• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nontheist

AppieB

Active Member
I disagree. Skepticism does not require any type of investigation on your part; it only means you are not convinced, or have doubts concerning a claim.

According to the above definition, they are the same.
Well, I guess we have a different definition. To me skepticism is a mindset (or attitude) towards claims. It means you shouldn't just accepts claims to be true, but wait (or investigate) for evidence to justify belief. It is more than not accepting a claim.

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1][2] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Because that word means different things to different people.
All words mean different things to different people. The Tuaregs living in and around the Sahara Desert have something like 14 different words for what we call 'water' because water is so scarce in their world, and their lives depend on their being able to find it in whatever possible form it might occur. If one culture can have that many different words for water, why wouldn't all humankind have many more different words for what we call "God"?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I never argued for a species-centric view of evolution. It seems your argument is making it that, in your words, "The odds for adapting for any species seems really stacked against them." My argument has been against a species-centric view of evolution. I'm not imagining your words I'm quoting to you. They are your words.

I am saying that the inherited intelligence in evolution is not about the species, but about Life "finding a way".
How is this drive an intelligence? You are citing a line from a movie about fictional events.
It's creative expressions of forms are "life finding a way", like leaves of the tree dropping off at the end of a season to make way for a new crop of leaves in the spring.
Yet genetic diversity isn't really creative. When offspring have any number of attributes, let's say 4 of them as far as markings, and three of these patterns make it easy prey for preditors, the lives with those patterns won't find a way, while the last one (as the peppered moth is an example) will stand a better chance since its markings offer better cover. It was just luck and circumstances of the genetic lottery. My point is we can't just look at success, but also notice that the randomness of evolution leads to failure. Many species over time never did fond a way. Massive dinosaurs died off, they did not find a way. That's good news for we humans some 65 million years later. It didn't work out for Neanderthal. It's all better descibed as the lottery and luck, not intelligence.
It's about the tree itself, not the leaves, even though the leaves are the tree itself. Perhaps you still don't understand the argument though.

Your idea of a "designer" is not the idea of design I have in mind.
These non-factual ideas are part of the problem. Numerous believers are using the same word but since it isn't fact-based the definitions are broad and subjective. This is one reason they are not useful.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
As a card carrying skeptic I would never say I am not convinced or I have doubts concerning your claim unless I know something about the topic at hand. If I don't know the topic or the information is new to me I would keep such comments to myself until I investigated it. Skepticism goes hand in hand with investigation.
Good point. It also depends on a certain amount of experience. After all children are naive and will trust what adults say about Santa Claus and Jesus existing. It appears that as most children age into adulthood they don't learn to be skeptical, and have to learn by the school of hard knocks who to trust and what to believe. I think this hard knocks approach is why many believers will have passive experiences that theists are trustworthy because they work to seem reliable and moral, despite them often not being that. How would the guilble know? Many seek a religious tribe to trust for belonging, and at some point they suspend any criticism and skepticsm because the tribe and individual can be a toxic co-dependecency. There are testimonies of believers who have such toxic experiences that they leave their religion and have to pick up the pieces.

It seems to me that most skeptics have a natural ability to doubt and question, and build experience over time.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
All words mean different things to different people. The Tuaregs living in and around the Sahara Desert have something like 14 different words for what we call 'water' because water is so scarce in their world, and their lives depend on their being able to find it in whatever possible form it might occur. If one culture can have that many different words for water, why wouldn't all humankind have many more different words for what we call "God"?
It's not the many words for a thing or idea, it's the many definitions for a word. If you ask 100 people to define the word god you will get a huge diversity of answers, and many incompatible. The way to resolve this is when anyone uses the word god they need to define what they mean. we see many theists use a word and be vague about what they mean. Look at how the word 'intelligence' is being used in ways that are not consistent with proper definitions. This leads to confusion. It alos opens the door to asking why words are being misused.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
A quote from your first post: “I an neutral about the existence of any God since I neither believe one exists nor disbelieve one exists.

Let’s break this down in two parts:
  1. I neither believe one exists” Which means: I don’t believe one (referring to god) exists. i.o.w.: I do not believe a god exists.
  2. nor disbelieve one exists” Which means: I don’t disbelieve one (referring to god) exists. Disbelieve means not believe. i.o.w.: I do not not believe a god exists.
So you stated: I do not believe a god exists and I do not not believe a god exists.
If I take out the double negative its says: I do not believe a god exists and I do believe a god exists.
Where did I go wrong in representing your statement?

What it means is that I have neither belief whereas you are trying to represent that I have both beliefs.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
So defintions of words don't matter. So how do you know, that I am wrong? How can you use words, if you don't know, what they mean?

You are crazy but I kind of like that.

1688484227182.png
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Well, I guess we have a different definition. To me skepticism is a mindset (or attitude) towards claims. It means you shouldn't just accepts claims to be true, but wait (or investigate) for evidence to justify belief. It is more than not accepting a claim.

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1][2] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim.
So going back to a previous response (to someone else) If you told me the square root of 91,862 were 13, and I don’t believe you because I am convinced the answer is much larger than 13 but don’t have the time nor inclination to find out the actual number in order to prove you wrong, what do you call that disbelief?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Well, I guess we have a different definition. To me skepticism is a mindset (or attitude) towards claims. It means you shouldn't just accepts claims to be true, but wait (or investigate) for evidence to justify belief. It is more than not accepting a claim.

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1][2] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim.

Well, I am skeptical that I am wrong, just because you say so. So what is your evidence, that I am wrong?

Now remember that I am wrong, requries sound reasoning. I.e. it must be valid as per logic and know as per epistemlogical knowledge and that is not logic.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
All words mean different things to different people. The Tuaregs living in and around the Sahara Desert have something like 14 different words for what we call 'water' because water is so scarce in their world, and their lives depend on their being able to find it in whatever possible form it might occur. If one culture can have that many different words for water, why wouldn't all humankind have many more different words for what we call "God"?
There is nothing wrong with having multiple meanings for the same word so long as everybody speaking that language agree on the multiple meanings. But when everybody brings their own meaning to a word to a table, that is when it becomes a problem.
God is a very loaded term. For some it means the beginning of all; meaning it could be a non-sentient thing like a rock but is responsible for the existence of all that exist. For others it means a powerful sentient being with feelings, desires, and instructions who specific people have the ability to communicate with. And with others, practically every other explanation between the two.
If you want to have a conversation with someone, there needs to be an understanding between the two of you of what your words mean otherwise there is no conversation; just confusion and misunderstandings.
 

AppieB

Active Member
So going back to a previous response (to someone else) If you told me the square root of 91,862 were 13, and I don’t believe you because I am convinced the answer is much larger than 13 but don’t have the time nor inclination to find out the actual number in order to prove you wrong, what do you call that disbelief?
Simple, it's not accepting the claim. You don't believe that the square root of 91,862 is 13.
And that is based on the knowledge that you have of mathematics. Also, you don't need the actual mathematic result in order to dismiss a certain answer.
 

AppieB

Active Member
Well, I am skeptical that I am wrong, just because you say so. So what is your evidence, that I am wrong?

Now remember that I am wrong, requries sound reasoning. I.e. it must be valid as per logic and know as per epistemlogical knowledge and that is not logic.
I showed you my reasoning. If you think I'm wrong, please present your evidence/argument.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Then why the big hue and cry over atheists and science?

It's not the many words for a thing or idea, it's the many definitions for a word.
No, it's actually the many different ways that we humans perceive/conceive of the phenomena being labeled by a word. Which is why we need to put the words we use into an elaborate context to communicate to others more clearly and precisely what we are thinking.
If you ask 100 people to define the word god you will get a huge diversity of answers, and many incompatible.
Of course. But they aren't that incompatible if you're willing to look for how they align. Which you aren't. Because you're posing the foolish argument that if they are not compatible then their perceptions of God must be "wrong". And the reason I say it's a foolish argument is because those same 100 peole could look at a mountain from different compass points and all describe a somewhat different mountain. And if all you pay attention to are the discrepancies in their descriptions, you'll conclude that they are either confused, lying, or they never actually saw the mountain. But of course if you look for the alignment in their descriptions, you could come to the conclusion that they did all see the same mountain, just from a different, individual perspective. And then they described it using their own personal language preferences.

Every human perception, conception, and description of an experience will be both unique and universal at the same time. The 'objective world' is a 'subjective world', to us.
The way to resolve this is when anyone uses the word god they need to define what they mean.
To what degree? Everyone comprehends the phenomenon somewhat differently, and yet experiences it similarly. God is our common language label for the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.
we see many theists use a word and be vague about what they mean. Look at how the word 'intelligence' is being used in ways that are not consistent with proper definitions. This leads to confusion. It alos opens the door to asking why words are being misused.
We're discussing a great mystery. Yet for some reason you expect that theists should be able to articulate that mystery universally and to your satisfaction. That's just silly. Especially when atheists can't/won't even understand what atheism is when it's explained logically and clearly to them many, many times.

People live in realities of their own making. Not just some theists, but everyone does it. Then they get all defensive when someone else dares to present them with a different view of reality. How silly is that?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I showed you my reasoning. If you think I'm wrong, please present your evidence/argument.

No, I don't think you are right or wrong, just because I think that. :)

Edit: I don't believe in right and wrong like that. Either we agree or we disagree. That is all.
 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Simple, it's not accepting the claim. You don't believe that the square root of 91,862 is 13.
And that is based on the knowledge that you have of mathematics. Also, you don't need the actual mathematic result in order to dismiss a certain answer.
Fair enough; I think we are speaking the same language, we only use the term skeptic slightly differently. But it's all good though.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There is nothing wrong with having multiple meanings for the same word so long as everybody speaking that language agree on the multiple meanings. But when everybody brings their own meaning to a word to a table, that is when it becomes a problem.
God is a very loaded term. For some it means the beginning of all; meaning it could be a non-sentient thing like a rock but is responsible for the existence of all that exist. For others it means a powerful sentient being with feelings, desires, and instructions who specific people have the ability to communicate with. And with others, practically every other explanation between the two.
If you want to have a conversation with someone, there needs to be an understanding between the two of you of what your words mean otherwise there is no conversation; just confusion and misunderstandings.

Well, different defintions is not all that there is going on. There are also different cognitive schemata for different people and that is where the fun really starts.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
No, it's actually the many different ways that we humans perceive/conceive of the phenomena being labeled by a word. Which is why we need to put the words we use into an elaborate context to communicate to others more clearly and precisely what we are thinking.

Of course. But they aren't that incompatible if you're willing to look for how they align. Which you aren't. Because you're posing the foolish argument that if they are not compatible then their perceptions of God must be "wrong". And the reason I say it's a foolish argument is because those same 100 peole could look at a mountain from different compass points and all describe a somewhat different mountain. And if all you pay attention to are the discrepancies in their descriptions, you'll conclude that they are either confused, lying, or they never actually saw the mountain. But of course if you look for the alignment in their descriptions, you could come to the conclusion that they did all see the same mountain, just from a different, individual perspective. And then they described it using their own personal language preferences.

Every human perception, conception, and description of an experience will be both unique and universal at the same time. The 'objective world' is a 'subjective world', to us.

To what degree? Everyone comprehends the phenomenon somewhat differently, and yet experiences it similarly. God is our common language label for the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

We're discussing a great mystery. Yet for some reason you expect that theists should be able to articulate that mystery universally and to your satisfaction. That's just silly. Especially when atheists can't/won't even understand what atheism is when it's explained logically and clearly to them many, many times.

People live in realities of their own making. Not just some theists, but everyone does it. Then they get all defensive when someone else dares to present them with a different view of reality. How silly is that?
I cannot sympathize with you and your lashing out at atheism and science because you have perceptions of God and the great mystery and purpose that are all in your head. All atheists are doing is questioning claims, claims that individuals make about what is out there and as it turns out nothing is out there but vast vacuums of space and where there is no space there are particles of matter, the rest is opinion.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is anthropomorphism, that is imposing attributes of humans onto non-human things. Seeds don't intend anything, they just do what they do as partof cycles of nature. Not all seeds germinate. Some do but don't survive but a few days. Intention doesn't apply in any way. I'm not sure what deinition in any dictionary is applicable.
It's actually not an anthropomorphism. I'm not saying a plant has human emotions or the like, such as saying God is jealous. When I speak of intention, that is something present in all life forms. Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to survive.

All of those words are saying the same thing, and those are not anthropomorphisms, anymore than any other use of language to describe our observations or nature is. The survival instinct, is an intention towards staying alive, or becoming. It doesn't matter what level of cognitive thought that occurs. I thought I was being very clear in my words to you about this.

I point out tricky language quite often and what I mean by that is that some will use a word or phrase that isn't really correct usage, but the writer hopes that it gets a pass. Your use of intention falls into this category because If I don't challenge the usage the definition can be changed in future usage to the proper definition. So I suggest a more accurate word. Seeds don't intend to grow. Seeds behave acording to natural order.
The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.
I can't think of it being defined any other way. The actual problem is your choice of word because it doesn't apply in the way you want to use it. We can't force nature to be something it isn't just because we pick inappropriate words.
"Cycles of nature" is also a human concept, so I could accuse you of anthropomorphizing too. Let's move past your distraction here.
The word creation is misleading.
No it's not. You are making it one. I'm not talking about the Genesis myth here. A rainstorm creates are river. A dry spell creates a drought. Evolution creates diversity of lifeforms. The diversity life is the creation of the process of evolution. What exactly is your issue with use of the word creation here?

I'd suggest trying to think outside of the anthropomorphic mythical God concept. That's what I've trying to direct your towards doing, but it seems like you keep snapping back to it like a rubberband.
And to cite purpose is misleading.
No it's not. I see this as a failure of imagination to see beyond the mythic-literal meaning of words you your end. It's not my usage that is the failing here.
We can suppose all we want, but how useful is it when words and phrases are misleading? None of this is factual. It is an exercise in making myself feel significant through my beliefs, and frankly I don't see how this works on minds that can realize how this all tries to fool the self about what is true about how things are.
I take all of this as trying to fool yourself that I am talking as a literalistic, bible-believing Christian fundamentalist, trying to force fit an anthropomorphized mythic-literal view of God into evolution. You would be completely wrong about this. I would think by now you should know this already.
Your statement is philosophy, not factual.
Of course it's philosophical!! But it does not exclude factual data either! It's not one or the other. It's a philosophical view of ultimate reality, taking into account supportable, evidential data. Being philosophical does not mean pulling your ideas out of your ***, for God's sake. :)
I'm trying to follow along with your statements here. I'm getting the sense you don't mean to write factual statements, but philisophical.
Again, yes this is philosophical, but then so is your supposed view that everything is nothing more that physicalist, reductionist reality. Materialism is a philosophical interpretation of the sciences. It's not science itself. Are you not aware of this? I also embrace the sciences as they present themselves as well, but I'm not a philosophical materialist. I'm a philosophical Integralist. (something I haven't had the bandwidth to explain).

So, yes we are both talking philsophophy here. The only difference is you think you alone are respecting the science. I on the other hand recognize your view of science is much more akin to someone thinking that they alone are actually following the Bible in their particular faith denomination.

I see them as all perceptions of the data, and philosophical interpretations of what the data means. That's what I'm doing. And that's what you're doing. But I think you imagine a philosophical conclusion different from you own must mean I don't understand the science, just like those sects who think everyone else but themselves isn't following what the Bible says. That, is the very definition of Scientism.

I'm sorry if I sound a little terse here, but I would expect by this point you give me more credit that what I'm hearing in these last two posts.
I mentioned cancer because your view is narrow and limited.
My views are hardly narrow and limited. Why are you insulting me this way?
Your posts are like a code that require a lot of work from non-theist readers.
What I just highlighted in bold is the truth. My posts are very specific, detailed, and contentful. They do require unpacking. It's not that they are not clear. They are clear. They are not just like light and fluffy. They require work, some focus.

And I generally only post long posts like this to those I sense are intelligent enough, and care enough to try to understand. I views these as meaningful discussions. I always hope to meet someone I can talk with at this level. I was enjoying our discussions lately.
 
Last edited:
Top