenal consciousness in people

BTW, as an aside, can I just say consciousness insead of phenomenal consciousness? {sweats} I mean you know that when I use the word consciousness, I mean consciousness as the man on the street understands it (ie phenomenal consciousness), and not as the materialist understands it (ie brain processes).



II
If it cannot be objectively detected, then it is not scientific. If it is not scientific then why suppose it exists? In other words why don't you just suppose that everyone else apart from you are just consciousless robots? (p-zombies).

Paul
Because they describe internal experiences that are similar to the ones I feel.



Yes, but if you're a materialist, this is irrelevant.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sidhedevil


Girl6, I could not agree more.



I agree here, in thunder.

One thing, though--Penn suggests that deism and theism are incompatible. My own experience in my Christian religious denomination (Episcopal Church USA) is that, apart from a belief in the importance of shared ritual observance, the world view expounded from the pulpit of my church is pretty much the same as Thomas Jefferson's, or Einstein's, or most of history's other famous deists (as a quick summary (http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm) from our friends at ReligiousTolerance.org describes them).

Even the "Jesus as Son of God" thing is pretty optional in the Anglican Communion--the last Archbishop of Canterbury didn't buy it.

Theism means that God intervenes in the world (or the world is a manifestation of God). I believe deism means that a diety started the Universe then doesn't participate in it any further. A superflous hypothesis if I may say so.

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by geni
What part of atheism stops you from beliving that homeopathy works or the moon landing was a hoax? Reason stops me from believing in homeopathy or the moon hoax thing. Reason also prevents me from believing in God. As Jamy Ian Swiss said, it's a Unified Field Theory, there....

Originally posted by Sidhedevil
Chani, I think that rationality doesn't come into it. There is no reason for loving chocolate (or hating chocolate).Actually, the individual's body chemistry and experiences have quite a bit to do with it. In other words, there is reason to love (or dislike) chocolate, which a rational person won't deny. Maybe that person will want to deal with some psycholgical baggage that affects his like/dislike of chocolate, but the reason is there!

(I preferred the Swedish chocolate, go figure)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Sorry. You are wrong. My worldview as an idealist monist has no "gaps".
Then explain how it is that you and I both experience the same external world, without waving your hands.

Ian said:
BTW, as an aside, can I just say consciousness insead of phenomenal consciousness? {sweats} I mean you know that when I use the word consciousness, I mean consciousness as the man on the street understands it (ie phenomenal consciousness), and not as the materialist understands it (ie brain processes).
You can shorten phenomenal consciousness to consciousness if you first define the former term. Your second sentence is so loaded that I'm having difficult remaining upright in my chair. The man on the street knows what consciousness feels like, but I very much doubt that he would argue one way or the other about the separate question of whether that feeling can be the result of brain processes.

Yes, but if you're a materialist, this is irrelevant.
So let's say I'm not a materialist, Mr. I'm-going-to-assume-you're-whatever-buzzword-I-think-is-appropriate-pants.

Folks, I don't think we're really hijacking this thread, since its topic is so broad, but let us know if we are.

~~ Paul

[WonderfulWorld]

(And check your PM, Lisa)

[geni]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
Reason stops me from believing in homeopathy or the moon hoax thing. Reason also prevents me from believing in God. As Jamy Ian Swiss said, it's a Unified Field Theory, there....


From what you are saying it is posible to conclude that reason is the Unified Field Theory of sceptism. You have failed to show that athism is the Unified Field Theory of sceptism.

[geni]

Originally posted by Lisa
We have senior officials in our government stating that perhaps atheists shouldn't have American citizenship. Same officials have suggested that atheists shouldn't be in the military.

If you get too fed up with this feel free to come and join us in europe.:)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld

Why do some people feel the need to multiply entities beyond the natural into the supernatural? I have never understood that, and I was raised a Baptist. (Obviously, it didn't take.) [/B]

Because it is very obvious that our consciousnesses are not natural. I have an immediate awareness of my own mental causality ie I can suddenly spontaneously of my own choosing pick my nose. So not everything that we do unfolds according to natural laws; hence consciousness is not natural.

And BTW, it is certainly not physical. What does it mean to say that the feeling of love or hopelessness is a physical thing? Sure, it may have neural correlates, but such feelings are not literally the neural correlates themselves. I refer you to Leibniz's law.

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos



Folks, I don't think we're really hijacking this thread, since its topic is so broad, but let us know if we are.

~~ Paul
Sort of. This thread is supposed to be addressing Penn's remarks at the conference.
However, there are certain individuals who will use any thread to further an agenda. I'm certain I could start a thread on the care and feeding of pet turtles, and it would eventually become a discussion about materialism.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Sidhedevil
Chani, I think that rationality doesn't come into it. There is no reason for loving chocolate (or hating chocolate).

Similarly, I believe that one could not find evidence for God's existence any more than one could find evidence for chocolate's deliciousness.

"God does not exist" is an unprovable statement, just as "God does exist" is.

If one were to take a William James -y perspective, it might be better to say "So-and-so has a feeling of God" and "So-and-so has no feeling of God".

I have a feeling that chocolate is delicious; my friend L. has a feeling that chocolate is disgusting. I have a feeling that the universe has a noumenal (to use Kant's term) aspect as well as a phenomenal aspect; Penn has a feeling that my feeling is retarded.

It's not clear to me what the utility is of debating these utterly subjective matters--even with someone as delightful as you (or your Elder God)!

For your subjective choice, I would agree that rationality doesn't come in to it, and should probably not be considered at this juncture. If you like it, it is your choice. I am not debating subjectivity, shanek is attempting to move this debate to the subjective level.

I have merely stated and continue to state that it is not rational to believe in a god without evidence of existence of such a being, and I do not see how a skeptic who is quite willing to go, "Yeah, whatever. Pfeh," to other paranormal or supernatural claims due to lack of evidence to support such thing, but will willing say, "Oh, god, yeah him, um, I don't know, so I am going to say, um, we can't say." It is backpedling in my opinion to claim without reason that this being may exist.

I am sorry, but without evidence to support such a beings existence then that being does not exist. And I will reconsider that opinion at which time verifiable evidence is produced. Of course after several thousand years of looking, no verifiable evidence has shown up, I sincerely doubt it will suddenly make an appearance now.

Also, it is not up to me to prove whether a god exists or not. Just as it is not up to you to prove whether Giant Purple Dragons live under my bed. But would you accept that it might be a possibility? Even if I don't have evidence? Would you accept anecdotal stories, such as how my feet are kept warm on cold nights? Or how I find them comforting? Or the fact that I have a bed proves that there must be Giant Purple Dragons living under it? And I could claim that nobody else can see my Dragons because they don't really exist in this plane, and only appear to me. Would you believe me now? Would you suggest I see a good pshyciatrist and get a good script to prevent my hallucinations?

What else would we be willing to say without evidence might or might not exist? I love fairies. I think they are just too cool, and I tend to surround myself with artwork and depictions of fairies. I love the jewel tones they are portrayed in, and I absolutely adore the whole idea of gossamir wings that shimmer with irridencence in the sunlight like a dew drop refracting light. I would love to wake in the mornings and see fairies flitting from flower to branch, and I would love to hold one in my hand and stare in amazement at it and feel its sweet breath upon my cheek and the warm dots of its feet upon my palm. Should we accept that we can neither prove nor disprove their existence? How about anything else? How about paranormal ability such as John Edward claims to have? Should we just accept that he isn't a fraud and believe that he "has that feeling" of power?

If we are going to look at the sort of claim that has no evidence for its existence then why can't was examine all those claims? Are you willing to say provisionally that John Edward may not be a fraud? Or that fairies may exist? How far should the kid glove approach extend? If we are not willing to examine our most deeply held beliefs in the bright of day, then what the heck is the point? Or is it only okay to point out the motes in other people's eyes? And not our own?

No, there is no god. There is no evidence of such a being. And after years of study of many cultures with many different belief systems some of which completely lacked a god force, I can come to only one conclusion - there is no god. It is a figment of people's imaginations.

As for the point of debating any subject - well so we can learn and expand our point of view, so we can possibly get a glimpse into someone else's thinking processes, so we can know. Diversity is and always will be the spice of life, and I can and will accept that others have a differing opinion from mine even if I will never understand that opinion. Because how people think and behave fascinates me, and I want to know why. I sincerely doubt anyone will be swayed by my arguments, but I do it because it is fun and I enjoy a good debate.

Now, I must clarify one thing - there is a god I do believe in and that god would be my Nyarlathotep. But he is special. :D

BTW, I find you to be delightful as well.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
And just as we cannot infer phenomenal consciousness in the boulder because of its behaviour, neither can we infer phenomenal consciousness in people.
Do you mean without talking to them? After all, we can talk to people but not to boulders, which might allow us to infer additional characteristics of people. When we do talk to them, we find them describing consciousness in ways that mesh with our personal experience of consciousness. From this we might infer they are conscious, assuming we believe we are.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lisa said:
Sort of. This thread is supposed to be addressing Penn's remarks at the conference.
However, there are certain individuals who will use any thread to further an agenda. I'm certain I could start a thread on the care and feeding of pet turtles, and it would eventually become a discussion about materialism.
I object to your statement that turtles have no consciousness!

Subconversation halted.

~~ Paul

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by geni
From what you are saying it is posible to conclude that reason is the Unified Field Theory of sceptism. You have failed to show that athism is the Unified Field Theory of sceptism. I don't believe that atheism is the Unified Field Theory of skepticism. Jamy Ian Swiss said that, and (as I said earlier) I think he misstated -- actually, I think he simply spoke sloppily in trying to convey a brilliant point. Reason is the cause of both skepticism and atheism. Reason is the Unified Field Theory in question, which subsumes both skepticism and atheism.

[geni]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Also, it is not up to me to prove whether a god exists or not. Just as it is not up to you to prove whether Giant Purple Dragons live under my bed. But would you accept that it might be a possibility?
Yes of course. I wouldn't think it very likely but don't have enough information to rule the theory out entirly.

Even if I don't have evidence? Would you accept anecdotal stories, such as how my feet are kept warm on cold nights? Or how I find them comforting?

I would accept that they were true for you.

Or the fact that I have a bed proves that there must be Giant Purple Dragons living under it?

no

And I could claim that nobody else can see my Dragons because they don't really exist in this plane, and only appear to me. Would you believe me now?

no but would still have to aknowlage that I can't prove you wrong

Would you suggest I see a good pshyciatrist and get a good script to prevent my hallucinations?


Depends on how it was affecting the rest of your behivour.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by geni


Well then in that case, Giant Purple Dragons do exist and they do sleep under my bed.

Now, what other nonsense can I make up that people will agree with no matter what? :p

[geni]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
I don't believe that atheism is the Unified Field Theory of skepticism. Jamy Ian Swiss said that, and (as I said earlier) I think he misstated -- actually, I think he simply spoke sloppily in trying to convey a brilliant point. Reason is the cause of both skepticism and atheism. Reason is the Unified Field Theory in question, which subsumes both skepticism and atheism.

Your statement only holds if you can prove that it is not posible to be an athiest whithout using reason.

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Well then in that case, Giant Purple Dragons do exist and they do sleep under my bed.

Now, what other nonsense can I make up that people will agree with no matter what? :p
You've obviously never met my kitchen efreet, Ffloyd.

[geni]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Well then in that case, Giant Purple Dragons do exist and they do sleep under my bed.

Now, what other nonsense can I make up that people will agree with no matter what? :p

I didn't say I would agree. The statement you have made above can be tested. In this case I would suggest we start by getting a third party to look under your bed. If the test comes up posertive further invetigations can be carried out. Feel free to come up with a simular test for god.

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because it is very obvious that our consciousnesses are not natural. I have an immediate awareness of my own mental causality ie I can suddenly spontaneously of my own choosing pick my nose. So not everything that we do unfolds according to natural laws; hence consciousness is not natural.This is a non sequitur argument. Yes, you can spontaneously choose to pick your nose. How you conclude that this is not according to natural laws -- that natural laws require determinism -- is left unexplained.

Love is the result of neural reactions, which lead to other physical reactions (e.g. endocrinological), and then to a quick-beating heart and a silly grin, etc. It's a remarkable system, and an absolute delight to behold (especially personally!) Nature does not need any help from the supernatural in order to be wonderful!

So add a strawman to your non sequitur, and we may have that last argument summed up properly.

[WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by geni
I didn't say I would agree. The statement you have made above can be tested. In this case I would suggest we start by getting a third party to look under your bed. If the test comes up posertive further invetigations can be carried out. Feel free to come up with a simular test for god. What if I say that the purple dragons are invisible to other people. Or that they only choose to reveal themselves at certain times to certain people? It is the same claim as the theistic/deistic claim. Perhaps my purple dragons created the universe, too....

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Sidhedevil
Chani, I think that rationality doesn't come into it. There is no reason for loving chocolate (or hating chocolate).

Similarly, I believe that one could not find evidence for God's existence any more than one could find evidence for chocolate's deliciousness.

"God does not exist" is an unprovable statement, just as "God does exist" is.

If one were to take a William James -y perspective, it might be better to say "So-and-so has a feeling of God" and "So-and-so has no feeling of God".

I have a feeling that chocolate is delicious; my friend L. has a feeling that chocolate is disgusting. I have a feeling that the universe has a noumenal (to use Kant's term) aspect as well as a phenomenal aspect; Penn has a feeling that my feeling is retarded.

It's not clear to me what the utility is of debating these utterly subjective matters--even with someone as delightful as you (or your Elder God)!


Unfortunately that argument doesn't work. That's because it equates questions of fact with questions of value.

Existential claims are by their very nature questions of fact.

Questions of value are true, because in them feelings have a causal connection to the truth-value of the statement. Also it is validated via raw feel. It concerns things who's very existence is established by our intrinsic feelings.

Surely however nobody is actually saying merely feeling a certain way can cause something like God to exist. Thus theism is a question of fact, who's truth or falsehood is independent of our feelings.


To show distinctions by example consider:

1-God is good.

God exists.


2-Chocolate exists.

God is good.


3-Skeptchicks are cute.

Some chicls are skeptics.


4- Nessie followers are the coolest.

The Lochness monster exists.


The first set represents questions of value. Their truth/falsehood is determined at the emotive level.

The second is questions of fact, they are determined more by observation and rational principle.

This is because we have different sensory mechanisms for different purposes.

We developed taste to find the best food (though it doesn't always work.) Feelings to find what helps us succeed.


And sight/thinking to find out how the world around us works.

Thus treating a cognitive issue, best examined by sight and thought, as an emotive subject (best decided by feeling) is a category mistake.

I mean we would all be very puzzled if someone said belief in Nessie was rational, or elves, or psychics, or demons because we can say chocolate tastes good. That is clearly a non sequitur.



Lastly, many argue that disbelief in God is not rational (even though it's more coherent and parsimonious) because theism is untestable in principle.


But this ignores the fact that an almost infinite amount of things are untestable in principle.


-Extreme dualism

-The idea of the universe doubling in size each moment.

-Transdimensional hyperspatial badgers

-Omnipotent crime gremlins.

etc, ad infinitum.

Every one of these has an almost infinite chance of not existing, and a mere 1 out of infinity of existing.

So in all probability such things do not exist, and should be disbelieved.


Now am I certain? No. My statements are not absolute, and can change with evidence.

But going by probability I can safely say such things don't exist, and since disbelief then is more probable, i.e. more parsimonious, it is more rational.

This is why I believe atheism is the more rational position. This is because agnosticism seems to imply 50/50 since nobody can know absolutely. Atheism however can go by mere probability.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You can shorten phenomenal consciousness to consciousness if you first define the former term. Your second sentence is so loaded that I'm having difficult remaining upright in my chair. The man on the street knows what consciousness feels like, but I very much doubt that he would argue one way or the other about the separate question of whether that feeling can be the result of brain processes.



As to the latter point, I would say yes certainly. Indeed, here in England, I would imagine the vast majority of them would say consciousness is a by-product of brain processes.

Now as to the term "phenomenal consciousness", or as David Chalmer's calls it "the hard problem of consciousness", I imagine that this term arose because in talking about consciousness, the materialist and non-materialists (including people such as epiphenomenalists) were talking at cross purposes. When using the term consciousness, the non-materialist was referring to the experiential aspect of consciousness. The feeling of being in love, or the feeling of a hot summers day, or the actual felt quality of seeing redness, and so on, and so on. The materialist on the other hand is talking about function. So love is literally certain chemical processes in the brain. The seeing of redness is a particular physical causal sequence of processes leading perhaps to the utterance "I see red".

Thus, as you imagine, there was probably a great deal of confusion (but recall, this is an educated guess, I do not know). Hence the non-materialist tries to express what he is getting at by using the phrase phenomenal consciousness. This of course greatly irritates the materialists, basically because they don't know how to respond to it. Basically they either deny the existence of phenomenal consciousness (the eliminitivists and perhaps reductiuonists as well) :eek: :eek: :eek:, or they say that phenomenal consciousness is just another aspect of neural processes (ie neural processes have both objective and subjective aspects).

All clear now? :)




Folks, I don't think we're really hijacking this thread, since its topic is so broad, but let us know if we are.


Oh don't worry about that. I'm sure people love reading our exchange :)

[geni]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
What if I say that the purple dragons are invisible to other people. Or that they only choose to reveal themselves at certain times to certain people? It is the same claim as the theistic/deistic claim. Perhaps my purple dragons created the universe, too....

If the purple dragon claim is going to set itself up so can't analyse it (ie it puts itself beyond the reach of science) then I don't care one way or the other. If the person then uses the purple dragon as an excuse to take an action then I will object but if none of the evidence i have refutes the extance of such dragons and the person takes no action that can only be justfied by calling up purple dragons then who cares?

[hal bidlack]

Just to be very, very clear, and to avoid any chance of the speculations above turning into rumors:

Penn is a *GREAT* friend of the JREF, who will be an honored and most welcome guest at ANY JREF function. I consider him a new friend, and I took his remarks to be his way of expressing himself, and I respect him for that, if I differ a bit on the message.

As self-appointed JREF deist in chief, I took his remarks to be aimed at provoking humor and discussion, and that's why I answered back with humor, and was not the slightest bit upset.

hal

[geni]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
This is why I believe atheism is the more rational position. This is because agnosticism seems to imply 50/50 since nobody can know absolutely. Atheism however can go by mere probability.

This only makes sence if you think you know the size of the god phase space and the amount of it that is filled with non gods.

Editted to add: new page:D (sorry old habits die hard)

[WonderfulWorld]

(Thanks, Hal. I was wondering why some people thought he needed defense. I mean, Randi was sitting right next to him, and laughing.)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Then explain how it is that you and I both experience the same external world, without waving your hands.


Sorry again. That's where your logic enters the picture; mine works fine for me. If Stimpy's Dilemma, life vs non-life & HPC don't get you on the path nothing else I could say would either.


Lisa: Penn's fu*king retard statement is 100% linked to his belief that materialism answers all. Damn few people are "materialists" to that degree so far as I can see. Between JREF & infidels what would you guess -- a few dozen maybe? A few hundred? If hundreds damn few post much if at all.

And what do you think theists think of "materialists"? Even if it's fu&king retards, most are too polite to say so in public. Deists probably think both groups are loonies.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


Ian said:
And just as we cannot infer phenomenal consciousness in the boulder because of its behaviour, neither can we infer phenomenal consciousness in people.

Paul
Do you mean without talking to them? After all, we can talk to people but not to boulders, which might allow us to infer additional characteristics of people. When we do talk to them, we find them describing consciousness in ways that mesh with our personal experience of consciousness. From this we might infer they are conscious, assuming we believe we are.



Even if we do talk to them! Talking is just behaviour, and is the result of physical laws just as much as anything else is if you're a naturalist.

So we cannot infer consciousness in other people if we're materialists. This is precisely why materialism is so absurd!

So how does the materialist respond? Well, one avenue is to take the one adopted by Dennet. If it sounds like a duck and quacks and walks like a duck, then it is a duck. Note that he doesn't mean that it's incredibly likely to be a duck, rather it is a duck by definition. Extending it to human beings this means that p-zombies (other people are not really conscious) are a logical absurdity.

But he can only say this at a huge cost. Our consciousness is defined by our behaviour and/or function. This means that we are not actually phenomenally conscious!. Of course this is utterly preposterous, and moreover, I fail to see how a real human being then differs from a p-zombie. But maybe I just don't understand eliminitivism {shrugs}

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because it is very obvious that our consciousnesses are not natural. I have an immediate awareness of my own mental causality ie I can suddenly spontaneously of my own choosing pick my nose. So not everything that we do unfolds according to natural laws; hence consciousness is not natural.

This is a non sequitur argument.



A fallacious argument arguably. Certainly not a non-sequitur.



Yes, you can spontaneously choose to pick your nose. How you conclude that this is not according to natural laws --



The action would not be according to natural laws if I have the genuine choice as to whether to pick my nose or not. That my picking of my nose is not inevitable, but I could have chosen not to pick my nose. It certainly overwhelmingly feels like I have a genuine option. But I admit I cannot strictly speaking refute determinism. It's just that it's so mind-numbingly implausible!


that natural laws require determinism -- is left unexplained.


They don't if you're talking about determinism in the strict sense. But modern philosophers use it in the looser sense that everything that ever happens precedes according to natural laws. You see the intrinsic randomness introduced by Quantum Mechanics is an irrelevancy.



Love is the result of neural reactions, which lead to other physical reactions (e.g. endocrinological), and then to a quick-beating heart and a silly grin, etc. It's a remarkable system, and an absolute delight to behold (especially personally!) Nature does not need any help from the supernatural in order to be wonderful!



Please do not try to confuse and obfusticate the issue. We're not talking about whether love is produced by neural reactions, but whether it is the very same thing as neural reactions. Once you agree it isn't, then we can argue whether such activity is the origin of love.



So add a strawman to your non sequitur, and we may have that last argument summed up properly.



No strawman. No non-sequitur. You're like the rest of skeptics i.e totally clueless at what informal logical fallacies actually mean :rolleyes:

PS Not such a wonderful world if you're a materialist. An inappropriate description if ever I heard one! LOL

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
Skepticism and Atheism are the same thing.

No, they are not! Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion.

What you are saying is analogous to "driving and being at the store are the same thing."

So I reiterate my point: using skepticism, you might conclude to be an atheist. But they are two different things.

[Lisa]

hammegk Prior to the massive hijacking (Ian, start your own thread, you're getting tiresome), the debate was about Penn's remarks at the TAM II conference.
So what was your reaction when you heard the remarks? Remember, you have to take the entire context into consideration.

[Phil]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer


No, they are not! Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion.

What you are saying is analogous to "driving and being at the store are the same thing."

So I reiterate my point: using skepticism, you might conclude to be an atheist. But they are two different things.
Yes!! Say it again, Phil!! This idea doesn't seem to be sinking in.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Even if we do talk to them! Talking is just behaviour, and is the result of physical laws just as much as anything else is if you're a naturalist.
You are assuming that "phenomenal consciousness," whatever that is, cannot be a product of the brain. You have defined it to require whatever metaphysic you're selling today.

(Sorry folks. It's a sickness.)

BA said:
No, they are not! Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion.
Correct-o. If skepticism = atheism, then skepticism = disbelief in dowsing = disbelief in remote viewing = disbelief in general. That's not right.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Wagg]

Just for the record, I DID correct Penn on an error on his ******** show. On ********, Penn states that witches were "burned" during the witch "hysteria" (bad choice of words) of 1692.

Being from Salem, Mass, I knew full well that 19 people were hanged and 1 was crushed during the witch hysteria (which happened in Danvers, Mass, not Salem btw). None were burned.

I gently told Penn about this (as he towered over me), and he said "oh, that's interesting" and ran off before I could engage him any further. My impression was that he couldn't care less about his mistake, despite having just come from a panel discussion where he mentioned that they wanted to collect mistakes for a show.

My impression could very well be wrong, but this fact is so readily apparent that I have to doubt his claims to "extensive research." I'm very curious to see if anything comes of that MD who questioned Penn on second-hand smoking.

I believe Penn may in fact be a cynic rather than a skeptic.