Skeptical Philosophy

[Zero]

I know there are plenty of people here who consider themselves to be skeptical, but is there a common outlook for all of us? I personally see it broken up into at least two camps. One is the type who says 'that's nonsense' to most everything not accepted by science, and leaves it at that. The second group attempts to show reasons behind why an idea is wrong, and suggests alternate explanations and avenues of inquiry.

I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations.

[LogicalAtheist]

So? Where is this going? Give a lead-in or something!

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
So? Where is this going? Give a lead-in or something!

Ok, so...do you think it isnough to call religion or pseudoscience 'bunk', and walk away, or do you think you should try to present actual evidence, and even guide people towards some sort of reason? After all, not all bunk is really bunk.

[LogicalAtheist]

Because of the logical and statistical and scientific methods I used on religion (which only need to be used once in a lifetime) I walked away. It doesn't take long and once you do it your done for a lifetime.

Kind of like getting your tonsils removed.

So yes, from my perspective it can be bunked forever. But religion isn't pseudo-science, it's mythology, a big difference!

I would urge others to use the processes I did, or others if they wish, and thus to draw the conclusion, and walk away. I wouldn't urge someone to walk away without doing this, and I would urge those would have walked away without doing this, to do it and then walk away again.

I guess the importance lies in the methods I used. But my answer to your question is yes they can be debunked....

PS: Remember the burden of proof of an existance claim lies on the side claiming the existance. It's only a kind gesture if the other side wishes to present it's defense.

[Zero]

On the other hand, if that is all you are going to do, you may as well just save a step and not say anything, don't you think? If all you are doing is stating your beliefs for the sake of hearing yourself talk, what good is that?

[LogicalAtheist]

What is the problem?

You ask a question, I answer it - and then you say I shouldn't answer it?

Perhaps you're unhappy you don't get the responses you wish to get!

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
What is the problem?

You ask a question, I answer it - and then you say I shouldn't answer it?

Perhaps you're unhappy you don't get the responses you wish to get! ???

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I know there are plenty of people here who consider themselves to be skeptical, but is there a common outlook for all of us? I personally see it broken up into at least two camps. One is the type who says 'that's nonsense' to most everything not accepted by science, and leaves it at that. The second group attempts to show reasons behind why an idea is wrong, and suggests alternate explanations and avenues of inquiry.

I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations. Are you asking anyone to argue in favor "of" religion? Because it sounds like you've already concluded there's no need for it. Except of course that it would be nice if we could somehow find a way to convince those poor deluded souls who haven't realized it yet, that it wasn't necessary.

I'm not even a religious person (spiritual perhaps?), and yet the problem is not religion, it's what people do with religion. And this is the key, because religion is so close to the core of what we are -- as "creatures of belief" -- that it's subject to so much exploitation. And indeed, this is what gives it bad name ... while also explaining the nature of addiction.

And, while there's no doubt a good percentage of people who go to church who are under such delusions, I don't think the solution would be to outlaw religion, because people still need their "fixations." Ironically, just like Prohibition! And yet if properly understood, religion can ultimately provide the means by which to overcome our "earthly fixations," and possibly "escape the Matrix" so to speak.

This I'm afraid is what science fails to understand, that people can't help but be this way, for they need time to mature and open their eyes to reality. And yet the problem with Mother Church, is that She becomes so possessive about the whole thing (again, the nature of addiction), that She won't allow Her little children to do grow beyond the need for Mother Church, and become independent "spiritual beings." But doesn't this sound like a problem with most parents?

So the problem is not religion (which isn't to say there aren't things which couldn't be addressed about "formalized religion"). The problem is to understand why we have the need for religion ... And hey, it might even be possible for Science and Religion to get together and bridge some of their differences. Now wouldn't that be something!

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero

I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations.

I think the point you are making is that Skeptics come in two essential varieties, intellectual and reactionary. Reactionary politics are as old as humanity and are not quite totally useless, but certainly are a reflection of the cultures they emerge from. In the long run they can bring about changes that otherwise might not occur, especially in male dominated Patriarchal societies which place violence, assertiveness, and rugged-individualism in general on a pedistal. In the short run, of course, reactionary politics can cause as much embarassment and backstepping as possible.

Sometimes people simply refuse to listen and when they have the overwhelming advantage and dominate the floor, raising hell becomes an attractive alternative. Reactionary Skeptics multiply and grow louder the less people listen to them. Likewise, the more intellectual Skeptics refrain from expressing their own feelings, the more reactionary Skeptics fill in the gaps. The less empowered people feel and the less heard, the more outrageous their behavior.

The ancient Athenian motto for democracy was, "Strike if you must! But hear me first!" Instead of merely putting down reactionary Skeptics as useless, a truly intellectual Skeptic would ask why they act the way they do. This is apparently what you seem to be doing here in a sort of high handed, demeaning way. Note that this is perfectly in character, appropriate, and socially acceptable in western societies but not so much in Asian cultures. In Asia they tend to have to opposite problem, people bend over backwards to at least appear they are not insulting each other or otherwise taking advantage of each other. :0)

[Kerrie]

i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...

Most importantly, a real Skeptic questions themselves.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...


This idea is useless in reality. It's not only impossible but simply strange.

You don't question weather your cereal is poisoned, or weather you have aids today. Or weather you're going to fall through the floor, and weather ghosts are going to kill you right NOW... or a million other things.

To questions things isn't an intelligent decision unless you're going to use empirical data to back your claim up. I could question newtons 2nd law, but I'd be a jackass for it if I didn't have a better theory.

The whole notion of "question everything" like I see these childrens commercials on TV for is just strange. It's part of why we have people who are intellectual without any intelligence or knowledge.

It's a big problem in society today. It also goes back to the whole philosophy thing, philosophy is intellectualism without any knowledge. Science is the intellect to ask why with the knowledge and intelligence to back it up.

Philosophy itself is a poor choice, skeptical philosophy is unbelievably worse!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

So the problem is not religion (which isn't to say there aren't things which couldn't be addressed about "formalized religion"). The problem is to understand why we have the need for religion ... And hey, it might even be possible for Science and Religion to get together and bridge some of their differences. Now wouldn't that be something!

This cuts to teh heart of what I was trying to get across...that it isn't enough to say 'you are wrong, therefore you must be stupid', and move on. I think it is important to understand the reasons people believe differently from you, if only to better understand humanity as a whole. I mean, why do people believe in things that are patently false? Or believe without what some would consider sufficient evidence?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...

Exactly...question, and then measure the answers against everything you know. Be open to new ideas, new information. Like The Amazing Randi likes to say, it isn't that astrology or psychic powers can't exist, it is simply that teh evidence doesn't sway me. If new evidence comes to light, I look at it, compare it to what I know about the world, and see if it rings true.

[LogicalAtheist]

Zero - I've done a few short publications on this "why" you propose. Using many angles. Perhaps I will post them in a new post and see why other atheists propose religion not only became a mythology, but why also it was superimposed.

Originally posted by Zero
This cuts to teh heart of what I was trying to get across...that it isn't enough to say 'you are wrong, therefore you must be stupid', and move on. I think it is important to understand the reasons people believe differently from you, if only to better understand humanity as a whole. I mean, why do people believe in things that are patently false? Or believe without what some would consider sufficient evidence?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
This idea is useless in reality. It's not only impossible but simply strange.

The whole notion of "question everything" like I see these childrens commercials on TV for is just strange. It's part of why we have people who are intellectual without any intelligence or knowledge.


As usual, your logic ignores the simple facts of emotional life and the common emotional connotations of natural language which give it context. Genuine questions do not demand answers, are not habitual, etc. When a Skeptic says "question everything" it is not a command to question every breath you take. Question your own insistence on taking things out of context and, perhaps, you will gain some insight into what a sincere question involves.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
This idea is useless in reality. It's not only impossible but simply strange.I think what's she saying is to question everything, as much as possible, when it comes to people's underlying motives, including yourself's (which is what wuliheron was saying). For indeed, nothing is as it appears, or at least very little of it anyway.

You don't question weather your cereal is poisoned, or weather you have aids today. Or weather you're going to fall through the floor, and weather ghosts are going to kill you right NOW... or a million other things.Yes, and the rest of the things which you don't have time to question -- so long as they don't appear too serious -- you have to pretty much leave up to faith. Hmm ... very interesting!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
This cuts to teh heart of what I was trying to get across...that it isn't enough to say 'you are wrong, therefore you must be stupid', and move on. I think it is important to understand the reasons people believe differently from you, if only to better understand humanity as a whole. I mean, why do people believe in things that are patently false? Or believe without what some would consider sufficient evidence?

Thank you Zero for posting this, I think you are asking an important question.

My opinion is, this is a forum, not a dumping ground for opinionated people to come and unload their dogma on the rest of us. The entire purpose of a forum is to discuss, and listen, and hopefully learn/contribute.

The first variety of skeptic you cite contributes nothing useful, and in fact only wastes everyones' time because when one tries to reason with them, they ignore what you say and merely repeat what they've already said. Rather than a healthy skepticism, it really just ends up being the rantings of the self-absorbed.

Your second example is what I think Kerrie is referring to, not to literally question everything, but rather to wonder about everything which is open to question (and that's a lot of stuff). To me, that is a sign of someone who wants to learn and grow.

Some of the best discussions I've had here when debating with someone, is when they answer me and begin by addressing the important points I made before moving on to their own points, and they do so with an honest willingness to acknowledge anything I said that made sense. It makes no difference whether ultimately people agree as long as they are willing to listen and admit when they don't make sense or make a mistake with facts.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Exactly...question, and then measure the answers against everything you know. Be open to new ideas, new information. Like The Amazing Randi likes to say, it isn't that astrology or psychic powers can't exist, it is simply that teh evidence doesn't sway me. If new evidence comes to light, I look at it, compare it to what I know about the world, and see if it rings true. It's funny you should mention James Randi here, because he's a prime example of what skeptic shouldn't be, "died-in-the-wool" that is. At least this is my own opinion. For he claims to be open to the possiblity that the "super natural" might exist, yet he all he does is mock and ridicule and slam the door shut in the face of it.

Whereas I think James Randi is just in it for himself, and this is what the big hoopla is all about.

[LogicalAtheist]

So:

Everything = Somethings

Hmmm. Does not compute.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
So:

Everything = Somethings

Hmmm. Does not compute.

Exactly, my computer is a complete idiot... an idiot savant that would wander into traffic and get itself killed if it had legs. It cannot place anything in any kind of context, but is a wonderful tool if you can place it in a personal, emotional context.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
So:

Everything = Somethings

Hmmm. Does not compute. While probably at one time or another you do question everything. Which then becomes a matter of "faith." Hmm ...

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, my computer is a complete idiot... an idiot savant that would wander into traffic and get itself killed if it had legs. It cannot place anything in any kind of context, but is a wonderful tool if you can place it in a personal, emotional context.

hehe, music to my ears...

You don't question weather your cereal is poisoned, or weather you have aids today. Or weather you're going to fall through the floor, and weather ghosts are going to kill you right NOW... or a million other things.

well, most people who know how use the word "weather" in the correct context know that to question the obvious is not what i meant...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's funny you should mention James Randi here, because he's a prime example of what skeptic shouldn't be, "died-in-the-wool" that is. At least this is my own opinion. For he claims to be open to the possiblity that the "super natural" might exist, yet he all he does is mock and ridicule and slam the door shut in the face of it.

Whereas I think James Randi is just in it for himself, and this is what the big hoopla is all about.

Hmmmmm....no, I think he is very open-minded to PROOF, if only someone could show him some.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmmm....no, I think he is very open-minded to PROOF, if only someone could show him some.

Haha!

Seriously - how open do you want someone to be? So open they think ghosts exist? Big foot? A dude who defies newtons laws and walks on water? dragons?

I mean come on now, the most open people on the planet are schizos and wackos.

Should we all aspire to be that open?

[Kerrie]

Seriously - how open do you want someone to be? So open they think ghosts exist? Big foot? A dude who defies newtons laws and walks on water? dragons?

that's why we are talking about skeptical philosophy...

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Haha!

Seriously - how open do you want someone to be? So open they think ghosts exist? Big foot? A dude who defies newtons laws and walks on water? dragons?

I mean come on now, the most open people on the planet are schizos and wackos.

Should we all aspire to be that open?
No, but you should be open to NEW evidence, again, if only to debunk it on its own terms.

[Zero]

OK< here's part of what I'm getting at...a 'false skeptic' says "herbal remedies are a scam" and walks away. A 'true skeptic' says "show me what the active ingredients are, and we'll take another look at it".

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
No, but you should be open to NEW evidence, again, if only to debunk it on its own terms.


Yes, and I'm sure that's what this guy does. As do I. It's a small world when you remove the debunkable.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmmm....no, I think he is very open-minded to PROOF, if only someone could show him some. He need only prove it to himself which, I don't think he's capable of doing, because he's so "externally oriented."

Proof only constitutes "fact" anyway, and doesn't belie "the experience," which is really the whole point. Otherwise what purpose does Religion serve?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
While probably at one time or another you do question everything. Which then becomes a matter of "faith." Hmm ... You like to mention this word "faith". I get the feeling you mean it to mean 'belief without evidence'...

[LogicalAtheist]

He does always mention it. But - and without insult - look at some of his concepts.

He bends reality into his own world so the meanings he wants to give things are "true" to him. And doesn't listen to fact that hurts his faith.

Not an insult, but many here are observing it. So what is this faith? And why have it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
OK< here's part of what I'm getting at...a 'false skeptic' says "herbal remedies are a scam" and walks away. A 'true skeptic' says "show me what the active ingredients are, and we'll take another look at it". Yeah, and while running the whole thing like a three ring circus. Perhaps like one of his well-known counterparts, the so-called "true conservative," Rush Limbaugh ...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, and while running the whole thing like a three ring circus. Perhaps like one of his well-known counterparts, the so-called "true conservative," Rush Limbaugh ...


You should really read his site, you know? He is as upfront as anyone I have witnessed. And, what is the circus, expecting people to prove things or stop making claims?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
You like to mention this word "faith". I get the feeling you mean it to mean 'belief without evidence'... No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take. So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!

[BoulderHead]

No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take.
Sounds ok to me.
So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall?I’ll let you know after I’ve reached a conclusion I can have faith in. [:D]
? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!Oh, I already understood it in that way, thanks. Just making certain you weren’t going off the edge…

All the more reason to be open to reevaluating things from time to time.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take. So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!

I think the point of skepticism is creating the proper screening process for new ideas. You give ideas the benefit of teh doubt...but some get alot less benefit than others.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
You should really read his site, you know? He is as upfront as anyone I have witnessed. And, what is the circus, expecting people to prove things or stop making claims? Actually I saw him on a Nova program, something about the "Secrets of the Russian Psychics?" and, while it was a pretty good program, he struck me as nothing but pompous, arrogant, stubborn, presumptuous and totally engrossed in his whole unique "world view." Does this sound anything like Rush Limbaugh by the way? So really what I think it all boils down to is "pandering" to what other people might want to hear.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the point of skepticism is creating the proper screening process for new ideas. You give ideas the benefit of teh doubt...but some get alot less benefit than others. Yes, that would be due to the benefit of experience, as well as preference.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, that would be due to the benefit of experience, as well as preference.

Well, if you are a skeptic, your preference would be for things with logical basis, rather than emotional or anecdotal basis.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I saw him on a Nova program, something about the "Secrets of the Russian Psychics?" and, while it was a pretty good program, he struck me as nothing but pompous, arrogant, stubborn, presumptuous and totally engrossed in his whole unique "world view." Does this sound anything like Rush Limbaugh by the way? So really what I think it all boils down to is "pandering" to what other people might want to hear.


The people Randi busts are usually big time multi-million dollar a year scam artists. Once, however, he trained several people how to fool experts and then sent them around to something like four hundred reputable psychic research institutes across the country. Not once did these people get caught and when finished they went back and explained they had fooled these people and offered to show them how they had done it. Those who refused to listen to how they had been fooled had their names published in the subsequent book.

Personally, I don't think Randi's confrontational brand of skepticism is doing much except to show the faithful don't have a lock on hatred. He's complained about peoples' complaints about his aggressive style as well. In my opinion, what he does is similar to cops working the ghetto. That he is both respected, feared, and deplored by people on sides of the issue comes as no surprise... except it seems to Randi himself.

What he seems to have missed, again, is the opportunity to be skeptical about his own motivations and methods.

[drag]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think as a general rule, each individual should

QUESTION EVERYTHING

for themselves...this means to think for yourself, and not be insulted, swayed, brainwashed by what another individual has to say unless you 100% completely agree with them for your own reasons...

that to me is skeptical philosophy...
Perfect ! [:)]
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Perfect ! [:)]
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

Well, any philosophy should contain a bit of skepicism, don't you think?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The people Randi busts are usually big time multi-million dollar a year scam artists. Once, however, he trained several people how to fool experts and then sent them around to something like four hundred reputable psychic research institutes across the country. Not once did these people get caught and when finished they went back and explained they had fooled these people and offered to show them how they had done it. Those who refused to listen to how they had been fooled had their names published in the subsequent book.

Personally, I don't think Randi's confrontational brand of skepticism is doing much except to show the faithful don't have a lock on hatred. He's complained about peoples' complaints about his aggressive style as well. In my opinion, what he does is similar to cops working the ghetto. That he is both respected, feared, and deplored by people on sides of the issue comes as no surprise... except it seems to Randi himself.

What he seems to have missed, again, is the opportunity to be skeptical about his own motivations and methods. Yeah, the only thing that I think Randi has proved, is how gullible people can be. He didn't "necessarily" have to chose the field of religion in order to demonstrate this, to say the least. Fraud is something you have to deal with on a daily basis. Even with your kids perhaps, when they come home and say they're going to do something, and then run off and do something they were "advised" not to do.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, the only thing that I think Randi has proved, is how gullible people can be. He didn't "necessarily" have to chose the field of religion in order to demonstrate this, to say the least. Fraud is something you have to deal with on a daily basis. Even with your kids perhaps, when they come home and say they're going to do something, and then run off and do something that they were "advised" not to do.

I think Randi has proved more than that, he has proven that supposidly objective scientists were not objective and that public tax dollars were being wasted. Not just by gullible people, but by people who had blinders on. In the process it seems he has been confronted with his own blinders. :0)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I think Randi has proved more than that, he has proven that supposidly objective scientists were not objective and that public tax dollars were being wasted. Not just by gullible people, but by people who had blinders on. In the process it seems he has been confronted with his own blinders. :0) And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.

LOL, bring up that silly 'you can't prove God doesn't exist' stuff, why don't you!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, bring up that silly 'you can't prove God doesn't exist' stuff, why don't you! The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.

[LogicalAtheist]

Zero - ones truth bends around emotion like a mass bends space and time. In both cases the mass/emotion bend reality into the emotion making all appear in favor, and blocking the truth.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly. Gotta have faith in something, right?

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.


Likelihood that "God" exists? How in the @*$^ing hell were you able to twist statistics so much? Your emotion is way out of hand...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.

Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Zero - ones truth bends around emotion like a mass bends space and time. In both cases the mass/emotion bend reality into the emotion making all appear in favor, and blocking the truth. Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference. Whereas how could you possibly know the nature of my "emotional state?" Just because you interject that something is there doesn't make it so, I can assure you!

This applies to you too BoulderHead.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Likelihood that "God" exists? How in the @*$^ing hell were you able to twist statistics so much? Your emotion is way out of hand... And since when do statistics have anything to do with an actual fact? (if what I'm saying is true). And what do emotions have to do with it?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.

If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.

LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)

[LogicalAtheist]

Oh, that's so sweet.

Originally posted by wuliheron
If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.

LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof. But where does the proof come from? And who's going to believe it when they see it? I can assure you, I'm just as skeptical as the next person.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But where does the proof come from? And who's going to believe it when they see it? I can assure you, I'm just as skeptical as the next person.

Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof. This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.It creates a "new reality" too now doesn't it?


LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0) Oh, I thought you were talking about Randi here for second ... And I was going, "What the heck?"

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence. The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.

So? I'm not planning on suing you or anything!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The last thing I need to do is to accept God in the "exterior sense," because it has nothing to do with what's going on on the outside, but rather, what's going on on the inside. Which is really the only way it can any having meaning, by establishing it on the inside.

But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
First, what's that got to do with anything?

And second, yes it would work in a US court of law. It all depends on what you take as the default position. In US courts, the default position is that the defendant is innocent. So, we do not believe in his guilt until it is proven. When contemplating reality, the most of us here at PF take atheism as the default position. And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation. In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.

Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either. And what do you mean by default position? Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
But, that makes it hard to claim that it has any external, objective reality, doesn't it? No, I'm just saying some things you just have to see and/or experience for yourself. Like falling in love for instance. How can you possibly objectify an experience like that? (not without rending it to pieces anyway).

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32;
Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference. Well, if you claim to “know” that ‘He’ exists then I would wonder why you are so quick to repeatedly point out that we must take everything on ‘faith’’ (as you defined it earlier). If you make the claim because deep down you want God to exist, then of course you would likely be only fooling yourself.
So what I’m wondering about is your level of skeptism.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the defendent it seems is God, in which case we're here to try and "prove" He was not the one responsible for Creation.


No. If you follow the analogy, god finds its legal counterpart in the guilt of the defendant.


In which case we would also have to admit there's not enough evidence to support this, beyond the preponderance of doubt, therefore case dismissed.


I do admit that there is not enough evidence to support the negative claim.


Of course that doesn't necessarily prove things one way or the other, but it doesn't disprove God exists either.


Yes. So, when there is not one shred of evidence for or against god, why keep talking about it?


And what do you mean by default position?


I mean the position that one takes when one has not been indoctrinated or delusional. One either must be taught religion, or one must make it up. Atheism is what results when neither of those things take place.


Are you saying science is that sure of itself in claiming otherwise? That's not quite what I've heard. Afterall it does seem to be an issue between Science and God now doesn't it?

What are you talking about?

[LogicalAtheist]

Tom I disagree. There is NO evidence for the claim that any of the Gods in mythological texts exists.

But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.

I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
But there is MONUMENTAL EVIDENCE that those Gods do not exist.

Logic, Statistics, and science all disprove such a God from existing.


OK, then present some of that evidence. I have studied logic, statistics, and science (physics), and I have not heard of any such proof.


I never understand why many atheists don't understand this, and can yet feel confident about atheism?

You are talking about atheism as if it were some kind of religion. It is not something about which one needs to feel confident. In fact, if it were not for religious people, there would be no such thing as "atheism" (why on Earth should I be defined in terms of what I don't believe?).

You seem to be an anti-theist ("I know there is no god, and I have evidence to prove it."), whereas I am a skeptical atheist ("I do not believe in god, because there is no evidence.")

[LogicalAtheist]

....In addition, I don't normally tell atheists it's a good idea to read scientific texts that disprove all the major religions.

In the case here, since I see so many atheists (and wonderful to see you) that usually agree there's no proof to the claim god exists, but who also claim that no evidence against God (of any type) exists.

Becuase I see this, I would highly suggest you atheists learn of the logical, statistical, and scientific evidence towards the claim that no god of any type whatsoever exists.

I can provide some links if you wish to amazon.com books I know of...

[LogicalAtheist]

Yes Tom. And my point is that you say exactly:

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence supporting the existance of any God."

But why is it that you have chosen not what my definition is:

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence supporting the existance of any God, and there is evidence supporting the claim that no God exists."

You say you are versed on logic stats and science. I will assume this is true, then how is it you have not taken this to work against the religious claims?

Just no interest? I understand if one doesn't wanna look at the "case against a God". It's a choice, but from one atheist to another I just don't see why one would choose that.

[BoulderHead]

Tom I disagree. There is NO evidence for the claim that any of the Gods in mythological texts exists.LA, it is often a difficult task to make yourself understood perfectly in a forum, and so you have to word things as carefully as possible to present your position. Looking at the above text you are claiming that no evidence exists for the claim that certain mythological gods exist. In truth, you can go to any church where someone will prove this untrue.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, if you claim to “know” that ‘He’ exists then I would wonder why you are so quick to repeatedly point out that we must take everything on ‘faith’’ (as you defined it earlier). If you make the claim because deep down you want God to exist, then of course you would likely be only fooling yourself.
So what I’m wondering about is your level of skeptism. I don't accept anything based upon somebody else's say so, especially when it comes to something like this. Neither do I expect anyone else to do differently. It doesn't mean a damn thing to hear it come from someone else's lips ... unless of course you have the "ear to hear," meaning you know your stuff.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
LA, it is often a difficult task to make yourself understood perfectly in a forum, and so you have to word things as carefully as possible to present your position. Looking at the above text you are claiming that no evidence exists for the claim that certain mythological gods exist. In truth, you can go to any church where someone will prove this untrue.

First off, you spliced my words and changed the meaning.

Secondly, even if that statement was my own, WHAT?

I can go to a church where someone will show me evidence that a God exists?

1. What are you smoking..

or

2. Is this some magical Harry Potter church?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I don't accept anything based upon somebody else's say so, especially when it comes to something like this. Neither do I expect anyone else to do differently. It doesn't mean a damn thing to hear it come from someone else's lips ... unless of course you have the "ear to hear," meaning you know your stuff. Great! Now, are you making any claims of 'knowing', or are you still taking everything on faith?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You say you are versed on logic stats and science. I will assume this is true, then how is it you have not taken this to work against the religious claims?


I don't think that any math, science, or logic has anything to say on the subject. The religious claims is basically that god exists both within and above the natural universe. They claim that it has the power to suspend and even break its laws.

How on Earth does one use math, science, and logic to falsify the unfalsifiable?

[LogicalAtheist]

Well the question is loaded. It is falsifiable. I think there is one common error that people make when they attempt to speak about

"The existance or non-existance of God"

To say "God (with all it's parameters) exists" is to make a claim.

This claim is in a few books, let's say the bible.

The bible is an individually published text.

The bible makes this claim.

The bible provides all the parameters of (this particular) God.

If logic can show that the parameters of this god are logically impossible, because of logic itself, or because of science, then this God (defined as being identical to all these paramaters) cannot exist.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If logic can show that the parameters of this god are logically impossible, because of logic itself, or because of science, then this God (defined as being identical to all these paramaters) cannot exist.

First, let's just assume you're right here. You've disproven the god of the Bible. That means: one down, infinity to go. The human mind can conjure up an endless parade of gods for you to disprove; attacking the Bible does not disprove the concept in general. A Muslim, for instance, would not feel threatened by that disproof.

Second, you aren't really showing me anything here. You simply said "it is falsifiable", without pointing out the falsifying property of it. I maintain that the concept of a being that can manipulate the very laws (those of science) by which you seek to disprove it is unfalsifiable.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
First off, you spliced my words and changed the meaning.I thought I had used your exact words when I quoted you. With regard to the meaning, I simply misunderstood it. After reading it again I see where I went wrong, sorry.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Great! Now, are you making any claims of 'knowing', or are you still taking everything on faith? Faith is very much a part of knowing. In fact it's the beginning of knowing. I put faith in everything that makes sense to me, and practically discount everything that comes out of the mouths of others, that is until I have a means by which to ascertain it for myself. This is how one learns to "know" for oneself. Now does that sound unreasonable? And what was kerrie saying questioning everything?

And really what it all boils down to is that nobody is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise there would be no freedom.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just saying some things you just have to see and/or experience for yourself. Like falling in love for instance. How can you possibly objectify an experience like that? (not without rending it to pieces anyway).

On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded.


Exactly. because it feels so strange it needs a strange and luxurious answer.

Love is just an electrochemical response. Humans are NOTHING but electrochemical entities. Not a shred of evidence to propose anything else out of the infinite amount of obscure pseudo-scientific blabber.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Faith is very much a part of knowing. In fact it's the beginning of knowing. I put faith in everything that makes sense to me, and practically discount everything that comes out of the mouths of others, that is until I have a means by which to ascertain it for myself. This is how one learns to "know" for oneself. Now does that sound unreasonable? And what was kerrie saying questioning everything?I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand. [:D]

And really what it all boils down to is that nobody is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise there would be no freedom. Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded. What are saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand. [:D]

Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse?

Habits are the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colorful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.
The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
She dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
She accepts substance,
And does not put abstractions on a pedestal.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see this circle of faith-belief-knowing. I can't put my finger on it tonight but it makes the hair stand up on the palm of hand. [:D]What are you turning into a werewolf or something? [:D]

Of course I have to admit a werewolf is very much a mythological creature, that is unless it originally had something to do with getting rabies or something?

Uh, what if somebody showed you a better way to think...would you still refuse? Do you mean like with a gun pointed at my head or something? [:D]

Now how is that possible? I've been thinking for myself for so many years now ... Whereas if somebody really wanted show me a better way, they had better be willing to put their money where their mouth is. That's all I can say.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, giving it some sort of magical element is somewhat unfounded. What are you saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).
From the thread, Undefinable god(s) (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2391) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Alexander
We recently (during last ~100 years) learned that Big Bang was (and still is) the creator of the universe. Then what? But doesn't that imply God had a mistress? Hey maybe that's the problem? If we understood that God was sexual in nature, as the whole of nature might suggest, then maybe we wouldn't be so afraid of Him/Her? We might even learn to take it as a great gift.

And what did God say in the Garden of Eden? ... "Be fruitful, and multiply!"Actually this has just about everything to do with it. For when considering that men and women by themselves are only half of the equation, and that "wholeness" (and hence God) can only be achieved when the two "reciprocal halves" are united as a whole, then it stands to reason that this becomes a means by which to discover God. Or else why would the church make a holy sacrament out of marriage? (drawing focus on the "interior" relationship between men and women). In which case I think the sense of worship towards God, becomes manifest through the love of another human being (interiorly).

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are saying love is magical? Oh, then that must mean magic does exist. In which case why can't God be described as magical as well? (at least in this respect).

No, I am saying that emotions are simply manefestatiosn of biological processes. They don't 'exist' any more than Spider-Man exists.

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And really what it all boils down to is that nobody
is going to tell me how to think, period. Otherwise
there would be no freedom.
What about the dude/gal who told you:
- "Hey, there's an all powerfull thingy called God."
and you answered:
- "Oh, really ? O.K." [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I am saying that emotions are simply manefestatiosn of biological processes. They don't 'exist' any more than Spider-Man exists. In other words they're useless, right? Have you told this to your mother lately? Or your wife? Or daughter? Or girlfriend? Hey this is the other half of the equation man ... and, unless we learn how to cultivate both a healthy intellectual state and, a healthy emotional state, we remain "unbalanced," and chances are we "won't" find God.

You weren't by any chance in the Marines were you?

Of course I think the key to a healthy emotional state is not to allow them to sway us (unduly), but rather keep them in context with what we understand, otherwise I don't see how anybody could be happy? Which, is the key to finding God, learning how to complete oneself (through understanding your other side) and, be happy.

Should it be any more complicated than this? I don't think so. Otherwise how could we be happy?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
What about the dude/gal who told you:
- "Hey, there's an all powerfull thingy called God."
and you answered:
- "Oh, really ? O.K." [;)]

Live long and prosper. I think the best thing you can do is teach a person how to see things for themselves, for if you can't see for yourself, how can you come to accept anything? Indeed it was the same person who taught me how to do this that taught me about God. And now I'm not even "subject" to what they have to say. Isn't that something?

Of course there's the rest of the world that you have to deal with, but what you think, does not have to rely upon "what they think."

[BoulderHead]

I think the best thing you can do is teach a person how to see things for themselves, for if you can't see for yourself, how can you come to accept anything? Blind faith?
Indeed it was the same person who taught me how to do this that taught me about God. Ok, did he teach you how to think or did he teach you how to think about god?
And now I'm not even "subject" to what they have to say. Who, exactly, is they?
Isn't that something?Indeed !!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words they're useless, right? Have you told this to your mother lately? Or your wife? Or daughter? Or girlfriend? Hey this is the other half of the equation man ... and, unless we learn how to cultivate both a healthy intellectual state and, a healthy emotional state, we remain "unbalanced," and chances are we "won't" find God.

You weren't by any chance in the Marines were you?

Of course I think the key to a healthy emotional state is not to allow them to sway us (unduly), but rather keep them in context with what we understand, otherwise I don't see how anybody could be happy? Which, is the key to finding God, learning how to complete oneself (through understanding your other side) and, be happy.

Should it be any more complicated than this? I don't think so. Otherwise how could we be happy?

Emotions are subjective, and have no reality besides what we give them.

My emotional state is just fine...and doesn't need made up 'gods' to keep it that way.

[Royce]

All science is based on a number of unproveable assumptions.
One such assumption is that the physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe.
Yet scientist everywhere know that physical laws are not the same inside the event horizon of a black hole.
Another such assumption is that Physical reality exists and that we can know and learn about it.
Yet scientists everywhere say that we cannot know anything prior to the big bang nor anything outside our light cones.
Belief in unproveable assumption in this thread and many others has been call faith.
Yet many of you atheist deny faith in anything and that faith itself is illogical.
I have never seen an electron yet I take it to be a reality because others have told me and shown me proof on paper; but, they have never shown me an electron. This is faith.
Deny it as much as you like but you will never convince me that you don't have faith in something even if it is in science and scientist.

You and I both agree to believe in many things that we don't fully understand and have never personally experienced based on the work and publications of a few scientist whose work as lay people we could never fully understand.
Yet you deny and refuse to believe one word of what millions of good honest sincere people have said that they have experienced personally
and a system of belif that is vertually universal with mankind and has been around for well over ten thousand years.
This is consistant, logical thinking? I don't think so.
Science is the first to say that it has proven very little completely, descively and beyound any possiblity of error or doubt.
Science also admits that for every answer that they do find it opens up a thousand new questions. They also admit that they study and investigate the external physical world of matter and energy. They do not and can not look at the internal and subjective. This is why science does not and can not disprove any religion. Religion is internal and subjective. All of you scientfic and logical atheist are looking in the wrong place for your God. That is why you can't find him. He isn't in a text book or even the bible. He isn't under a microscope or out in space. He, if he exists, is inside you and me and all of us. There are those who believe that we are also inside him. That all that exists is of God and as long as you insist on looking at the trees you will never see the forest that is God. Some of you vehemently deny any possible existance of God. That you studied the issue once and walked away forever. If that is so why are you here and why are you so often found in the religion forum and why do you always bring up God even in a thread about philosophical skeptism?

[Zero]

Hmmm...I don't believe in faith. I can accept assumptions based on evidence. There is no solid evidence for the existance of gods or ghosts, some small amount of evidence for certain herbal remedies, and tons of evidence that the natural laws aren't going to reverse themselves in teh next tne minutes. Mystical thinking(including religion and pseudoscience) seems to me to be based on special exceptions to the rules that cannot be repeated upon request. I can drop any object less dense than air from where i am sitting, and I can accept the logical assumption that it will fall, like every other object I have dropped has done. That form of faith has nothing to do with teh sort of faith that allows people to talk to teh sky and expect a response.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Emotions are subjective, and have no reality besides what we give them.Except that they add color to what is an otherwise black and white world. Now you tell me which is more real? A world without emotions? Or, a world with emotions?

Also, you can't say you don't "believe" in faith, because that's a statement of faith right there. While the same holds true when accepting "an assumption."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that they add color to what is an otherwise black and white world. Now you tell me which is more real? A world without emotions? Or, a world with emotions?

Also, you can't say you don't "believe" in faith, because that's a statement of faith right there. While the same holds true when accepting "an assumption."

Emotions are great...[b]subjectively[/i]!!! They are nonexistant in a real, material sense. I base my persona; existance on that, in part, but I make no claims about emotion having any effect on the real world.

As far as 'faith'...I think I spelled out my voiews on it rather clearly. I have 'faith' in repeatable, confirmed concepts, like gravity. Everyday, gravity has a concrete effect on everything I see around me. I don't claim to know how it works, but it does. I don't have faith in myths or magic tricks, that only 'work' if you are gullible...I mean 'if you believe'. Gravity works whether I believe in it or not.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Blind faith?Then what have you actually accepted, except perhaps "a phantom?"

Ok, did he teach you how to think or did he teach you how to think about god?He taught me a lot of things, some of which weren't true, which I ultimately had to pay the price for. And yet he did teach me how to see things for myself as well as acknowledge God.


Who, exactly, is they?Right wing religious conservative type, Roy Masters, who's just a little bit too conservative for me ... http://www.fhu.com/

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce

Science is the first to say that it has proven very little completely, descively and beyound any possiblity of error or doubt.
Science also admits that for every answer that they do find it opens up a thousand new questions. They also admit that they study and investigate the external physical world of matter and energy. They do not and can not look at the internal and subjective. This is why science does not and can not disprove any religion. This is also why we can trust science, and not trust religion. Religion claims to have all the answers, despite any proof to teh contrary. Science accepts its limitations, and is therefore an honest endeavor.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
This is also why we can trust science, and not trust religion. Religion claims to have all the answers, despite any proof to teh contrary. Science accepts its limitations, and is therefore an honest endeavor. Do you mean like turning people's skins into lampshades? ... Or Chernobyl? ... The development of weapons of mass destruction? ... Ex-foliating South East Asia with Agent Orange? ... Releasing toxic wastes and bio-hazards into the eco-system?

These are all by-products of science by the way.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean like turning people's skins into lampshades? ... Or Chernobyl? ... The development of weapons of mass destruction? ... Ex-foliating South East Asia with Agent Orange? ... Releasing toxic wastes and bio-hazards into the eco-system?

These are all by-products of science by the way.

No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history. And where was science through all of this, with its thumb stuck up its rear?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history.

Hitler-18 million

Stalin-22 million

Mao-26 million

If I have to choose between being killed by religious or secular political fanatics it just isn't a choice imo. Ghangus Khan killed millions as well, but never claimed religion was the reason. Many who have claimed religion as a reason were obviously lying. What has undeniably killed more people in history than anything else is fundamentalism, whether secular or religious.

To be fair, it has also promoted the growth of the sciences and saved a huge number of lives as well. No doubt without it the world's population might still be a mere six million instead of billion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And where was science through all of this, with its thumb stuck up its rear?

Science isn't sopposed to solve social problems...religion claims to be that solution, and very obviously isn't. Science doesn't claim to be more than it is, religion does.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Science isn't sopposed to solve social problems...religion claims to be that solution, and very obviously isn't. Science doesn't claim to be more than it is, religion does. Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?
Yes, that does excuse it.


Without science, you wouldn't be alive
Even worse, you wouldn't be able to access PF.
I think that excuses it pretty well.[;)]

[Kerrie]

we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science...

[Dissident Dan]

Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science... And yet what was the whole purpose behind this thread, to illustrate the merit of Science over Religion, or at least that's what I gathered based upon this other post ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would you say that all people who believe in God are superstitious and, that their beliefs are undfounded? If so, then you're just as bad as James Randi. Because to me, he doesn't express anything other than this "very belief." As a matter of fact it comes across loud and clear.


Originally posted by Zero
Actually, if you bothered to read his stuff...you would know how wrong your statement is.

I find that it is funny that you harp on his Ego, since his site is made up mostly of letters from other people.Then I'm sure you're familiar with the Pigasus Awards? Hmm ... A pig with wings? It kind of brings to mind Pegasus, the winged horse of Greek Mythology? Now I remember him bringing this up on the program I watched, and I think it was about the time that he expounded on the nature of superstitious beliefs, and I couldn't help but believe he was mocking the Pegasus of Greek Mythology. Which suggests to me that he has no perception or understanding whatsoever, of what the Pegasus entails. And that's sad. For indeed there's a great deal more to the Greek Myths than what this man would hold up to mock and ridicule.


Well, the Pigasus Awards are FUNNY...and mythology should be mocked too, you know! So should religion, frankly...not the PC thing to say, but I still think it is semi-true.And let the truth be known!

[FZ+]

Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about... Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the other thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1), that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me! [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.

[Kerrie]

I repeat, let's get back on topic otherwise it will be locked.

[Zero]

Yeah, ummm...sorry Kerrie!


Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the other thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1), that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me! [;)]

Actually, before i got sidetracked, I was going to direct you to his column archive, which contains a guest essay about the compatability of spiritualism and skepticism, and to note that often Randi shows respect for researchers who honestly look into teh supernatural. If you use the right techniques to look, it is hard to be disrespectful of a scientist using actual real science to look into things like astrology or telepathy.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.

A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.

That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic. [g)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic. [g)]

Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.

Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.

THAT statement makes sense to me....thanks for clarifying, we are of mostly like minds on that.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Zero
Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.

That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

[EDIT: removed a pesky double negative]

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

This is a good description of a skeptic imo with one exception. Many things are not logically coherent, but still widely accepted by skeptics because they are observable. For example, a skeptic can accept the Liar's Paradox as real and existent, yet acknowledge that it is not logically coherent.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive. Oh how generous you are! ...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh how generous you are! ...

More that I personally think you deserve, but what the heck, right?