What Has Happened to Skepticism?

[1137]

I was talking of invisible angels. Do you think they are a live option?

Ciao

- viole

Considering how vague that terminology is, I sure do. You're missing a very important point distinction though. The second I label a claim as belief I'm off the hook. Even my belief in objective reality is just that, a belief. That how it seems to me, even though I know I can't trust my senses. If I simply assume objegtoge reality exists axiomstically, I can no longer be considered a skeptic. Once I get as dogmatic as materialism as fact skepticism isn't even on the horizon anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is because 'skepticism' is a valid approach and sounds respectable. The rub though is to employ skepticism properly, you can not put up an unassailable emotional wall and still call that 'skepticism'.

Ah - sour grapes.

They don't accept your low standard of evidence, so there must be something wrong with them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Considering how vague that terminology is, I sure do. You're missing a very important point distinction though. The second I label a claim as belief I'm off the hook. Even my belief in objective reality is just that, a belief. That how it seems to me, even though I know I can't trust my senses. If I simply assume objegtoge reality exists axiomstically, I can no longer be considered a skeptic. Once I get as dogmatic as materialism as fact skepticism isn't even on the horizon anymore.

This doesn't really make any kind of sense. Are you claiming that all beliefs are essentially equal, and if we adopt any belief - even one born out of necessary assumptions - we can't be considered skeptics? That seems completely unreasonable to me.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the moment anyone becomes "certain" of anything, they cannot be called a "skeptic" of that topic, anymore.

This is perfectly healthy for everyday living (indeed, being constantly "skeptical" in everyday matters can potentially lead to/be a sign of trust issues), but when it comes to scientific or religious matters, some degree of skepticism is generally healthy.

I don't think "skeptic" should be an identity, as a result. We are skeptical (i.e., doubtful/questioning) within specific matters, and without that context, the word takes on very different meanings.

 

[viole]

Considering how vague that terminology is, I sure do. You're missing a very important point distinction though. The second I label a claim as belief I'm off the hook. Even my belief in objective reality is just that, a belief. That how it seems to me, even though I know I can't trust my senses. If I simply assume objegtoge reality exists axiomstically, I can no longer be considered a skeptic. Once I get as dogmatic as materialism as fact skepticism isn't even on the horizon anymore.

So, why are you not skeptical about what you believe in?

And if you are a skeptic about what you believe, why don't you believe in something else or in nothing at all?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think "skeptic" should be an identity, as a result. We are skeptical (i.e., doubtful/questioning) within specific matters, and without that context, the word takes on very different meanings.

Good point. A person who calls themselves "skeptic" should be skeptical all the time about everything, even their own skepticism.

In reality, we're all skeptical about some things and certain/convinced about other things. Some things we don't question until there's a reason for it.

 

[First Baseman]

What Has Happened to Skepticism?

Nothing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php

 

[1137]

So, why are you not skeptical about what you believe in?

And if you are a skeptic about what you believe, why don't you believe in something else or in nothing at all?

Ciao

- viole

I can believe in a most likely scenario while still doubting myself and admitting I don't know.

 

[1137]

This doesn't really make any kind of sense. Are you claiming that all beliefs are essentially equal, and if we adopt any belief - even one born out of necessary assumptions - we can't be considered skeptics? That seems completely unreasonable to me.

Not at all. I'm saying a skeptic can't call a belief certainty.

 

[viole]

I can believe in a most likely scenario while still doubting myself and admitting I don't know.

Would you call Set a most likely scenario?

Just asking....

Ciao

- viole

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For some of these there is considerable evidence, which you could easily find. But that assumes that you actually want to find it and will accept it when it conflicts with your own fundamentalist views.

As one can see all over this forum, when the "skeptic"/atheist is presented with evidence, their first recourse is to refuse to accept it and their second is to change the subject.

To some people there is readily available evidence of 9/11 being an inside job or feathered dinosaurs being a hoax. You can't expect everyone to accept what you feel is evidence when you yourself reject other standards.

To accuse atheists of rejecting your evidence because and only because it conflicts with their worldview is both disingenuous and hypocritical. As that is the very thing so many theists think so many atheists are being unfair about.

As an aside, fundamentalism is not synonymous with extreme or rigid. It's a specific denominational Christian view. The only fundamental of atheism is not believing in gods, in which case all atheists are. So saying that an atheist is fundamentalist is like me calling you a fundamentalist theist because you believe in a god or gods.

 

[1137]

Would you call Set a most likely scenario?

Just asking....

Ciao

- viole

I'd call what Set represents part of a likely scenario. On top of that, the personal, subjective, pragmatic benefits of Setianism benefit me greatly, a much greater certainty than even the existence of the external world.

 

[viole]

I'd call what Set represents part of a likely scenario. On top of that, the personal, subjective, pragmatic benefits of Setianism benefit me greatly, a much greater certainty than even the existence of the external world.

Do you identify truth with what benefits you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Congratulations! You've discovered the difference between true skepticism (which is basically the application of critical thinking to all life experiences) and "skepticism" (which is basically knee-jerk reactionism against anything that doesn't fit into one's default worldview or paradigm).

In my experience, most people draw the dividing line like this:

- someone who disagrees with other people: critically thinking skeptic.
- someone who disagrees with me: knee-jerk reactionary.

It's like how we view other drivers ("everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac"). Everyone considers themselves reasonable... even unreasonable people.

 

[1137]

Do you identify truth with what benefits you?

Ciao

- viole

Nope, although if something benefits me it's true that it benefits me. Unless it isn't, because there is no such thing as benefits. As is the life of a skeptic.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Congratulations! You've discovered the difference between true skepticism (which is basically the application of critical thinking to all life experiences) and "skepticism" (which is basically knee-jerk reactionism against anything that doesn't fit into one's default worldview or paradigm).

Really? Because I would LOVE to be wrong.

 

[Sapiens]

This doesn't really make any kind of sense. Are you claiming that all beliefs are essentially equal, and if we adopt any belief - even one born out of necessary assumptions - we can't be considered skeptics? That seems completely unreasonable to me.

It's the old problem of people confusing their right to their own opinion with an ego driven, presuppositional pretense for a right to their own facts.

 

[Laika]

I'd like to take a moment to defend The Marquis De Sade and Joseph Stalin's reputation from the outrageous slander that materialists such as themselves are capable of engaging in reasoned and civil discussion with religious believers as "sceptics". Trying to equate scepticism and materialism is deeply offensive and a gross misrepresention of both groups respective views. Materialists are far too busy engaging in obscenity, sexual perversion, violence, murder, rape and other "recreational activities" to have the patience to intricately deconstruct religious beliefs. we have no soul and no afterlife, and if we did we'd sell it to the devil. why on earth would we waste our time doing something are ridiulous as reasoning with the enemy when we can save time and kill them? who needs ethics when such an efficient solution presents itself?

Sceptics are atheism's right-hand path; they swallow christian ethics largely whole as representing "human nature" and re-branding it as "secular", they dress up creationism as science and call it the "big bang", and then throw a tantrum when religious people act as selfish instinctual animals we are because it isn't a literal fundamentalist interpretation of a sacred text and refuse show nothing but blind obedience to authority.

materialists are of the left-hand path; we get to do all the fun stuff because we're open to the oppurtunies nihilism has to offer. we do not negioate with reasonable people. we bury them, steal their stuff and call it "socialism". God is dead and we killed him! And we'd do it again just to be sure.

please. Don't insult Atheism's psychopaths with this disgusting nonesense about equating materialism and scepticism as if we can engage with religious believers in a civil, rational and informed manner. we invented sadism and work hard to uphold it as a matter of principle. the world is cruel and so to must be mankind or else become its victims. it is a sad comment on today's society when we materialists do not inspire fear and envy in the hearts of our enemies as we enjoy all the oppurtunities for wealth, power and cruelty this world has to offer. we have a bad reputation to uphold and we earned it. stop trying to make us look good to suit your own delusions of goodness of our shared humanity. it's repulsive.

whose up for a baby-eating competition?

 

[Sapiens]

I'd like to take a moment to defend The Marquis De Sade and Joseph Stalin's reputation from the outrageous slander that materialists such as themselves are capable of engaging in reasoned and civil discussion with religious believers as "sceptics". Trying to equate scepticism and materialism is deeply offensive and a gross misrepresention of both groups respective views. Materialists are far too busy engaging in obscenity, sexual perversion, violence, murder, rape and other "recreational activities" to have the patience to intricately deconstruct religious beliefs. we have no soul and no afterlife, and if we did we'd sell it to the devil. why on earth would we waste our time doing something are ridiulous as reasoning with the enemy when we can save time and kill them? who needs ethics when such an efficient solution presents itself?

Sceptics are atheism's right-hand path; they swallow christian ethics largely whole as representing "human nature" and re-branding it as "secular", they dress up creationism as science and call it the "big bang", and then throw a tantrum when religious people act as selfish instinctual animals we are because it isn't a literal fundamentalist interpretation of a sacred text and refuse show nothing but blind obedience to authority.

materialists are of the left-hand path; we get to do all the fun stuff because we're open to the oppurtunies nihilism has to offer. we do not negioate with reasonable people. we bury them, steal their stuff and call it "socialism". God is dead and we killed him! And we'd do it again just to be sure.

please. Don't insult Atheism's psychopaths with this disgusting nonesense about equating materialism and scepticism as if we can engage with religious believers in a civil, rational and informed manner. we invented sadism and work hard to uphold it as a matter of principle. the world is cruel and so to must be mankind or else become its victims. it is a sad comment on today's society when we materialists do not inspire fear and envy in the hearts of our enemies as we enjoy all the oppurtunities for wealth, power and cruelty this world has to offer. we have a bad reputation to uphold and we earned it. stop trying to make us look good to suit your own delusions of goodness of our shared humanity. it's repulsive.

whose up for a baby-eating competition?

Only if they are Irish babies.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Would you keep a straight face if someone told you that it accepts the possibility of fairies ravaging her garden? Or that invisible angels are responsible for the planets in the solar system to follow an elliptical orbit? Or that Xenu is really the ruler of the galaxy?

I could go on forever

So, why should we take seriously gods, magic, telepathy, esp, universal consciousness, homeopathy, horoscopes, poltergeists, etc. when they have the exact evidence of my examples, i.e. zero?

Bring on the evidence, and we can start taking all those things seriously. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

It's easy to be skeptical of paranormal claims. But that's a very narrow conception of "skepticism", because you're still assuming a certain set of "normal" claims to be true.

Do you believe that matter exists? More specifically do you believe in material objects external to the self, existing independently of your perception? Prove it.

^^
That's philosophical skepticism.