Religious Skepticism

[Tigers!]

and importantly for us, discernible.
Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there.

How did you discern this?

Discern what or which exactly?

 

[Tigers!]

The onus is on the Christian to make a case for god.

Only if that make such a claim. The burden of proof is always on the proposer or accuser.

I do not have to prove or be skeptical of my rejection of Christian proofs.

No you have too but it does make for a short conversation.

If there were no theists I would not be atheist. Theists create the duality.

Pardon?

It is the theist who sometimes makes an affirmative declaration and claim.

FIFY. See comment above.

I simply reject theist claims as inadequate, that makes me atheize to the heist. I reject the duality altogether as nonsense. I do not go around being 'atheist'.

I can simply reject atheist claims as inadequate but that will not get us very far.

 

[Lion IRC]

What's the "duality"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

and importantly for us, discernible.
Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there.

How did you discern this?

Discern what or which exactly?

I should have thought it was obvious what part of your statement i was questioning. The part i quoted.

How did you discern "Those laws are there because of a creator, not because of chance, random processes that just happened to have said laws there." What makes you say this with confidence?

 

[steve_bank]

Only if that make such a claim. The burden of proof is always on the proposer or accuser.

No you have too but it does make for a short conversation.

If there were no theists I would not be atheist. Theists create the duality.

Pardon?

It is the theist who sometimes makes an affirmative declaration and claim.

FIFY. See comment above.

I simply reject theist claims as inadequate, that makes me atheize to the heist. I reject the duality altogether as nonsense. I do not go around being 'atheist'.

I can simply reject atheist claims as inadequate but that will not get us very far.

Big Foot believers offer evidence and proof which are widely debunked. I reject existence of BF. It is not on me to be skeptical of my rejection of clearly inadequate proof.

The stock answer for Christians to all questions it is god's plan or something similar.

God is perfect, man if s fallible and makes mistakes. The 737 Max.

So again, on what basis do you believe a jet will fly you are on as it rolls down the runway? Are you saying faith in god?

When you hit the brakes on your car baring mechanical failure why believe it will work> Faith in god?

Or is maybe just maybe the result of objective scientific and engineering analysis? Things of which you are utterly ignorant yet trust? The issue here is implicitly trusting science except when it conflicts with religious claims, like evolution and creation.

That is not skepticism of any kind,.It is selecting truths based on ideology. The basis of bible based theology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I reject the duality altogether as nonsense. I do not go around being 'atheist'.

The word came later. It describes a behavior in relation to another behavior is all. There's nothing to reject or to protest.

The Santa analogy is always appropriate when talking about adult magic beings, so is there a word that a Santa believing kid uses to describe someone that's never heard about Claus the great? No, but we need one, so do you have any suggestions?

We use the word "natural" all the time. I think the category "Natural Science" is improperly named from that point of view as there really isn't any other kind.

 

[southernhybrid]

Only if that make such a claim. The burden of proof is always on the proposer or accuser.

No you have too but it does make for a short conversation.

If there were no theists I would not be atheist. Theists create the duality.

Pardon?

It is the theist who sometimes makes an affirmative declaration and claim.

FIFY. See comment above.

I simply reject theist claims as inadequate, that makes me atheize to the heist. I reject the duality altogether as nonsense. I do not go around being 'atheist'.

I can simply reject atheist claims as inadequate but that will not get us very far.

Oh yeah! Well do you believe in garden fairies? If not, will you please prove that they don't exist. Do you get it now? Can you prove that Santa doesn't exist? Can you prove that gnomes and elves don't exist? I didn't think so. Please try to understand that you can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is always on the one who is making the claim that something exists. You have absolutely no proof that any gods exist. It's something that you are told to accept on "faith". Does that help you understand why atheists aren't the ones who need to prove that no gods exist?

Believing in a god is taking the easy way out. It's a long human tradition to believe in gods and mythology. Imo, it's lazy thinking. You've just accepted what you were told to believe. It made you feel good, or it made you feel special or saved or part of a likable group. But, you made the claim that a god exists, so you are the one that must give evidence of that claim. I don't need to prove anything because I made no claim that something that none of us can see actually exists. Does that help you have a better understanding of why your claim that atheists need to prove anything is invalid?

Hey look. I really don't care if you think that a god exists, but at least admit that you can't prove it. Just admit that it's "faith" that allows you to believe in such a thing.

I am incapable of believing something without seeing a lot of evidence. I am capable of changing my mind as new evidence comes into existence, but I am not responsible for proving that something doesn't exist. I don't have to prove that the Christian god, or the Muslim god or the Baha'i god or the Jewish god etc. don't exist. Can you prove that the Muslim god doesn't exist? Can you prove that the Greek gods didn't exist? I didn't think so. Do you understand how it works now?

 

[steve_bank]

As a skeptic I evaluate Big Foot claims and theist clams exactly the same.

I make no 'atheist' claims. Atheist is a pigeonhole theists put me in.

 

[steve_bank]

What's the "duality"?

Light dark, short tall, atheist theist.

 

[steve_bank]

As a skeptic the key for me is empirical evidence subject to evaluation and testing as opposed to subjective interpretaion of reality. To be skeptical is to doubt. A Christian can not doubt faith.

Although called a soft science, modern psychology does have an experimental basis, controlled repeatable experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Skepticism (American English) or scepticism (British English, Australian English, and Canadian English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma.[1][2] It is often directed at domains, such as the supernatural, morality (moral skepticism), theism (skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of knowledge, or of certainty).[3] Formally, skepticism as a topic occurs in the context of philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it can be applied to any topic such as politics, religion, and pseudoscience.
Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. Radical forms of skepticism deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of skepticism claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about the big questions in life, such as whether God exists or whether there is an afterlife. Religious skepticism is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".[4] Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.

Definition[edit]
In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for; see also spelling differences) can refer to:
an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
the doctrine that true knowledge or some particular knowledge is uncertain;
the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
In philosophy, skepticism can refer to:
a mode of inquiry that emphasizes critical scrutiny, caution, and intellectual rigor;
a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing;
a set of claims about the limitations of human knowledge and the proper response to such limitations.

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism:_A_Rough_History_of_Disbelief

Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, known in the United States as A Brief History of Disbelief, is a 2004 television documentary series written and presented by Jonathan Miller for the BBC and tracing the history of atheism. It was first shown on BBC Four and was repeated on BBC Two. It was first shown in the U.S. on PBS in 2007.
The series includes extracts from interviews with Arthur Miller, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Colin McGinn, Denys Turner, Pascal Boyer and Daniel Dennett. The series also includes many quotations from the works of atheists, agnostics and deists, all read by Bernard Hill.
The series consists of three 60-minute episodes:
"Shadows of Doubt"
"Noughts and Crosses"
"The Final Hour"
A series of six supplementary programmes was made from material that did not fit into the program; this was dubbed The Atheism Tapes.

Content[edit]
The bulk of the presentation is a historical review of atheism in the West with asides to the author's personal experience. Miller notes, as is implicit in the title, how only recently atheism was publicly acknowledged in the modern West, with none willing to state flat rejection of religious beliefs until Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789). He examines why d'Holbach is not better known or celebrated.
The first episode, "Shadows of Doubt", starts with Miller in the Reading Room at the British Museum describing the purpose of the series, and gives a brief montage of the interviewees. Miller starts his journey in New York City and states that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were "inconceivable without religion". Miller goes on to describe how he is conducting the series to explore the history of atheism, but he says he is rather "reluctant" to call himself an atheist because "it hardly seems worthwhile having a name for something which scarcely enters my thoughts at all". There follows a brief montage of people explaining their atheism: Sir Geoffrey Lloyd, Polly Toynbee, Gore Vidal, Steven Weinberg and Colin McGinn. Miller then describes his Jewish upbringing sitting in the pews of the New London Synagogue in St John's Wood.
In order to explore the philosophy of what it is people are talking about when they discuss beliefs, Miller talks to Colin McGinn, who notes that the word belief covers things as diverse as ("I believe there is a table in front of me" to "I believe in democracy") and also argues that beliefs are dispositional or implicit rather than occurrent. McGinn goes on to explain that the question of beliefs only comes up when one is faced with a question which is debatable, and gives religion and politics as examples. Miller then states that politics differs from religion in being about what ought to be, while religion primarily deals with what is the case.
Miller then asks whether it is possible to bring about belief voluntarily (an issue philosophers refer to as doxastic voluntarism).

 

[Lion IRC]

What's the "duality"?

Light dark, short tall, atheist theist.

OH ok. Good.
I agree that atheism versus theism is a duality.
There's no 'opposite' of stamp collecting.
But there IS an opposite to the claim that God does not exist.

 

[steve_bank]

What's the "duality"?

Light dark, short tall, atheist theist.

OH ok. Good.
I agree that atheism versus theism is a duality.
There's no 'opposite' of stamp collecting.
But there IS an opposite to the claim that God does not exist.

And for me my response is to the affirmative claims of theists. I do not make such an affirmative claim for atheisms. For me no different then Big Foot or alien abductions.

Theists create the duality that labels me atheist.

 

[Tigers!]

And for me my response is to the affirmative claims of theists. I do not make such an affirmative claim for atheisms. For me no different then Big Foot or alien abductions.

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

Theists create the duality that labels me atheist.

And you affirmatively accept that label. If you did not accept the label then there would be no duality. For you at least.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And for me my response is to the affirmative claims of theists. I do not make such an affirmative claim for atheisms. For me no different then Big Foot or alien abductions.

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

Theists create the duality that labels me atheist.

And you affirmatively accept that label. If you did not accept the label then there would be no duality. For you at least.

I really don't think he's saying that the duality comes from the fact there are two different labels.

Rather, the labels were created to reflect the duality, so his accepting or rejecting the term does fuck-all to create or even to validate the duality.

 

[steve_bank]

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

And you affirmatively accept that label. If you did not accept the label then there would be no duality. For you at least.

I really don't think he's saying that the duality comes from the fact there are two different labels.

Rather, the labels were created to reflect the duality, so his accepting or rejecting the term does fuck-all to create or even to validate the duality.

Pretty much. The duality is used by Christians to validate their position. In comic book terms atheists are the arch villains.

Real freedom to me begins with rejecting the duality altogether. Don't plays the game. Unfortunately for us is we have to play the game due to the enormous political and social power of Christians. If not for that I would not be in the debates anymore than I would on Big Foot.

 

[steve_bank]

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

Weak retort. The fact remines Christians can not doubt and be skeptical of ancient writings and claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

And you affirmatively accept that label. If you did not accept the label then there would be no duality. For you at least.

I really don't think he's saying that the duality comes from the fact there are two different labels.

Rather, the labels were created to reflect the duality, so his accepting or rejecting the term does fuck-all to create or even to validate the duality.

Pretty much. The duality is used by Christians to validate their position. In comic book terms atheists are the arch villains.

Real freedom to me begins with rejecting the duality altogether. Don't plays the game. Unfortunately for us is we have to play the game due to the enormous political and social power of Christians. If not for that I would not be in the debates anymore than I would on Big Foot.

Careful.
You mention politics. In some states, the number of cases of voting fraud equals the number of bigfoot sightings. THIS CANNOT BE COINCIDENCE!

 

[Tigers!]

But you do make the affirmative claim that you are an atheist.

Weak retort. The fact remines Christians can not doubt and be skeptical of ancient writings and claims.

Why not?
The ancientness of a writing, by itself, tells us nothing of its truth or validity.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that atheism isn't an affirmation of anything, despite all of our attempts to help explain it.

The word atheist is just another way of saying, I'm NOT a theist. It's not an affirmation. If you don't believe that Zeus existed, is that an affirmation? There is probably just about the same amount of evidence for Zeus as there is for the god of the Bible. You however feel comfortable believing that one tale is true while the other is just a myth. Can you understand that?

I'm not criticizing you for believing in a god. I honestly don't care as long as your beliefs help you navigate this world in a positive way. I just want you to understand that atheists don't choose not to believe in any gods, nor do we affirm anything. We just see the supernatural world as a fairly tale or a dream etc., without any credible evidence to support it.

Maybe because it's been such a long human tradition to believe in the supernatural, we atheists are the oddballs. Maybe if humanity exists for a long time to come, those beliefs will eventually die out. Maybe they won't. Maybe new types of mythology will replace the current ones. That's pretty much what's happened throughout human history. Other religious myths. have popped up after Christianity. I see no reason why this probably won't continue to happen in the future, not the mention that even Christianity has countless sects and interpretations.

But, at least try to understand that your beliefs aren't any more special than any other set of religious beliefs.