Skeptics can't be atheists

[padakr]

In another thread discussing Hal's deism and whether or not that disqualifies him from being labelled a skeptic, I posted the following:

According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)

skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles

skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

atheist
one who denies the existence of God

Seems that a sceptic can say "There might be a god", as long as they don't claim "true knowledge". I see the word doubt used a lot in the definitions, but I don't see disbelief. An atheist denies, a skeptic doubts.

I don't see how anyone has to be a skeptic to be an atheist or to be an atheist to be a skeptic.

Add to that:

theist
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

I had to look up immanent –

: remaining or operating within a domain of reality or realm of discourse : INHERENT; specifically : having existence or effect only within the mind or consciousness


Upon further thought it strikes me that, using the definitions above, if a theist can’t be a skeptic, an atheist cannot truly be considered to be a skeptic either.

A theist believes in God, doesn’t doubt it. God exists. The details of what God did or does now vary, but God exists. No if, ands, or buts.

An atheist denies the existence of God - "God does not exist" - no doubts, no hedging, no uncertainty, no "no one has showed me evidence", just an explicit, unequivocal “God does not exist”. Period.

Seems only agnostics can be truly called skeptics.

Edited to add: Hey, I'm not a newbie anymore!

[KelvinG]

I have always found it odd that many believers demand that atheists must hold out a small bit of doubt about their beliefs, or suddenly they are not skeptical.
Yet, one of the foundations of religious thought seems to be the utter refusal to accept that the believer might be wrong.
I've always said to any religious person I met: "If you can't agree that there is a possibility you might be wrong, then we have nothing to talk about."
I'm willing to say that my beliefs could be wrong. I've met few believers who will do the same.

[Fade]

An atheist denies the existence of God - "God does not exist" - no doubts, no hedging, no uncertainty, no "no one has showed me evidence", just an explicit, unequivocal “God does not exist”. Period.

I should keep a tally of exactly how many people have no idea what it means to be an atheist.

[Hazelip]

I am a skeptic, and I am an atheist. Both are based upon the simple fact of believing only that which is substantiated by evidence. As there is no evidence in a god of any kind, I do not believe in a god and deny that after all the time of human existence, there is no god. It is a safe and sane conclusion based upon a lack of evidence only.

[c4ts]

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm so glad when people tell me what I cannot be.

What's next, I can't be a man? A human? A vertebrate? A Republican?

And padakr, you might not be a newbie any more, but you're making a newbie mistake.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by c4ts
Semantics, semantics, semantics.

Yes, semantics is a cool word.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, semantics is a cool word.

It sure is. Why else would I say it three times in a row?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hazelip
I am a skeptic, and I am an atheist. Both are based upon the simple fact of believing only that which is substantiated by evidence. As there is no evidence in a god of any kind, I do not believe in a god and deny that after all the time of human existence, there is no god. It is a safe and sane conclusion based upon a lack of evidence only.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[neutrino_cannon]

A very nice strawman that you've managed to erect there. Since when does an atheist deny the existance of god as you say one would? I expect you haven't read Randi's description of an atheist of "the second type". It would appear that in that instance the atheism is a result of skepticism, because there is no reason to believe in god unless evidence is put forth.

And no, to the best of my knowlege there is not solid evidence for anything approaching God. So, in this case it would appear that by their very definition most skeptics would be atheists.

[Yahzi]

padakar
as long as they don't claim "true knowledge".
Perhaps you would like to give us an example of "true knowledge."

Is there anything that qualifies as true knowledge? Anything at all? How about anything practical or pragmatic or in any way normally assoicated with the concept of knowing something?

Why do people invent phrases that mean nothing, and then use them as if they meant something?

Why is it bad that skeptics can't claim "true knowledge" if nobody else can either? More importantly, why do I even have to ask - why didn't this occur to you on your own?

If you demand absolute certainity, then there is no such thing as knowledge. However, buttressing your arguments with the claim that there is no such thing as knowledge is not only self-defeating and hypocritical, it is also tiresomely naive.


Tony
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you apply this maxim to any other subject than God?

[Man of jade]

Saying a skeptic cant be an atheist is like saying Canadians dont have beer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Tony

Do you apply this maxim to any other subject than God?

This is the first time ive used it. :D

[evildave]

Then perhaps various kinds of theists aren't allowed to be skeptics?

I suppose it sounds nice, like "little kids aren't allowed to have cancer, because they're too young".

[bjornart]

Do I have to admit the possible existence of spectral, pink unicorns as well?

[Tony]

Originally posted by bjornart
Do I have to admit the possible existence of spectral, pink unicorns as well?

When are you guys going to give up this tired and insipid strawman?

[Fade]

Originally posted by Tony


When are you guys going to give up this tired and insipid strawman?

It isn't a strawman.

Invisible pink unicorns and god are the same, as far as evidence and likeliness goes.

Of course you can always give us a good case of special pleading :rolleyes:

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Tony
This is the first time ive used it. :D
And the last. I imagine when your boss fails to give you a paycheck, you won't let him use this excuse. In fact, in no other situation whatsoever will you ever invoke this principle. It is a special principle that only exists to allow for the existance of god, and is not allowed to be applied to any other entity.

Why do people give god such a special exemption? Why do people think they are entitled to hand out exemptions to the rules of logic in the first place?

You realize that if we don't use the rules of reason to exclude your god and invisible pink unicorns, then the only way to determine what does and does not exist is to beat people up. If only you could hit Fade until he shut up about his unicorns, you'd be right! And if you kill anyone before they ask questions, then you'll always be right!

Reason is the method by which we avoid violence. To discard reason is to embrace violence. I realize that your gang has the upper hand at the moment, but I still suggest you seriously consider whether your really want to go back to deciding things by violence.

[plindboe]

padakr,

I don't agree with Merriam-Webster's definition of atheist(one who denies the existence of God). While that dictionary can be a useful tool, I have often found their definitions to be too simple and lacking. Hmm, my short definition would be something like this: "one who doesn't believe in any god".

Peter :)

[metacristi]

padakr

An atheist denies the existence of God - "God does not exist" - no doubts, no hedging, no uncertainty, no "no one has showed me evidence", just an explicit, unequivocal “God does not exist”. Period.


Very few atheists make the positive claim that 'God does not exist',the majority of them declare themselves as being 'weak' atheists or agnostic atheists.Though I really doubt that these stances,as they are defined by atheists themselves,are distinct from agnosticism (I could also 'invent' a stance let's name it 'weak' theism with the claim of simply 'lacking disbelief'-is this a default position?) the reality is that a disbelief in God is not conditioned by a proof of God's nonexistence and therefore one can disbelieve whilst remaining open to the possibility that God does exist (but of course being pessimistic that this really could be true).
I am not at all convinced by the mith that 'you cannot prove a negative therefore disbelief needs no justification being the default position' (why should this be necessarilly true?) but it is perfectly logical to not believe after carefully examining the existing evidence.Clearly skepticism is compatible with atheism excepting the extermist strong atheism who make a positive claim of having conlcusive objective knowledge proving that God does not exist (this claim cannot be supported logically at least now) which is much more than simple doubt.

Conversely it is perfectly possible for a person,after carefully examining all available evidence,objective and subjective,to arrive at the personal conclusion that the existing data point out toward the existence of a creator.For example such a person,after examining the proof that the universe has a beginning and trying to answer the question 'why should the laws of physics (nature) remain basically unchanged for long periods of time?',might consider that 'God hypothesis' is more probable (in his subjective system of values) and therefore to choose to believe in God.Of course here belief does not imply certitudes but only that,for the moment,this person consider that 'God hypothesis' is more probable.Given also the fact that the existence of a God is perfectly compatible with our previous capacity to understand nature using scientific laws such a belief is perfectly compatible with logic.Sometimes first hand subjective evidence (even if not entirely clear) is enough for some people to favorize 'God hypothesis'.Indeed,as an example,if one see an alien this is sufficient (but not necessary) to determine them to believe in the existence of aliens and is more than sufficient to base a rational belief (without claims of having objective knowledge) in spite of the fact that,possible,science will be unable to prove that aliens exist for a long long time from now on.
Such a theist accepts that we do not have sufficient objective evidence to claim that God does exist but,in her personal system of values,in the front of all evidence available to her,God hypothesis is more probable:the so called 'agnostic theism'.
This does not imply certitudes,in fact that person remain open to change.Indeed it might happen that she,after another careful examining of all evidence,including some new data,decides to change her stance.A rational person always question and carefully examine the existing evidence,especially objective knowledge,but also the possible subjective evidence (first hand,personal,subjective evidence is preferable).Such a form of theism is perfectly compatible with skepticism in the sense of not having certitudes that God does exist.

[padakr]

It is semantics.

I find it interesting how some people get very worked up over how words are used.

A lot of people are very specific about their definitions of 'atheist' and 'skeptic'. Someone who uses different definitions (and I'm not talking about a definition they made up themselves) is criticized.

My point, poorly expressed, is that the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘skeptic’ are not synonymous. A person can be an atheist without being a skeptic, and a skeptic without being an atheist.

Got to go to work.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, semantics is a cool word.

So is semiotic, and syllogism feels really nice on the tongue!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Yahzi

And the last. I imagine when your boss fails to give you a paycheck, you won't let him use this excuse. In fact, in no other situation whatsoever will you ever invoke this principle. It is a special principle that only exists to allow for the existance of god, and is not allowed to be applied to any other entity.

Why do people give god such a special exemption? Why do people think they are entitled to hand out exemptions to the rules of logic in the first place?

You realize that if we don't use the rules of reason to exclude your god and invisible pink unicorns, then the only way to determine what does and does not exist is to beat people up. If only you could hit Fade until he shut up about his unicorns, you'd be right! And if you kill anyone before they ask questions, then you'll always be right!

Reason is the method by which we avoid violence. To discard reason is to embrace violence. I realize that your gang has the upper hand at the moment, but I still suggest you seriously consider whether your really want to go back to deciding things by violence.

Does this mean you carnt actually beat sense into people? :( ;) Anyway, excellent post!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by padakr
My point, poorly expressed, is that the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘skeptic’ are not synonymous. A person can be an atheist without being a skeptic, and a skeptic without being an atheist.



Your point was " ‘atheist’ and ‘skeptic’ are not synonymous"..?


What group of people, did you feel had this misunderstanding ?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Yahzi



You realize that if we don't use the rules of reason to exclude your god and invisible pink unicorns, then the only way to determine what does and does not exist is to beat people up. If only you could hit Fade until he shut up about his unicorns, you'd be right! And if you kill anyone before they ask questions, then you'll always be right!




When did I say I believed in god? Perhaps you should give up the preconcieved notions. Im just being a critical thinker, isnt that what you value? Mabey you only value it if you agree. Its shallow and childish to say that because you have never seen something it has no possibility of existing. I have never seen the planets 50,000 light years away, does that mean they dont exist?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by padakr
An atheist denies the existence of God - "God does not exist" - no doubts, no hedging, no uncertainty, no "no one has showed me evidence", just an explicit, unequivocal “God does not exist”. Period.
This is what comes from accepting only one source of definitions. Try this one. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html)
Atheist - n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The word "disbelieves" is very important. A skeptic disbelieves anything without proper evidence. It is the "disbelieves" definition of atheist that the vast majority of atheists apply to themselves.

[TylerD]

Originally posted by Tony
When did I say I believed in god? Perhaps you should give up the preconcieved notions. Im just being a critical thinker, isnt that what you value? Mabey you only value it if you agree. Its shallow and childish to say that because you have never seen something it has no possibility of existing. I have never seen the planets 50,000 light years away, does that mean they dont exist?

Now that's a strawman. I've never heard an intelligent, well-educated atheist claim that God doesn't exist because we can't see him/her/it. We only (correctly) claim that there is no tangible evidence of God's existence. So the comparison between him/her/it and invisible unicorns is quite sound.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Does this mean you carnt actually beat sense into people? :( ;) Anyway, excellent post!
One of the greatest disappoints of my life was when I realized you can't force people to be rational.

So if someone choose to be crazy, there's simply nothing you can do for them.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I have always found it odd that many believers demand that atheists must hold out a small bit of doubt about their beliefs, or suddenly they are not skeptical.
Yet, one of the foundations of religious thought seems to be the utter refusal to accept that the believer might be wrong.
I've always said to any religious person I met: "If you can't agree that there is a possibility you might be wrong, then we have nothing to talk about."
I'm willing to say that my beliefs could be wrong. I've met few believers who will do the same.

KelvinG,

I am a christian believer and I could be wrong.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Tony



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

After over 2000 years, it sure as hell is. Furthermore, absence of evidence does not mean magic is the answer...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TylerD

Now that's a strawman. I've never heard an intelligent, well-educated atheist claim that God doesn't exist because we can't see him/her/it. We only (correctly) claim that there is no tangible evidence of God's existence. So the comparison between him/her/it and invisible unicorns is quite sound.
Not completely true. Although I've never seen or heard God, I have seen some of his droppings.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I'm of the opinion that a skeptic can believe whatever he chooses on matters beyond empirical proof (ie, non-falsifiable).

On matters like god and an afterlife, the skeptic is free to believe as his conscience dictates, since it is not a matter that can ever be proven or disproven.

So deist and agnostic and atheist, and yes, even true believer, can all be skeptics (or more accurately perhaps, rationalists). They just can't believe in testable claims (of the paranormal, etc.), like the Shroud of Tourin, the creation story of Genesis, and seeing the 'virgin' Mary in a tortilla.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hazelip


After over 2000 years, it sure as hell is.

2000 years? Where did you get that number from?

Furthermore, absence of evidence does not mean magic is the answer...

Magic?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I'm of the opinion that a skeptic can believe whatever he chooses on matters beyond empirical proof (ie, non-falsifiable).

On matters like god and an afterlife, the skeptic is free to believe as his conscience dictates, since it is not a matter that can ever be proven or disproven.

So deist and agnostic and atheist, and yes, even true believer, can all be skeptics (or more accurately perhaps, rationalists). They just can't believe in testable claims (of the paranormal, etc.), like the Shroud of Tourin, the creation story of Genesis, and seeing the 'virgin' Mary in a tortilla.

Thats a good point, too many people make science their religion. I value science, but I dont let it dictate what I think.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by padakr

An atheist denies the existence of God - "God does not exist" - no doubts, no hedging, no uncertainty, no "no one has showed me evidence", just an explicit, unequivocal “God does not exist”. Period.


Of course all my knowledge is qualified. That does not change the fact that I would sooner believe in Santa than believe in an all powerful deity. This obviously atheistic position is clearly compatible with skepticism, your argument is built upon a straw man,

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I'm of the opinion that a skeptic can believe whatever he chooses on matters beyond empirical proof (ie, non-falsifiable).


My view is that empirical proof and what is 'beyond' such a rigid standard is a myth born of positivistic empiricism. Our theories and their 'observation sentences' are necessarily interdependent.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Tony


2000 years? Where did you get that number from?

Furthermore, absence of evidence does not mean magic is the answer...

Magic?

2000 years, a little more actually, is the approximate time elapsed since the alleged birth of the christ.

Magic? The supernature, is magic. The magical sky-daddy, people with wings, rising from the dead and chatting with your friends. Magic.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats a good point, too many people make science their religion. I value science, but I dont let it dictate what I think.

It only dictates what you are capable of knowing. What you think is your own business. When compared with the facts of scientific evidence, however, what you think can very well be wrong.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hazelip


2000 years, a little more actually, is the approximate time elapsed since the alleged birth of the christ.



Ok, what does that have to do with anything? who mentioned christ?

Magic? The supernature, is magic. The magical sky-daddy, people with wings, rising from the dead and chatting with your friends. Magic.

You have a shallow view of what "god" is.

[Yahzi]

Hand Bent Spoon
On matters like god and an afterlife, the skeptic is free to believe as his conscience dictates, since it is not a matter that can ever be proven or disproven.

But a skeptic's conscience must dictate that he not believe in things he does not have evidence for. That's what being a skeptic means.


Tony
You have a shallow view of what "god" is.
Oh for god's sake just shoot me now.

Why don't tell us what god is, and save us all the guessing game.

Idiot: "You can't disprove my god!"

Atheist: "Sky fairys don't exist."

Idiot: "My god isn't a sky fairy."

Atheist: "[insert every concievable description] don't exist."

Idiot: "My god isn't a [insert every concievable description]."

Repeat ad nausem.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Tony


Ok, what does that have to do with anything? who mentioned christ?


God was mentioned, as christ is symbolic of the Judeo/Christian belief system in a messiah, and is a cultural reference for our current system of counting years before and after his birth, it is a perfectly suitable reference to make when discussing god or gods. The Christian traditional god is more commonplace than say, the Cherokee version of a higher power. For sake of conversation and an understandable reference, again, the christ, the Christian god, and related beliefs is a suitable reference.

Stop trying so hard to be ignorant. You've succeeded marvelously.

Magic? The supernature, is magic. The magical sky-daddy, people with wings, rising from the dead and chatting with your friends. Magic.

You have a shallow view of what "god" is.

Shallow? I happen to think that rising from the dead is a pretty powerful thing! So do most Christians, as that's a major "point" for them in the bible, that there is a life after death, and the resurrection is proof. Of course, it's one of the only times proof is important to a Christian theist, since they believe it proves their belief correct...

What's so shallow? Isn't creating the universe by just thinking it up magic and impressive? How about walking on water? How about curing the sick and infirm with a touch? Magic all of it, and impressive...if any of it weren't total fantasy.

[padakr]

I seem to have started something I didn’t intend. I was not trying to start another “non-atheists can’t be skeptics” thread. I was trying to point out that using a reasonable set of definitions, one could argue that an atheist couldn’t be considered a skeptic either. I didn’t make up the definitions to suit me, I looked at the first on-line dictionary I found and snipped the definitions.

No one has refuted the argument I made, namely (with extra bolding added)

Upon further thought it strikes me that, using the definitions above, if a theist can’t be a skeptic, an atheist cannot truly be considered to be a skeptic either.

Using those definitions, have I made a faulty argument to reach my conclusion?

There doesn’t seem to be an “official” definition of these terms for this board, at least I haven’t seen it referenced anywhere. Is there one? Without one, anyone can point to the definition of their choice and say “I’m right, you’re wrong”. I have seen many threads fall into that type of exchange – re-debating definitions. It appears this one has too.

I don’t particularly like the definition of atheism I found much either. It strikes me as implying the existence of God, making it a term used by theists to describe those “idiots” who deny God. I rather liken it to they way self-described Pro-Choice advocates term their political opponents as Anti-Choice, and self-described Pro-Life advocates term their political opponents as Pro-Abortion. Giving a negative connotation to the label you apply to something to “demonize” it.

The definition provided by Tricky is a little better (adds disbelieves and the word gods), but it still leaves in capital-G God (the real one, not those fakes). Again, is there a set of agreed upon definitions for this board?

UnrepentantSinner
I'm so glad when people tell me what I cannot be.

What's next, I can't be a man? A human? A vertebrate? A Republican?

And padakr, you might not be a newbie any more, but you're making a newbie mistake.

Perhaps it is a student mistake and not a newbie mistake. But I can’t tell from your post to just what you are referring. Could you be more specific? And I certainly wasn’t trying to tell you what you are or are not. I apologize if my post came off that way, I hope this post clears that up.

And to just make it clear, I’m not trying to build some “clever” trap and then spring an “Aha, I win” post. I’m not that clever. I just want to discuss words and definitions and point out that without accepted definitions, discussions of the type I referred to in the beginning tend to devolve into “my definition says this and you’re wrong”. Kind of like this one has. Perhaps I shouldn’t have started this in R&P, would Literature have been a better place, or Banter?

[Tricky]

Apologies, padakr, for not reading carefully. Yes, with the definition you have given which more or less implies that nothing will convince them of a god, then atheists are, at the very least, poor skeptics. But as many have pointed out, that is not the definition that most on this board use.

Actually, this has been a fairly common topic on these boards, with many people coming up with terms like, "soft atheist", "agnostic atheist" etc.

One of the best explanations I saw here is that agnosticism/gnosticism is a position of knowledge (the word "know" comes from "gnostic"), thus an agnostic says "I don't know".

Atheism/theism is a position of belief, so you can have agnostic theists as well agnostic atheists. This is poorly understood by everyone except the people on these boards, so rather than try to explain, I simply refer to myself as an agnostic when talking with most people. In truth, I would more accurately be termed an agnostic atheist: I don't claim to know, but I also don't believe in a god.

We do have one or two "gnostic atheists" here who claim that a god is impossible, but they tend to be as loony as any tent evangalist.:D

[padakr]

UnrepentantSinner
What's next, I can't be a man? A human? A vertebrate? A Republican?Unless you are representing yourself, you are a man by all accepted definitions of the word (i.e. an adult, male, human), and by definition a human and and vertebrate. I discount the silly "real men don't eat quiche" definitions.

Republican. That's a good one. Just like atheist, agnostic, skeptic, theist, christian, jew, muslim, it is a word that is hard to define in a way that everyone agrees with. You are a Republican because you claim to be one, although I expect you will find other Republicans that disagree with you because you aren't Republican enough. (Of course where I live, even the Democrats are Republicans.) Get a room full of christians from different denominations and start talking about what makes a person a "real" christian. Stand back or you may get hurt.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Does anyone else think this entire topic is pointless semantic argument?

[thaiboxerken]

My skeptical views:

There are no psychics.
The dead do not talk back.
Ghosts are hoaxes.
Boogiemen are myths.
Unicorns are fiction.
Santa is a child's fictional hero.
People do not have telekinesis.
Homeopathy doesn't work.


God is a myth.



I have all of these views for the exact same reasons, they are all paranormal claims.

I don't understand why people want to put the paranormal "God" claim in a special place where it doesn't have to adhere to the same scrutiny as all other paranormal claims.

An atheist is one who applies his skeptical nature towards gods.

One can be a theist and skeptic, but they are not being skeptical about god or gods. Then again, I guess one who believes Sylvia Browne is a psychic can be skeptical towards all other paranormal beliefs as well.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Yeah honestly, I find it just plain mind-boggling that people actually believe in a GOD and think its any different than believing in unicorns.. But you have to understand, its a macro-belief for some people.. I guess it would be like a big group of scientists telling people like you and me that in actuality, Galileo was incorrect: the earth is actually flat.

I know I would deny it...

But isn't it wierd how some really smart people (very few albeit, but some) you'll come to find out they believe in God, or some unneccessary higher power concept? It's so bizarre..

Maybe its just that in certain people's brains, this notion of a higher power/God is distorted and wrapped up and in mental knots to the point where it is pivitol to their well-being, hence without it, they would be neurotic or even disassociated with reality.

BTW - no offense to people who do believe in God - "...to each his own," I suppose.

The only people I really have a problem with are creationists. In fact I think they should be evaluated by a therapist extensively for mental retardation. And I'm not joking - I'm really serious.