Question about pure skeptism and God

[woodguard]

I am new but in reading for some time, I have a odd question.

Would a true skeptic have a closed mind about anything. Or just question it.

There is a lot of talk about God, but all I see are people picking a side and
saying all the rest are wrong. I wouldn't say which side.

Is that skepticism?

I real think, if you say someone is wrong, show some proof.

If a true skeptic is closed minded about anything, then I am not a pure skeptic.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by woodguard
I am new but in reading for some time, I have a odd question.
Would a true skeptic have a closed mind about anything. Or just question it.


A skeptic doesn't have a closed mind. A skeptic wants evidence to be provided to prove claims. If the evidence is there then fine.

If you read posts concerning the existence of god. There is zero evidence for that assumption, so the skeptic will be...skeptical.

[ImpyTimpy]

I swear you sound like Carlos... Pardon me if I'm wrong.. :D

I don't think a true skeptic is close minded about anything, close mindedness implies a true believer. To me a skeptic is someone who questions things and does not accept things at face value without some form of proof.

As for the God question, that is a very interesting question. I think a skeptic can believe that God may exist and remain a true skeptic. I suppose one could gather enough proof for and against the mystical God question to satisfy either side of the argument, so to me the question of whether God is or isn't, isn't so much a question of whether someone is skeptical, but a purely philosophical leaning question :)

Originally posted by woodguard
I am new but in reading for some time, I have a odd question.

Would a true skeptic have a closed mind about anything. Or just question it.

There is a lot of talk about God, but all I see are people picking a side and
saying all the rest are wrong. I wouldn't say which side.

Is that skepticism?

I real think, if you say someone is wrong, show some proof.

If a true skeptic is closed minded about anything, then I am not a pure skeptic.

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
.

As for the God question, that is a very interesting question. I think a skeptic can believe that God may exist and remain a true skeptic. I suppose one could gather enough proof for and against the mystical God question to satisfy either side of the argument, so to me the question of whether God is or isn't, isn't so much a question of whether someone is skeptical, but a purely philosophical leaning question :)




I agree with you ImpyTimpy !!!!!!!!!!!!!


That is the real point.....skeptics can believe that god may exists, but believe directly in he/she/it without proofs is the worse I can hear in a skeptic.

But the worse of the worse is that a skeptic that believe in god can pray in he/she/it.

[K-W]

skepticism has nothing to do with picking sides in a debate, you are thinking of neutrality

In the case of god, gods existance is a claim. So a skeptical is skeptical and requires proof.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by K-W
skepticism has nothing to do with picking sides in a debate, you are thinking of neutrality

In the case of god, gods existance is a claim. So a skeptical is skeptical and requires proof.

No no no.

Except for apologists and certain evangelists, it's a belief - not a claim.

UFOs
Ghosts
Psi
Homeopathy
Cryptozoology
Auras
Crystals
Automatic writing
Levitation
Chi
Dowsing
are all claims, and belief in a a deity or religion in no way invalidates the ability to be skeptical about any of the above things.

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


No no no.

Except for apologists and certain evangelists, it's a belief - not a claim.

UFOs
Ghosts
Psi
Homeopathy
Cryptozoology
Auras
Crystals
Automatic writing
Levitation
Chi
Dowsing
are all claims, and belief in a a deity or religion in no way invalidates the ability to be skeptical about any of the above things.

and by extension, it must be possible to believe in any or all of the above list and still be skeptical about a deity.

[CWL]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


No no no.

Except for apologists and certain evangelists, it's a belief - not a claim.

UFOs
Ghosts
Psi
Homeopathy
Cryptozoology
Auras
Crystals
Automatic writing
Levitation
Chi
Dowsing
are all claims, and belief in a a deity or religion in no way invalidates the ability to be skeptical about any of the above things.

Why is there a problem adding "God" to that list?

Isn't "God exists" a "claim"?

Why isn't belief in UFOs a "belief" as opposed to a "claim"?

[jimmygun]

How many thousands of years must pass without a single shred of evidence that god exists, before it becomes a non question? All anyone would have to do to convert every person on earth to believing in god would be to put forth one single piece of proof. Not hearsay, not antidotal, not unexplained, not conjecture, not belief, not popular vote, but one solid hard fact. So far nothing. In my opinion that should close the books and we should get on with something else.

There is no god, there never was, there never will be. End of discussion.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy


A skeptic doesn't have a closed mind. A skeptic wants evidence to be provided to prove claims. If the evidence is there then fine.

If you read posts concerning the existence of god. There is zero evidence for that assumption, so the skeptic will be...skeptical.

I have already comprehensively refuted the notion there is no evidence for a God. Now it would be accurate to say there is no evidence for atheism.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have already comprehensively refuted the notion there is no evidence for a God. Now it would be accurate to say there is no evidence for atheism.

Those are pretty strong words given your own caveat:

It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely.

Besides, which God are you talking about? Certainly not an omipotent and benevolent God there is ample evidence against such a creature. A sleeping creator of the Universe? A personification of "the laws of physics"? "The order of things" as evidence for such a being is merely a matter of perspective or opinion - it is certainly not evidence.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
I have already comprehensively refuted the notion there is no evidence for a God. Now it would be accurate to say there is no evidence for atheism.
No, you have made the baseless claim. You have not made a refutation.

Ossai

[Tricky]

There isn't really such a creature as a "pure skeptic". We all are skeptical about some things and not about others. When you hear the weatherman predict rain, you don't demand to see the raw data before you grab your umbrella. You simply trust that he knows enough about what he is doing to be right a high percentage of the time.

I think it is good to maintain a skeptical stance on most issues, but let's face it, we cannot evaluate the evidence for everything because we would have to know everything. I could not begin to have a serious discussion of quantum mechanics, but I trust that the scientists who discovered and verified it and the technologists who use it are doing so because it has been shown to be true.

So what I am really saying is that I trust the word of people who are successful in demonstrating an ability to make accurate predictions about the nature of the universe.

Some kinds of religion make predictions too (they call them "prophecies"), but in my experience, those predictions are more often wrong than they are right. A physicist is able to show the mechanics of how QM works (even though I would not understand it, someone would), but a theologian makes no pretense of understanding how God works, and they usually don't provide statements that can be tested. When on the rare occasion that they do, like with all of the "end-of-the-world" predictions, they are proven wrong again and again.

But I acknowledge the fact that I am not skeptical about everything, particularly when it comes to political things, so I allow that some very intelligent people, like Hal Bidlack, have realms in which they deactivate their skepticism. Everyone should be able to "binge" on pure, unadulterated faith once in a while.:D

[Gregor]

Everyone is a skeptic. Even Xians are skeptical of all stories of gods, but one.

contrast with . . .

No one is a pure skeptic, as we get into our cars assuming that the other thousand drivers we pass will safely traverse the roads.

It's all a spectrum of skepticism.

And Interesting Ian is a bad combination of pseudo-intellectual and egotist. Why else submit an out-of-place, self-agrandizing post that refers bad to the complete non-sequitur of his "I've shown evidence of god thread" that is completely bunk.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky
But I acknowledge the fact that I am not skeptical about everything, particularly when it comes to political things, so I allow that some very intelligent people, like Hal Bidlack, have realms in which they deactivate their skepticism. Everyone should be able to "binge" on pure, unadulterated faith once in a while.:D

Agreed. The important thing is to be intellectually honest and admit to oneself and to others in which area (or areas) one has decided to lower one's skeptical guard.

Dear Tricky,


But I acknowledge the fact that I am not skeptical about everything, particularly when it comes to political things, so I allow that some very intelligent people, like Hal Bidlack, have realms in which they deactivate their skepticism. Everyone should be able to "binge" on pure, unadulterated faith once in a while.:D

At what point can we call you or Bidlack a "woo-woo", a term that is tossed around so freely here?

Sincerely,

S.H.

[Gregor]

Personally, when someone (i) starts to proselytize or (ii) makes an argument from logical integrity, they're on the road to "woo-woo ville"

[Yahzi]

If a true skeptic is closed minded about anything, then I am not a pure skeptic.
Close-mindedness is a feature of religion, not skepticism. Ask any true believer if there is any concievable evidence that would change his faith. The answer will be no. Now, how much more close-minded can you get?

Ask any skeptic if there is any concievable evidence that would change his mind, and he'll give you a list.

When woo-woos use the phrase "close-minded," what they really mean is "not gullible." But if you go around calling people who disagree with you "not gullible," it doesn't feel very satisfying.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have already comprehensively refuted the notion there is no evidence for a God. Now it would be accurate to say there is no evidence for atheism.

Not only have you not refuted that notion. Even if you had evidence for atheism would still not be indicated. YOu cant require evidence for the non-belief in something.

[Dancing David]

Belief is the enemy of knowledge. -Crowley

I am sceptical, including scepticism, it is anothet tool. Some tools are better for different jobs than others, you can apply the same tool to everything if you want, but some tools work better than others.

Peace

[ImpyTimpy]

I think skepticism is best applied to testable claims. For example, if someone comes up to you and says I believe UFO's might be watching our planet - he or she might be right. For all we know, some distant civilisation might be watching our planet for some weird reason. They might not be any less skeptical then you or I just because they have a belief. Debating a person on an untestable belief to me is pointless and serves nothing. Everyone has some form of a belief, like other skeptics have already mentioned. I believe other civilisations do exist somewhere out there in the vast universe. Whether they are watching us, I don't know, they might be, but it doesn't effect my day to day life so I don't care about it...

On the other hand, the same person comes up to you and says I know UFO's are visiting our planet and I have evidence to back it up. That's a testable claim and skepticism should kick in automatically.

Originally posted by woodguard
I am new but in reading for some time, I have a odd question.

Would a true skeptic have a closed mind about anything. Or just question it.

There is a lot of talk about God, but all I see are people picking a side and
saying all the rest are wrong. I wouldn't say which side.

Is that skepticism?

I real think, if you say someone is wrong, show some proof.

If a true skeptic is closed minded about anything, then I am not a pure skeptic.

I know who are you Mr. Ad

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I have already comprehensively refuted the notion there is no evidence for a God.

Ian,

I don't think you did that...if you did, you would be next in line for the Pope's job. Pope Ian. Hey that has a nice ring!

[woodguard]

I have a question about evidence.

At one time there was evidence the earth was flat.

Someone reminded me that only in mathematic can you prove something.

Evidences are shades of gray, no black and white.

How do you sort thru all the evidence. How do you pick what shade makes something true or false.

Science is a good model, but even some scientist lie and select or delete their data to help their evidence.

Does the fact we don’t what started the big bang, or how the laws of the universe were formed or why they change after the universe started. I am not saying God did only we don't know what did it.

Quantum mechanics shows the universe is not purely logical.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I think skepticism is best applied to testable claims. For example, if someone comes up to you and says I believe UFO's might be watching our planet - he or she might be right. For all we know, some distant civilisation might be watching our planet for some weird reason. They might not be any less skeptical then you or I just because they have a belief. Debating a person on an untestable belief to me is pointless and serves nothing. Everyone has some form of a belief, like other skeptics have already mentioned. I believe other civilisations do exist somewhere out there in the vast universe. Whether they are watching us, I don't know, they might be, but it doesn't effect my day to day life so I don't care about it...

On the other hand, the same person comes up to you and says I know UFO's are visiting our planet and I have evidence to back it up. That's a testable claim and skepticism should kick in automatically.

In other words, "Believe anything you want, and don't apply skepticism to your new beliefs."

[c4ts]

Originally posted by woodguard
I real think, if you say someone is wrong, show some proof.


That would be impossible in this case. How do you expect to provide proof that something which could exist does not?

[ImpyTimpy]

That's not what I said at all... Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough or maybe you just didn't understand what I was trying to say. Either way I am summarising my point again for you:

What I am saying is skepticism should be applied to testable claims. Like with my aliens example, if someone believes other civilisations exist somewhere out there (like me), the claim can not be tested and it is possible given the infinite size of the universe. If someone claims that aliens have visited them, that is a testable claim and should be subjected to skepticism.

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


In other words, "Believe anything you want, and don't apply skepticism to your new beliefs."

[Yahzi]

Does the fact we don’t what started the big bang, or how the laws of the universe were formed or why they change after the universe started. I am not saying God did only we don't know what did it.
Correct. We don't know what. So, when asked how the universe was formed, the correct answer is, "we don't know." Any other answer is wrong. Therefore, every single religion that claims that they know the origin of the universe is wrong.

Got it?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


What I am saying is skepticism should be applied to testable claims. Like with my aliens example, if someone believes other civilisations exist somewhere out there (like me), the claim can not be tested and it is possible given the infinite size of the universe. If someone claims that aliens have visited them, that is a testable claim and should be subjected to skepticism.



Other civilations existing is testable. Simply find other civilations in the universe.

:rolleyes:

Skepticism is needed, no, REQUIRED for these "untestable" claims you speak of. A claim is a claim, no matter if it is unfalsifiable.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Correct. We don't know what. So, when asked how the universe was formed, the correct answer is, "we don't know." Any other answer is wrong. Therefore, every single religion that claims that they know the origin of the universe is wrong.

Got it?

Well said. :)

[ImpyTimpy]

We simply find other civilisations? How???

Belief in other civilisations is untestable because we have no means of finding those said civilisations given our current level of technology. Furthermore the idea is possible (dare I say almost certain?), given the infinite size of the universe.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Are you skeptical when the weatherman tells you it will rain tomorrow until you test the claim - therefore you don't bring an umbrella?

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


Other civilations existing is testable. Simply find other civilations in the universe.

:rolleyes:

Skepticism is needed, no, REQUIRED for these "untestable" claims you speak of. A claim is a claim, no matter if it is unfalsifiable.

[ImpyTimpy]

Not necessarily wrong, just untested. Wrong implies we know that the answer given is incorrect, yet the answer we were given may in fact be the correct one. Please note, it does not automatically mean that untested answers are correct - they are simply untested, neither right nor wrong until proven to be either way. :)

Originally posted by Yahzi

Correct. We don't know what. So, when asked how the universe was formed, the correct answer is, "we don't know." Any other answer is wrong. Therefore, every single religion that claims that they know the origin of the universe is wrong.

Got it?

[woodguard]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Correct. We don't know what. So, when asked how the universe was formed, the correct answer is, "we don't know." Any other answer is wrong. Therefore, every single religion that claims that they know the origin of the universe is wrong.

Got it?

In science if someone think they have a answer, this is call a theory.

When people knew the earth was flat, One crazy idea was it was round.
There was an even crazier idea the sun was the centre of the solar system. When eveyone knew that earth was the centre of everything.

When people in a 1000 years look back at us, that do you think they will say about the things we thought were true.

The only wrong thing is to say something is absolutely true, without questioning or giving evidence.

To believe in something mean you think it might be not a absolute truth.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by woodguard


In science if someone think they have a answer, this is call a theory.

When people knew the earth was flat, One crazy idea was it was round.
There was an even crazier idea the sun was the centre of the solar system. When eveyone knew that earth was the centre of everything.

When people in a 1000 years look back at us, that do you think they will say about the things we thought were true.

The only wrong thing is to say something is absolutely true, without questioning or giving evidence.

To believe in something mean you think it might be not a absolute truth.

Try telling that to the believers...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Tricky,

At what point can we call you or Bidlack a "woo-woo", a term that is tossed around so freely here?

When I (or Hal) start to make wild, unsubstantiated claims, then feel free to call me a "woo-woo". Although I admit I am not always as skeptical as I might be, I don't think I have steadfastly maintained untenable positions, nor has Hal.

I think you can count on one hand the people active on this forum who truly are "woo-woos". Often though, people use that term for other public figures (not on this forum) who are, shall we say, not slaves to evidence.

If you would like, I can provide you some examples of what I would call "woo-woos".

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky
If you would like, I can provide you some examples of what I would call "woo-woos".
Who are you calling a woo-woo? Huh, huh, Texan?

Just because Law isn't a Natural Science such as your precious discipline of pebble scrutinizing doesn't make me a woo-woo! :mad:

If you aren't careful I shall call upon the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo (or something even more horrible in Latin) to smite you.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL

Who are you calling a woo-woo? Huh, huh, Texan?

Just because Law isn't a Natural Science such as your precious discipline of pebble scrutinizing doesn't make me a woo-woo! :mad:

If you aren't careful I shall call upon the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo (or something even more horrible in Latin) to smite you.
Wall, lookey here, podnuh! I didn' even have to round him up, an
the varmit shows up by his own say-so.

Jes take a gander at his sig-nee-chure, an it'll be as plain as a rattler in yore bedroll. That dang Viking SOB thinks that truth is sumpin' that ain't always the same! That boy got more woo-woos than a renegade Apache!

[Frostbite]

It's easy to be a skeptic. All you have to do is say no and ignore all arguments that go against what you believe in.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by woodguard


In science if someone think they have a answer, this is call a theory.



Wrong!

However, a lot of people who might believe that this is the definition of a ' Scientific Theory ',
might also believe that ' thinking ' something is true, without any ' facts ' to throw in the mix,
puts religious 'beliefs' on the same table with scientific ' theories'...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Wrong!

However, a lot of people who might believe that this is the definition of a ' Scientific Theory ', might also believe that ' thinking ' something is true, without any ' facts ' to throw in the mix, puts religious 'beliefs' on the same table with scientific ' theories'...
Diogenes is correct, Woodguard. A theory must fit the available evidence. Theories usually come at a fairly late stage of scientific investigation when a lot of data has been gathered.

I believe what you are describing is a hypothesis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis).

[woodguard]

I am going to do something first for this board :cool: (Or I have not seen it yet).

I WAS WRONG,
Yes I am opened minded, and can be big about it.

Your right about what a theory thing !

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Frostbite
It's easy to be a skeptic. All you have to do is say no and ignore all arguments that go against what you believe in.

Oh, and you think that's easy?! I'd like to see you do it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by woodguard
I am going to do something first for this board :cool: (Or I have not seen it yet).

I WAS WRONG,
Yes I am opened minded, and can be big about it.

Your right about what a theory thing !
LOL. I already like you, Woody. But it wouldn't be a first. In fact, I posted this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869908388&highlight=dagnabbit#post1869908388) only seconds before I saw your post here. Good skeptics admit when they are wrong. I hope you will stay here a long time.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

Wall, lookey here, podnuh! I didn' even have to round him up, an
the varmit shows up by his own say-so.

Jes take a gander at his sig-nee-chure, an it'll be as plain as a rattler in yore bedroll. That dang Viking SOB thinks that truth is sumpin' that ain't always the same! That boy got more woo-woos than a renegade Apache!

Oh, come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being oppressed!

That's what I'm on about - did you see him oppressing me, you saw it, didn't you?!?

[Cut to a scene of a hog-tied and muzzled young lawyer in three piece suit and novelty Viking helmet, being dragged away by a lynch mob of rugged cowboys under the supervision of a slightly bearded gentleman who giggles eviliy whilst toying with a small rock hammer (thus revealing his affiliation with the Fraternity of Geologists, those ancient sworn arch enemies of any and all Viking practicians of the legal profession ).]

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL
Cut to a scene of a hog-tied and muzzled young lawyer in three piece suit and novelty Viking helmet, being dragged away by a lynch mob of rugged cowboys under the supervision of a slightly bearded gentleman who giggles eviliy whilst toying with a small rock hammer (thus revealing his affiliation with the Fraternity of Geologists, those ancient sworn arch enemies of any and all Viking practicians of the legal profession ).]
Dang! Howjew find out about the FOG? It was s'pose to be secret.