Atheism's Relation to Skepticism

Religions > Atheism > Atheism's Relation to Skepticism

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jack"
Date:	04 Jun 2006 11:03:50 AM
Object:	Atheism's Relation to Skepticism

Skepticism is the father of weak atheism in that weak atheism is just
skepticism applied to God. In order to understand and answer weak
atheism, I have chosen to take a closer look at skepticism, its nature,
function and limits.
The Nature of Skepticism
Skepticism says that things should be doubted until proof or valid
evidence is presented for evaluation. This is a very useful method
designed to ensure knowledge is not built on shaky foundations. Of
course, taken to the extreme, skepticism leads to Utter Doubt and,
presumably, insanity. Even the most hardened skeptic must acknowledge
certain facts and axioms a priori.
Thus it becomes clear that a certain a priori knowledge is necessary
from which knowledge can be deduced. Once we become thinking adults we
can begin to use skepticism to our benefit in testing new knowledge. We
analyze the new knowledge for comprehension, conformance to logic and
conformance to sense data. If the shoe fits, we accept the new
knowledge. Skepticism is simply a natural part of the process of
gaining knowledge - the test phase.
The Limits of Skepticism
Skepticism alone however, cannot bring us any new knowledge. It may be
useful in throwing out fallacies and lies but it is by nature
destructive. It removes false knowledge. Skepticism cannot propose a
new theory and is impotent where first-hand evidence is lacking. Thus,
to discover things about the past or unseen universe, scientists are
forced to make an hypothesis and see if any indirect, secondary data
supports this hypothesis. Science takes a risk.
And thus, if we are to answer questions about our existence and the
purpose and reasons for the universe we must seek an alternative
strategy and should not be surprised to find that the only road is a
risky road. Of course there is the option which weak atheism offers
which is to sit on the couch and wait for manna from heaven but that
approach has not got anyone anywhere so far. The risk element is
imperative for science to progress and it is imperative in answering
our questions of purpose and ultimate origins.
A World without Skepticism
Now, some would take that to mean that we have free license to define
arbitrary beings with arbitrary attributes and construct elaborate
histories and myths to explain our existence. No doubt this road can be
taken and is valid to a certain degree but, in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and
apply the skeptic's test: Is this hypothesis comprehensible,
logically sound, does it conform to sensory data? This is where many a
theory will be reduced to rubble: most gods are invisible and/or
illogical or unknowable.
Skepticism's Bigger Brother
And thus we have to question whether the skeptics test is sound, and
whether perhaps there is a theory of existence available with both the
logical and sensory conformance required to make it believable.
I believe the answer lies in the middle: The skeptic's test is not
sufficient, sensory data is not the only way we may perceive evidence
about an entity or theory. Of course if we defined the word
"evidence" to only that which is obtainable by sensory data, we can
stop here and accept the skeptic's test. Perhaps however, we can use
the word "substantiation" and continue, again, being on new
territory, and taking a risk that non-sensory evidence is possible.
I would like to bring 4 examples:
1) Revelation
2) Instinct
3) Testimony
4) Indirect sensation
Thus, if we combine sensory data, and the four items (maybe more)
listed we arrive at what we call Reason: the "=DCberbegriff" or big
brother of Skepticism. Reason says, if there is reason to believe, we
should believe, without placing too many constraints on what
"reason" entails.
Revelation
Revelation is when something is revealed to us without the senses being
involved and is sometimes known as "voices" due to it's frequency
among mental patients. If you were to hear a voice prompting you in an
examination with answers to the questions and afterwards receive a
perfect score you would suddenly believe that extra-sensory perception
is possible. Perhaps you did not even hear a voice but felt the pen
being directed and, following the instructions obtained and A+. In
whatever form the "voices" spoke, it would be clear to you that
communication, outside of the senses is possible.
And so we must ask ourselves: Is the theory of revelation or ESP just a
theoretical construct by a skilled sophist or are there any real world
examples? To answer this I would recommend visiting your local
spiritualist society, or, if that's not you're thing - your local
psychiatrist. There are people who hear voices.
Instinct
Regarding instinct, we must simply look to that which we have, which
arrives "pre-packaged" when we are born. We know how to breath
having never practiced it and our mouth instinctively searches for the
mother's breast. So many body functions are unconscious and may be
attributed to chemistry or physics but some, like breathing and
drinking are not. This knowledge is "truth built in" and needed no
testing to be accepted and implemented by us. Or acceptance of
instinctive knowledge is critical to survival.
Testimony
Our courts of law are a prime example where a person's testimony can
be used as valid evidence in deciding a case. A reliable witness or
friend can convince us that "honesty is the best policy" or
"smoking is bad" without us having experienced the effects first
hand. True, some people are less susceptible to testimony and like to
test the waters themselves but this is clearly not the only option in
obtaining knowledge and is certainly not the most efficient.
Indirect Sensation
This is closely related to testimony except that the effects are
speaking for themselves. If I see that an alcoholic is an unhappy,
damaged individual, I can rightly conclude that alcoholism is bad for
me. This is an efficient way of learning from others which forms much
of what we believe and know about the world.
Summary
And so we see that the skeptic's test needs to be refined if it is to
become more effective in promoting knowledge and ultimately wisdom. It
could be restated as:
1) Comprehend
2) Check conformance to logic
3) Check conformance to substantiation*
* Sensory data, revelation, instinct, testimony and indirect sensation
Conclusion
When we encounter a new topic, we all make a decision consciously or
unconsciously to accept the knowledge as truth and see where it takes
us. Of course we may approach cautiously, but approach we must if we
are to learn anything. We can of course choose to close our eyes or
flee but then we will never know. The best we can hope for is reliable
second hand evidence (testimony, knowledge by description) but to
really know, we have to, in a state of not knowing, approach and dare
to encounter first hand (experience, knowledge by acquaintance). This
is the risk the weak atheist will not take, to get off the couch,
believe that God is possible and search for a logical description with
substantial endorsement.
.

User: "kathryn"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	04 Jun 2006 11:15:44 AM

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:52:08 PM

"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:QeednaGPnearmh7ZnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@bt.com...

Other than the one under his propeller beanie?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	04 Jun 2006 12:02:23 PM

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:15:44 +0100, "kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote:

He still doesn't get it, and I doubt he ever will.
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	04 Jun 2006 12:13:47 PM

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149437030.323716.101730@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Skepticism is the father of weak atheism in that weak atheism is just
skepticism applied to God. In order to understand and answer weak
atheism, I have chosen to take a closer look at skepticism, its nature,
function and limits.
The Nature of Skepticism
Skepticism says that things should be doubted until proof or valid
evidence is presented for evaluation. This is a very useful method
designed to ensure knowledge is not built on shaky foundations. Of
course, taken to the extreme, skepticism leads to Utter Doubt and,
presumably, insanity.
Funny. I can't think of a single instance where someone went 'insane' due to
'extreme' skepticsim. Can you?
Even the most hardened skeptic must acknowledge
certain facts and axioms a priori.
Guess what? Belief in 'God' is not one of them.
Thus it becomes clear that a certain a priori knowledge is necessary
from which knowledge can be deduced. Once we become thinking adults we
can begin to use skepticism to our benefit in testing new knowledge. We
analyze the new knowledge for comprehension, conformance to logic and
conformance to sense data. If the shoe fits, we accept the new
knowledge. Skepticism is simply a natural part of the process of
gaining knowledge - the test phase.
The Limits of Skepticism
Skepticism alone however, cannot bring us any new knowledge. It may be
useful in throwing out fallacies and lies but it is by nature
destructive. It removes false knowledge. Skepticism cannot propose a
new theory and is impotent where first-hand evidence is lacking.
Whoever said 'skepticism' is supposed to 'propose a new theory'?
Thus,
to discover things about the past or unseen universe, scientists are
forced to make an hypothesis and see if any indirect, secondary data
supports this hypothesis. Science takes a risk.
And guess what? When a scientist sees that contrary evidence 'proves' he or
she was wrong about something, he or she will usually accept that
insurmountable evidence to the contrary, and move on. The religionist, on
the other hand, won't even take into account the *possiblility* that he or
she is wrong. What does *that* tell you?
And thus, if we are to answer questions about our existence and the
purpose and reasons for the universe we must seek an alternative
strategy and should not be surprised to find that the only road is a
risky road. Of course there is the option which weak atheism offers
which is to sit on the couch and wait for manna from heaven
What???
but that
approach has not got anyone anywhere so far. The risk element is
imperative for science to progress and it is imperative in answering
our questions of purpose and ultimate origins.
A World without Skepticism
Now, some would take that to mean that we have free license to define
arbitrary beings with arbitrary attributes and construct elaborate
histories and myths to explain our existence. No doubt this road can be
taken and is valid to a certain degree but, in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and
apply the skeptic's test: Is this hypothesis comprehensible,
logically sound, does it conform to sensory data?
I'm with you *here*, partner!
This is where many a
theory will be reduced to rubble: most gods are invisible and/or
illogical or unknowable.
I would say *all*, not 'most' gods ...
Skepticism's Bigger Brother
And thus we have to question whether the skeptics test is sound, and
whether perhaps there is a theory of existence available with both the
logical and sensory conformance required to make it believable.
I believe the answer lies in the middle: The skeptic's test is not
sufficient, sensory data is not the only way we may perceive evidence
about an entity or theory. Of course if we defined the word
"evidence" to only that which is obtainable by sensory data, we can
stop here and accept the skeptic's test. Perhaps however, we can use
the word "substantiation" and continue, again, being on new
territory, and taking a risk that non-sensory evidence is possible.
I would like to bring 4 examples:
1) Revelation
2) Instinct
3) Testimony
4) Indirect sensation
Thus, if we combine sensory data, and the four items (maybe more)
listed we arrive at what we call Reason: the "�berbegriff" or big
brother of Skepticism. Reason says, if there is reason to believe, we
should believe, without placing too many constraints on what
"reason" entails.
Methinks you're trying to slip into that old Christian fundamentalist
mind-set here. You know, the one that reasons that, '*if* something *could*
be true, it *is* true! That's bogus.
Revelation
Revelation is when something is revealed to us without the senses being
involved and is sometimes known as "voices" due to it's frequency
among mental patients. If you were to hear a voice prompting you in an
examination with answers to the questions and afterwards receive a
perfect score you would suddenly believe that extra-sensory perception
is possible.
ONLY if I were to do something like quote, say, Thomas Aquainis' 'Summa
Theologica', verbatim, I might. (I'd have to come up with some kind of
rational reason I would be able to accomplish such a remarkable feat.)
Perhaps you did not even hear a voice but felt the pen
being directed and, following the instructions obtained and A+. In
whatever form the "voices" spoke, it would be clear to you that
communication, outside of the senses is possible.
Now you aren't *seriously* going to argue that the books of the bible were
written in a manner hinted at in the above, are you?
And so we must ask ourselves: Is the theory of revelation or ESP just a
theoretical construct by a skilled sophist or are there any real world
examples? To answer this I would recommend visiting your local
spiritualist society, or, if that's not you're thing - your local
psychiatrist. There are people who hear voices.
Actually, I know the phenomenon of which you speak, first-hand. I was given
*something* (and I haven't the foggiest notion, *what*) when I was
involuntarily hospitalized early last year. It took a while but I started
hearing voices like there was no tomorrow. It took months for the 'voices'
to subside and eventually go away. But I *know* of what you speak. It was
*extremely* unsettling. But at no time during this period of 'enlightenment'
did I feel the presence of 'God' or anything of the sort. If pressed, I'd
liken it to a person in the desert who thinks they see an oasis. It *seems*
real, but its not. It's called 'delusion'.
Instinct
Regarding instinct, we must simply look to that which we have, which
arrives "pre-packaged" when we are born. We know how to breath
having never practiced it and our mouth instinctively searches for the
mother's breast. So many body functions are unconscious and may be
attributed to chemistry or physics but some, like breathing and
drinking are not. This knowledge is "truth built in" and needed no
testing to be accepted and implemented by us. Or acceptance of
instinctive knowledge is critical to survival.
Testimony
Our courts of law are a prime example where a person's testimony can
be used as valid evidence in deciding a case. A reliable witness
Remember that you said, 'reliable witness', not someone, say, who claims he
saw some guy raise people from the dead and walk on water. *That* guy would
not be regarded as a 'reliable' witness to much of anything.
or
friend can convince us that "honesty is the best policy" or
"smoking is bad" without us having experienced the effects first
hand. True, some people are less susceptible to testimony and like to
test the waters themselves but this is clearly not the only option in
obtaining knowledge and is certainly not the most efficient.
Indirect Sensation
This is closely related to testimony except that the effects are
speaking for themselves. If I see that an alcoholic is an unhappy,
damaged individual, I can rightly conclude that alcoholism is bad for
me. This is an efficient way of learning from others which forms much
of what we believe and know about the world.
I hear you. I learned long ago that belief in deities that don't exist and
that people who do their damn-dest to convince you otherwise, are not 'good'
for you.
Summary
And so we see that the skeptic's test needs to be refined if it is to
become more effective in promoting knowledge and ultimately wisdom. It
could be restated as:
1) Comprehend
2) Check conformance to logic
3) Check conformance to substantiation*
* Sensory data, revelation, instinct, testimony and indirect sensation
Conclusion
When we encounter a new topic, we all make a decision consciously or
unconsciously to accept the knowledge as truth and see where it takes
us. Of course we may approach cautiously, but approach we must if we
are to learn anything. We can of course choose to close our eyes or
flee
Boy! Have you 'nailed' a certain category of humanking. They're called
Christian fundamentalists!
but then we will never know. The best we can hope for is reliable
second hand evidence (testimony, knowledge by description) but to
really know, we have to, in a state of not knowing, approach and dare
to encounter first hand (experience, knowledge by acquaintance). This
is the risk the weak atheist will not take, to get off the couch,
believe that God
Who???? No thanks, partner. I'm gettin' back on the couch. I'm much more
productive there trying to determine if that picture is *perfectly* straight
instead of scratching my head and saying to myself, 'Dang! There just might
actually *be* an invisible, illogical and unknowable 'God' who could give a
rat's-***** about mankind somewhere out 'there'!
is possible and search for a logical description with
substantial endorsement.
How about this possiblity: 'God' doesnt' exist - except in some very
uncritical peoples' imagination?
Greywolf
.

User: "Pastor Kutchie"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	04 Jun 2006 10:46:53 PM

Greywolf wrote:

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 05:40:37 AM

On 4 Jun 2006 20:46:53 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1149479213.619008.237850@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Greywolf wrote:

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.

Going from Roman Catholic, (complete and totally provably insane), to
a skeptic who questioned his own existence, is a GIANT LEAP up the
sanity ladder!!!!
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.

User: "Frank Mayhar"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 01:31:58 AM

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:46:53 -0700, Pastor Kutchie wrote:

Greywolf wrote:

Funny. I can't think of a single instance where someone went 'insane' due to
'extreme' skepticsim. Can you?

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.

Well, yes. But that's hardly "insanity," by any measure. Now if he had
concluded he really didn't exist, maybe... (But probably not.)
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 03:51:23 AM

Frank Mayhar wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:46:53 -0700, Pastor Kutchie wrote:

Greywolf wrote:

Funny. I can't think of a single instance where someone went 'insane'
due to 'extreme' skepticsim. Can you?

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.

Well, yes. But that's hardly "insanity," by any measure. Now if he had
concluded he really didn't exist, maybe... (But probably not.)

If he concluded he didn't exist and then disappeared in
a puff of smoke, then I'd be impressed.
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "leo"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 04:09:40 AM

Pastor Kutchie ha escrito:

Greywolf wrote:

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.

Don't be stupid, Pastor.
All keptics know quite well that a mountain is a mountain, and that a
glass of wine is a glass of wine, and a beer is a beer. They believe a
dog is a dog, and a cow is a cow. Any skeptic worth his bread believe
in tangible things. He has to be very sofisticated to believe in
neutrinos, photons, quarks and Quantum Fisics, but a few of them are.
For the rest of us, common folks, we believe only on those things we
can see, watch and touch.
Leopoldo
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	17 Jun 2006 07:19:59 PM

Pastor Kutchie wrote:

Greywolf wrote:

I have known someone, brought up a Roman Catholic, whose skepticism led
him to question his own existence.

There was a type of skepticism spread by the Jesuits within philosophy
in the 16th century, which (building on Descartes' method of doubt)
taught that one could not have certainty about anything *except* God's
existence and commands. In that case, skepticism was advanced
specifically as a way to promote faith.
Perhaps this RC was a Jesuit into that sort of philosophy.
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 01:59:07 PM

Greywolf, could I ask you to read my post again without prejudice. As
you know, I am a theist (Christian, in fact) but it is not fair to
always assume that I am trying to preach or convert folks here. In fact,
all I was seeking is some debate of some ideas I have.
The point of my post is simply this: Valid evidence is not confined to
sensory data. I've tried to argue the point but you've only refuted it
by referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics which is reading
too much into the post. Let's try remain neutral and theoretical here -
I'll do the same.
.

User: "Scott Richter"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 02:54:48 PM

Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

The point of my post is simply this: Valid evidence is not confined to
sensory data.

These so called non-sensory sources that you mentioned (revelations,
instincts, testimony etc.) have been shown over and over to be mostly
worthless, and often completely wrong (e.g. people believing they have a
better chance of winning the lottery than being struck by lightning).
Any attorney will tell you that eyewitness testimony is the least
reliable of all courtroom evidence, and study after study confirms that.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 02:59:12 PM

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:54:48 -0700,

(Scott
Richter) wrote:

Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

The point of my post is simply this: Valid evidence is not confined to
sensory data.

Which is why we ask for anything objective that leads inescapably to
the conclusion.
Jack's introducing another herring about sensory data, and weaseling.
Again.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 04:12:16 AM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:59:07 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <44847f01$0$149$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch>

If you mean that evidence also includes that provided by calibrated
scientific apparatus, which is then passed on via our sensory inputs,
then yes, you are correct on this trivial point.
If this is your "point" then it was not worth making, except perhaps
to an audience of science-retards.
If, as is my guess, you are attempting to assert via weasel-words that
mere uncorroborated personal feelings somehow constitute "evidence",
then you may as well call a halt to ALL rational debate.

I've tried to argue the point but you've only refuted it
by referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics which is reading
too much into the post. Let's try remain neutral and theoretical here -
I'll do the same.

Promise?
What do you agree as the penalty should you drift off into
theologically biased assumptions?
You were talking about crucifixion some time back...
By referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics, Greywolf, and
the rest of us, are dragging reality into the discussion.
It seems that you have many problems with reality, and evidence.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 05:24:29 AM

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:42:16 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:59:07 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <44847f01$0$149$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch>

The only prejudice here has been Jack's - he crashes a group of
atheists demanding that we "discuss" things implicitly granting his
religious presumptions. which include his misunderstanding of theists
and atheism as though they were automatically correct.
There can't be any discussion until he goes through several layers of
meta-discussion first. Including correcting him and his acknowledgment
of that correction, establishing the ground rules which he imagines he
is the sole arbiter of in our space, his being prepared to back up his
claims, his not twisting what we explain to fit his preconceptions,
etc.
Which he is totally unwilling to do.
All that is left is to psychologise his behaviour towards us.

He's already been told that all it would take is something which leads
inescapably to the conclusion.
But he has nothing that meets that standard.
Even though he keeps insisting he has evidence but keeps copping out
of saying what it is.
The problem is that like most theists he has a strange idea of what
constitutes evidence.
He "knows" there is some because he "knows" it is real and real things
have evidence, right?
He imagines he's seen this evidence otherwise he wouldn't believe,
right?
And all the other believers have too otherwise they all wouldn't,
right?
He can't understand why we haven't seen what is obvious to him
otherwise we'd all believe, right?

He can't bring himself to think about the actual reason he believes -
that in was implanted in him by his parents so early that it became
part of the foundation on which everything else is
built/explained/defined.

So for him everything is defined in terms of God.
But he can't grasp that it isn't for everybody else.

He also doesn't have enough grasp of logic to realise that God is his
presumption not a conclusion, that the information content simply
isn't there from which to conclude it, and that touchy-feely
rationalisations in terms of what he already believes are hardy
evidence.

If, as is my guess, you are attempting to assert via weasel-words that
mere uncorroborated personal feelings somehow constitute "evidence",
then you may as well call a halt to ALL rational debate.

He'll be the last person to realise this.
And that is the reason for the frustration on both sides.
He demands that we debate on his terms. And imagines that pointing out
that his very presumptions are unjustified and even invalid, is
somehow "avoiding the question".

Which is his rationalisation to the point of falsehood.
We have nothing to be "neutral" about - that is another of his weasel
words, and another of his unjustified presumptions.
But then he imagines the whole world including us, revolves around his
religion.

Promise?
What do you agree as the penalty should you drift off into
theologically biased assumptions?
You were talking about crucifixion some time back...

By referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics, Greywolf, and
the rest of us, are dragging reality into the discussion.
It seems that you have many problems with reality, and evidence.

He hasn't been able to cope with reality since he came here.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 07:04:52 AM

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:24:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <s2ja82100f6ta14ec5kgvuikua3ea1hj8c@4ax.com>

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:42:16 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:59:07 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <44847f01$0$149$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch>

The only prejudice here has been Jack's - he crashes a group of
atheists demanding that we "discuss" things implicitly granting his
religious presumptions. which include his misunderstanding of theists
and atheism as though they were automatically correct.

There can't be any discussion until he goes through several layers of
meta-discussion first. Including correcting him and his acknowledgment
of that correction, establishing the ground rules which he imagines he
is the sole arbiter of in our space, his being prepared to back up his
claims, his not twisting what we explain to fit his preconceptions,
etc.

Which he is totally unwilling to do.

All that is left is to psychologise his behaviour towards us.

He's already been told that all it would take is something which leads
inescapably to the conclusion.

But he has nothing that meets that standard.

Even though he keeps insisting he has evidence but keeps copping out
of saying what it is.

The problem is that like most theists he has a strange idea of what
constitutes evidence.

He "knows" there is some because he "knows" it is real and real things
have evidence, right?

He imagines he's seen this evidence otherwise he wouldn't believe,
right?

And all the other believers have too otherwise they all wouldn't,
right?

He can't understand why we haven't seen what is obvious to him
otherwise we'd all believe, right?

He can't bring himself to think about the actual reason he believes -
that in was implanted in him by his parents so early that it became
part of the foundation on which everything else is
built/explained/defined.

So for him everything is defined in terms of God.

But he can't grasp that it isn't for everybody else.

He also doesn't have enough grasp of logic to realise that God is his
presumption not a conclusion, that the information content simply
isn't there from which to conclude it, and that touchy-feely
rationalisations in terms of what he already believes are hardy
evidence.

If, as is my guess, you are attempting to assert via weasel-words that
mere uncorroborated personal feelings somehow constitute "evidence",
then you may as well call a halt to ALL rational debate.

He'll be the last person to realise this.

And that is the reason for the frustration on both sides.

He demands that we debate on his terms. And imagines that pointing out
that his very presumptions are unjustified and even invalid, is
somehow "avoiding the question".

Which is his rationalisation to the point of falsehood.

We have nothing to be "neutral" about - that is another of his weasel
words, and another of his unjustified presumptions.

But then he imagines the whole world including us, revolves around his
religion.

Promise?
What do you agree as the penalty should you drift off into
theologically biased assumptions?
You were talking about crucifixion some time back...

By referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics, Greywolf, and
the rest of us, are dragging reality into the discussion.
It seems that you have many problems with reality, and evidence.

He hasn't been able to cope with reality since he came here.

I concur with each of your cogent resonses.
But I wish he would simply:
1) Come up with this concrete and "obvious" but elusive "evidence".
or
2) Shut-the-intercourse up about his fantastic phantasm.
He seems to want one further option:
3) Keep lying, distorting and defrauding using logical fabrications to
support his irrational infantile delusions, and force his malevolent
childish theology on others, like some sort of sanctimonious Typhoid
Mary for Jesus.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:13:01 PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:59:07 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

Valid evidence is that which leads inescapably to the conclusion.
Why do you keep obfuscating?
You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence
Which means that if you intend to use the Bible you first have to
prove that the Bible is 100% accurate. Which it obviously isn't.

by referencing Christian fundamentalism and fanatics which is reading
too much into the post. Let's try remain neutral and theoretical here -
I'll do the same.

You have no point because you still don't understand what an atheist
is.
And you're not even trying.
Where's this alleged evidence you keep insisting exists?
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:58:51 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?
Even if shared among all participants?
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 03:43:43 PM

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44848d01$0$142$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?

Absolutely.

Even if shared among all participants?

Such as?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	06 Jun 2006 04:15:53 AM

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:43:43 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4ejj6gF1f66ljU1@individual.net>

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44848d01$0$142$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?

Absolutely.

Even if shared among all participants?

Such as?

I have been literally begging him to provide it.
He has lied about his promises to do so.
He has avoided "coughing up".
You know what?
I have the sneaking suspicion that he has NONE WHATSOEVER.
ZERO ZILCH NADA.
Jack is a gigantic self-deluded fraud for jeebers, who will dribble on
for centuries about he has proof, but never PUTS UP ANYTHING!!!!
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 03:07:25 PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:58:51 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?
Even if shared among all participants?

Translation: you have none.
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 04:10:52 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:58:51 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?
Even if shared among all participants?

Translation: you have none.

Each exchange with you is an exercise in frustration and disappointment.
I'm sure I'll learn eventually which individuals have something to offer
and which are purely nay-sayers and intellectual non-entities.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 04:19:51 PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:10:52 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:58:51 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<snip>

You're in the real world now which means you have to use real world
objective evidence

Are you denying the validity of subjective evidence in arguments?
Even if shared among all participants?

Translation: you have none.

EITHER PROVIDE THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE, OR SHUT THE ***** UP.

Each exchange with you is an exercise in frustration and disappointment.

Your problem, not ours.
You insist on using concepts and presumptions you know aren't granted,
as though they were.

I'm sure I'll learn eventually which individuals have something to offer
and which are purely nay-sayers and intellectual non-entities.

Beam, mote, eye, hypocrite.
Everything you say above describes yourself.
Hint: are you inside a group of your co-religionists or have you
crashed a group of people who don't grant your most basic religious
presumptions?
You have nothing to say and nothing to offer. So why waste everybody's
time?
You say you're interested in learning but have made no effort to do
so.
You insist that any discussion be from your presumptions and not even
common ground, let alone our POV.
In short, you're a typical sociopathic fundy who is incapable of
discussing his religion from the point of view of his involuntary
audience and can't grasp why he is treated as the stupid,
inconsiderate, rude boor he shows himself to be.
Was that clear enough even for you?
I know it disagrees with your self-image - but tough, start thinking
for a change.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:51:44 PM

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 04:57:09 PM

Robibnikoff wrote:

Skepticism = Prove it, sucker!
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	04 Jun 2006 01:01:25 PM

?
You mean the risk of proposing an ultimately
incorrect hypothesis?

And thus, if we are to answer questions about our existence and the
purpose and reasons for the universe we must seek an alternative
strategy and should not be surprised to find that the only road is a
risky road. Of course there is the option which weak atheism offers
which is to sit on the couch and wait for manna from heaven but that
approach has not got anyone anywhere so far. The risk element is
imperative for science to progress and it is imperative in answering
our questions of purpose and ultimate origins.

A World without Skepticism
Now, some would take that to mean that we have free license to define
arbitrary beings with arbitrary attributes and construct elaborate
histories and myths to explain our existence. No doubt this road can be
taken and is valid to a certain degree but,

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl is justified?

in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and

OK. We must apply reason.

apply the skeptic's test: Is this hypothesis comprehensible,
logically sound, does it conform to sensory data? This is where many a
theory will be reduced to rubble: most gods are invisible and/or
illogical or unknowable.

So how is God different from Zeus or Quetzalcoatl?

Skepticism's Bigger Brother
And thus we have to question whether the skeptics test is sound, and
whether perhaps there is a theory of existence available with both the
logical and sensory conformance required to make it believable.

I believe the answer lies in the middle: The skeptic's test is not
sufficient, sensory data is not the only way we may perceive evidence
about an entity or theory. Of course if we defined the word
"evidence" to only that which is obtainable by sensory data, we can
stop here and accept the skeptic's test. Perhaps however, we can use
the word "substantiation" and continue, again, being on new

How is that not equivocation?
What is the difference between 'substantiation' and evidence/sensory
data?

territory, and taking a risk that non-sensory evidence is possible.

How do you sense non-sensory evidence?

I would like to bring 4 examples:
1) Revelation
2) Instinct
3) Testimony
4) Indirect sensation

Thus, if we combine sensory data, and the four items (maybe more)
listed we arrive at what we call Reason: the "�berbegriff" or big
brother of Skepticism. Reason says, if there is reason to believe, we
should believe, without placing too many constraints on what
"reason" entails.

How is that last sentence not nonsense?

Revelation
Revelation is when something is revealed to us without the senses being
involved and is sometimes known as "voices" due to it's frequency
among mental patients.

We should model our reason after mental patients?

If you were to hear a voice prompting you in an
examination with answers to the questions and afterwards receive a
perfect score you would suddenly believe that extra-sensory perception
is possible. Perhaps you did not even hear a voice but felt the pen
being directed and, following the instructions obtained and A+. In
whatever form the "voices" spoke, it would be clear to you that
communication, outside of the senses is possible.

And so we must ask ourselves: Is the theory of revelation or ESP just a
theoretical construct by a skilled sophist or are there any real world
examples?

I haven't seen any real world examples.
Have you got any?

To answer this I would recommend visiting your local
spiritualist society, or, if that's not you're thing - your local
psychiatrist. There are people who hear voices.

And they are delusional and a danger to themselves
and others. Is that your model?

Instinct
Regarding instinct, we must simply look to that which we have, which
arrives "pre-packaged" when we are born. We know how to breath
having never practiced it and our mouth instinctively searches for the
mother's breast. So many body functions are unconscious and may be
attributed to chemistry or physics but some, like breathing and
drinking are not. This knowledge is "truth built in" and needed no
testing to be accepted and implemented by us. Or acceptance of
instinctive knowledge is critical to survival.

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl (or Krishna or Isis)
is instinctive?

Testimony
Our courts of law are a prime example where a person's testimony can
be used as valid evidence in deciding a case. A reliable witness or
friend can convince us that "honesty is the best policy" or
"smoking is bad" without us having experienced the effects first
hand. True, some people are less susceptible to testimony and like to
test the waters themselves but this is clearly not the only option in
obtaining knowledge and is certainly not the most efficient.

Should we accept Mohammad's testimony that non Muslims
go to hell?

Indirect Sensation
This is closely related to testimony except that the effects are
speaking for themselves. If I see that an alcoholic is an unhappy,

'see' sounds pretty direct to me.

damaged individual, I can rightly conclude that alcoholism is bad for
me. This is an efficient way of learning from others which forms much
of what we believe and know about the world.

Summary
And so we see that the skeptic's test needs to be refined if it is to
become more effective in promoting knowledge and ultimately wisdom. It
could be restated as:
1) Comprehend
2) Check conformance to logic
3) Check conformance to substantiation*
* Sensory data, revelation, instinct, testimony and indirect sensation

Your main 'refinement' is the inclusion of 'revelation' which
is indistinguishable from delusion as you have described it.
And how is it not also ad hoc and special pleading?
Where has the previous 'skeptic's test' failed skeptics other
than in accepting your God?
Do you use your refined skeptics test to admit revelation
and testimony about Quetzalcoatl, Shinto kami, and Rael's Elohim?

Conclusion
When we encounter a new topic, we all make a decision consciously or
unconsciously to accept the knowledge as truth and see where it takes
us. Of course we may approach cautiously, but approach we must if we
are to learn anything. We can of course choose to close our eyes or
flee but then we will never know. The best we can hope for is reliable
second hand evidence (testimony, knowledge by description) but to
really know, we have to, in a state of not knowing, approach and dare
to encounter first hand (experience, knowledge by acquaintance). This
is the risk the weak atheist will not take, to get off the couch,
believe that God is possible and search for a logical description with
substantial endorsement.

Why don't you take the risk, get off the couch, and believe
in Scientology's Xenu?
--
rb
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:14:56 PM

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

?
You mean the risk of proposing an ultimately
incorrect hypothesis?

Yes, except you don't know it's correct until you assume it "is" and see
where this takes you.

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl is justified?

No never belief, but the investigation thereof can indeed be warranted -
given enough indicators.

in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and

OK. We must apply reason.

So how is God different from Zeus or Quetzalcoatl?

This is a loaded question. You know what I'm gonna say and I know what
you're gonna do to me when I say it. Let's try this carefully: The God
of the Christian's demands more attention (NOT belief) by virtue of the
sheer volume of believers. Whew....

How is that not equivocation?
What is the difference between 'substantiation' and evidence/sensory
data?

I know, bad word-choice. I think "indicators" is a better word for what
I mean.

territory, and taking a risk that non-sensory evidence is possible.

How do you sense non-sensory evidence?

Certainly not with one of the 5 senses - it would have to be something
else - a 6th sense, intuition, instinct, feeling.

How is that last sentence not nonsense?

I may be an equivocation but I fail to see any nonsense components.

Revelation
Revelation is when something is revealed to us without the senses being
involved and is sometimes known as "voices" due to it's frequency
among mental patients.

We should model our reason after mental patients?

Freud did, but that's not what I'm saying here. All I am saying is that
this phenomena exists and it's reproducible in mental patients and
spiritualists. We may group them under the term "wackos" but the
phenomena remains.

I haven't seen any real world examples.
Have you got any?

To answer this I would recommend visiting your local
spiritualist society, or, if that's not you're thing - your local
psychiatrist. There are people who hear voices.

And they are delusional and a danger to themselves
and others. Is that your model?

Those are the two non-Christian examples I can think of.

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl (or Krishna or Isis)
is instinctive?

Belief in a God does seem to be but that is reading too much into my
post again. All I am saying is that instinct exists, independent of
sensory data.

Should we accept Mohammad's testimony that non Muslims
go to hell?

I don't think so. The decision to believe testimony is a personal one -
it's never objective. The point is, again, that testimony is an
"indicator" or "evidence" of the non-sensory nature.

Indirect Sensation
This is closely related to testimony except that the effects are
speaking for themselves. If I see that an alcoholic is an unhappy,

'see' sounds pretty direct to me.

Direct would be first-hand experience of the unhappiness and destructive
effects of alcohol abuse.

Your main 'refinement' is the inclusion of 'revelation' which
is indistinguishable from delusion as you have described it.

And how is it not also ad hoc and special pleading?
Where has the previous 'skeptic's test' failed skeptics other
than in accepting your God?
Do you use your refined skeptics test to admit revelation
and testimony about Quetzalcoatl, Shinto kami, and Rael's Elohim?

As I have said, these factors are "indicators" and my assertion is
simply that they exist and affect belief. How much they affect belief,
their intrinsic "weight" must be decided by the person perceiving them.
I have a question for you: Is sensory data necessary and sufficient for
knowledge and belief?

Why don't you take the risk, get off the couch, and believe
in Scientology's Xenu?

Because I've "Got Jesus".
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 02:21:03 PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:14:56 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl is justified?

No never belief, but the investigation thereof can indeed be warranted -
given enough indicators.

So why is your belief in your deity called "God" any more justified
(or warranted) than somebody else's belief in Zeus or QuetzalCoatl?
[snip]

in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and

OK. We must apply reason.

So how is God different from Zeus or Quetzalcoatl?

No, it's not loaded.
Argument ad numeram.
You'll have to stop using such fallacies.
At the moment all three are merely "what some people believe as part
of their religion".
Including yours.
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 03:03:38 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:14:56 +0200, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

So belief in Zeus and Quetzalcoatl is justified?

No never belief, but the investigation thereof can indeed be warranted -
given enough indicators.

So why is your belief in your deity called "God" any more justified
(or warranted) than somebody else's belief in Zeus or QuetzalCoatl?

[snip]

in order for the theories
to be credible, we must, at some stage, allow reason to step in and

OK. We must apply reason.

So how is God different from Zeus or Quetzalcoatl?

No, it's not loaded.

Argument ad numeram.

You'll have to stop using such fallacies.

At the moment all three are merely "what some people believe as part
of their religion".

Including yours.

Christopher, please try to understand what I am saying without putting
words in my mouth. I would so like to have some intelligent debate with
you instead of "the usual".
Argument ad numeram is an invalid basis for accepting knowledge or
believing. We're agreed on that.
Argument ad numeram is a valid basis for investigating a claim. It may
be neither necessary nor sufficient but it is a basis.
What do you think?
.

User: "Peter"
Title: Re: Atheism's Relation to Skepticism	05 Jun 2006 03:29:40 PM

"Jack" :

Argument ad numeram is a valid basis for investigating a claim.

Argument ad numerum is not a valid basis for anything, Jack, it is logical
fallacy.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#numerum
Is this basic principle too difficult to grasp?
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

For Ziad the orchestra's bitter, in relation to me it's better, whereas with regard to you it's convincing sufficient.
Her tailor was dangerous, lower, and melts in relation to the pit.
for Mustapha the cassette's italian, in relation to me it's endless, whereas against you it's caring valid
'There is now evidence that RNA - a relation of DNA - is involved in diseases ranging from cancer to schizophrenia'
They are featuring in relation to the pool now, won't bind products later.
What is the relation of decree and destiny with divine will?
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Islam_Allows_You_To_Marry_You?==?windows-1252?Q?r_Adopted_Child_-__-_When_the_adopted_?==?windows-1252?Q?children_reach_puberty_=96_and_as_they_ar?==?windows-1252?Q?e_of_no_blood_relation_to_the_parents_=96?==?windows-1252?Q?_m
What is Pantheism ? Do I have any relation?

I am married has 40 years. It has 30, I I become related with young tra