Quote unquote skepticism

skeptic:

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4.
(initial capital letter) Philosophy.
4a.a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
4b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter ) pertaining to the Skeptics.

Synonyms. 3. doubter. See atheist.

Click to expand...

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself—instead of by what it itself actually is—with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

Thread is now open for discussion

Yahya Sulaiman said:

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself—instead of by what it itself actually is—with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

Click to expand...

The Opening Post (OP), quoted above, contains errors, revealing misunderstandings by the poster. In turn, the poster’s misunderstandings seem to have led him to compound his ignorance with arrogance, which unfortunately is an all-too-common pattern. Below, I’ll provide some details supporting my assessments.

To start and for now, I’ll accept the dictionary definition of the word ‘skeptic’ quoted in the OP. The poster then states:

For their own ulterior purposes they [skeptics] have redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”.

Click to expand...

That’s doubly wrong. First, not a single skeptic (of literally thousand of skeptics) with whom I’ve had the good fortune to interact has had some “ulterior [i.e., hidden] purposes” in being skeptics. We are skeptics simply because (as the quoted, dictionary definition states) we “maintain a doubting attitude” and “question the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.”

Second, the poster’s claim is wrong that we skeptics have, “redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean ‘someone who does not believe in something without evidence’.” What follows are some examples of what skeptics mean. After displaying these quotations, I’ll provide a summary of what it means to be a ‘skeptic’, correcting the poster’s error – and perhaps even improving on the definition that he quoted from not-the-world’s-best dictionary:

Believe nothing… merely because you have been told it… or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. [The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), c.500 BCE]

The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see. [Huang Po (a Zen master who died in about 850)]

A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence. [David Hume]

To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly. [Volney]

In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. [Mark Twain]

The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in. [A.E. Housman]

For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said “Think”; the many have said “Believe!” [Robert Ingersoll]

Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce]

It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. [William Kingdon Clifford]

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge. [Thomas Henry Huxley]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. [Aldous Huxley]

We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc. [Julian Huxley]

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way… So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence [italics added], they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. [Bertrand Russell]

Credulity is belief in slight evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence.
[Tryon Edwards]

In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality. [Clarence Darrow]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. [Richard Dawkins]

I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief. [Dan Barker]

We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence. [Richard Robinson]

The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination. [Peter B. Medawar]

Conviction is something you need in order to act… But your action needs to be proportional to the depth of evidence that underlies your conviction. [Paul O’Neill]

Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under “Low Probability”, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under “High Probability”. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So, put things on a scale or probability and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. [Robert A. Wilson]

Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants.
[Arthur M. Jackson]

Click to expand...

In summary, I think that the succinct summaries by David Hume, “A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence”, and by Arthur Jackson, “Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants”, well summarize the meaning of ‘skepticism’.

Again, the poster’s claim that for our own “ulterior purposes” we skeptics have redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence” is wrong. A more nearly correct statement would be that we define ‘skepticism’ as holding beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants. From his error and displaying both ignorance and arrogance, the poster then proceeds to insult skeptics. Thus, first he claims that, in fact, he knows what our “ulterior purposes” are:

The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself – instead of by what it itself actually is – with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning.

Click to expand...

Therein, he disparagingly describes skepticism as “inherently negative and tendentious”. Hello? The purpose of skepticism (as revealed even in his quoted, dictionary definition) is to determine what is “factual” and what is “truth”. Since when is such an attitude “inherently negative”?! And as for it being “tendentious” (i.e., “expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view”), I certain hope that everyone would seek to determine what is “factual” and “true”!

In the same quotation, the poster states that we skeptics seek to make skepticism “palatable by defining skepticism itself… with an alleged positive trait.” But again, that’s wrong: not only do we NOT redefine ‘skepticism’, but also, skepticism IS a “positive trait”! Further, most skeptics (including Socrates, Confucius, and the Buddha) would argue that skepticism is one of the most important mental traits (if not the most important mental trait) that humans can possess. Socrates said it well: not only that “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” but also:

And is not this the most reprehensible form of ignorance, that of thinking one knows what one does not know?

Click to expand...

In contrast to adopting such a “reprehensible form of ignorance”, skeptics admit their ignorance. As Confucius said (approximately a hundred years earlier than Socrates):

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is the beginning of wisdom.

Click to expand...

Further into his post, we can begin to see some of the sources of the poster’s misconceptions. He states:

There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

Click to expand...

Now, first, it’s easy to agree with his statement:

There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing… that the evidence supports it as by any other way.

Click to expand...

It’s a long-winded way of saying “people can make mistakes”! Second, it’s also easy to agree with his:

What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is.

Click to expand...

In fact, it’s such an obvious statement that it’s rather superfluous. But then there’s his statement that begins to reveal his errors, derived from ignorance:

And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.

Click to expand...

In my book ( at http://zenofzero.net/ ), I tried to caution readers against such errors by advising them to avoid people who have an “on-off switch” instead of a brain! Thus, the poster’s blatant error, here, is to assume that there are only two states: belief vs. unbelief, which in turn reveals that he knows nothing about skepticism, nothing about probabilities, and therefore nothing about the scientific method.

To begin to illustrate what I mean, I’ll again quote Robert Wilson’s statement (already quoted in the list of potential meaning for ‘skepticism’):

Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under “Low Probability”, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under “High Probability”. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So, put things on a scale or probability and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely.

Click to expand...

Further, in another thread at this forum (dealing with Pascal’s Wager), I recently tried to stimulate the same poster to see that, the most humans are able to determine in and about reality is the probability that some statement is true. I provided him with references to my more complete explanations (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf ); he responded (to another poster) that

I haven't even read his pamphlet. That Venn diagram he presented at the beginning kind of turned me off to it.

Click to expand...

That “Venn diagram” that he mentions is on the first page! And apparently from this current post, the poster still hasn’t got beyond the first page, or if he has, he still fails to understand the concept that, in open systems” (e.g., reality) as opposed to the case for “closed systems” (e.g., all games, pure mathematics, and religions), the most we can determine is the probability that any claim is true.

Along the same line, but further, the poster obviously fails to understand the scientific method, which can be crudely described as “guess, test, and reassess”. In slightly more detail: we gain knowledge about the world external to our minds by observing, collecting data, summarizing the data with succinct hypotheses that yield predictions, testing the predictions by performing new experiments, collecting data, and so on, without end. In each step of the process, the “soul of the method” is skepticism. The products of the scientific method are estimates for the probability that some hypothesis is true, based on the evidence (by application of a mathematical procedure known as Bayes’ method).

The poster, however, reveals that he doesn’t understand that a statement of a belief is a statement about probabilities, for he obviously doesn’t understand the concept of probability, let alone Bayes’ method, the scientific method, or skepticism. As an illustration of such ignorance, he adds the belligerent statement:

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance.

Click to expand...

No. It’s not arrogance; it’s called “the scientific method”. Further, the poster additionally displays his ignorance about the scientific method (and associated skepticism and methods for estimating probabilities) in his arrogant comments about atheism:

At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy.

Click to expand...

In a (probably forlorn) attempt to provide him with still another opportunity to understand, I’ll provide the following guidance and references.

For cases for which no relevant evidence is available (such as in the case for the proposal that any god exists or has ever existed), then as I show elsewhere (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf ), Bayes’ method fails. Thereby, as I also show in the same reference, Stephen Unwin’s attempt to use Bayes’ method in his book “The Probability of God” is not only wrong but futile. Yet, methods for estimating the probability of the existence of the Abrahamic god can be made (based on the probability that such a god could come into existence plus the lack of evidence for such existence), and as I show still elsewhere (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf ), the probability that such a god does exist is the smallest probability that I have ever encountered, namely, less that one chance in about 10^500.

Consequently, since someone is an “atheist” (with respect to a particular god) who considers the probability that such a god exists to be less than 50% (whereas a theist is someone who estimates the probability to be greater than 50%, and an agnostic, exactly 50%), then with my estimate for the probability of the existence of the Abrahamic god to be less than 0.000…[continue for a total of about 500 zeros]…01%, then no doubt the poster would label me as an atheist. It would be much more appropriate, however, and probably result in much less animosity, to abandon all such labels (theist, atheist, scientific humanist, unscientific anti-humans, etc.) and, instead, simply relay a person’s estimate for the probability of the existence of a particular god.

Additionally, in the same paragraph, there’s the poster’s belligerent, arrogant, ignorant attack on “freethinkers”:

We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty… if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

Talk about obnoxious! Of course, again the poster is wrong to say that we freethinkers have redefined the term ‘freethinker’. No wonder he “feel dirty”! To cleanse such dirt, I would suggest that he start by reading the following statement by one of America’s and the world’s greatest (if not the greatest) free thinkers, Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899):

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths – there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world – not even in infinite space.

I was free: free to think, to express my thoughts – free to live to my own ideal – free to live for myself and those I loved – free to use all my faculties, all my senses – free to spread imagination’s wings – free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope – free to judge and determine for myself – free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past – free from popes and priests – free from all the “called” and “set apart” – free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies – free from the fear of eternal pain – free from the winged monsters of night – free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of my thought – no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings – no chains for my limbs – no lashes for my back – no fires for my flesh – no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps – no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.

I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought – to those who fell on the fierce fields of war – to those who died in dungeons bound with chains – to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs – to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn – to those by fire consumed – to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

Click to expand...

Such is the freedom and commitment of perhaps the greatest freethinker the world has ever known.

Finally, there’s the poster’s final sentence:

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

Click to expand...

What amazes me about such a statement is that the poster doesn’t realize how horribly he thereby insults all theists, including all Muslims! But to explain what I mean would take too long; therefore, I’ll simply provide a reference to still another chapter of my book, namely http://zenofzero.net/docs/R_Reason_versus_Reality.pdf ). If the poster manages to get beyond the first page of that “pamphlet”, then perhaps he’ll begin to understand why reasoning is unable (even theoretically) to provide new information (only knowledge about existing information) and, therefore, why it’s impossible for any “logical proofs” for the existence of anything to be valid. Further, he may then understand why Aristotle’s stated goal of “living a life of reason”, Spinoza’s assessment, “I call him free who is led solely by reason”, and all theists who follow such recommendations and assessments have made and are making enormous errors. As I wrote in that chapter (explicitly written to my teenage granddaughter, but implicitly written for all youngsters):

If you do attempt to live a life of reason, almost certainly you’ll make even greater mistakes in your life than did Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and many others. Instead of relying on reason, rely on data; instead of relying on reason, rely on the scientific method; instead of relying on reason, use your head as best you can – which includes not only checking all reasoned results to determine if they’re in agreement with reality but also (and extremely importantly) using the scientific method to test the predictions of your reasoning…

As a summary, let me say that “the big deal” is not just that millions of people have been murdered because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor that tens of millions of people have been killed in wars because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor that hundreds of millions of people have experienced various types of enslavement because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor even that billions of people are now living in delusions, poverty, and misery because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they are). Instead… the “big deal” is that I want to do what I can to help children… so they won’t make the same mistake of relying on reason, rather than using their brains as best they can (by applying the scientific method in their daily lives).

Click to expand...

It's always in equal parts funny and frustrating when I see people freely, even proudly, admit that reason is not one's top priority and primary guiding light (or perhaps that it should even be one's last consideration) when ascribing to the dogmatism of "the scientific method". Unreason apparently isn't fine if it's religious, but it's certainly fine if it's scientific, never mind that it's still unreason! If I just have one dollar for every time I've heard someone cheerfully, defiantly admit that science "frequently goes against common sense".....

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post, I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks. As it is, I don't debate those pop-up ads that pretend to be rational discourse and I see no reason why this would be significantly different.

Suffice to say, my problem (which I think was painfully clear in the OP, but I'll gladly restate it) is not with people believing in things only when they think there's evidence, nor certainly with freethinking, which is my favorite thing in the world, but with people using these expressions synonymously with their own particular viewpoint on something. If atheists can call themselves exclusively "freethinkers" and define their position as meaning the same thing as believing in something only when you have a good reason to, then I am allowed to do the same. I and all other Reasoners. You can't have it both ways.

Yahya Sulaiman said:

It's always in equal parts funny and frustrating when I see people freely, even proudly, admit that reason is not one's top priority

Click to expand...

Um, but you are advocating religion and faith, are you not?

but it's certainly fine if it's scientific, never mind that it's still unreason!

Click to expand...

How is the scientific method "unreason"? The scientific method is specifically designed to remove our biases and desires when examining the wolrd, to do experiments, to replicate results and to eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible. The scientific method IS reason. Scientists have biases and sometimes try to fudge results, but that is human frailty and the result of NOT following the scientific method. The scientific method can also lead us to wrong ideas, but only if we extrapolate too much from the data; only if faith creeps in.

If I just have one dollar for every time I've heard someone cheerfully, defiantly admit that science "frequently goes against common sense".....

Click to expand...

Because "common sense" can be misleading. Common sense would tell you that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Philosophy is about what makes sense. Science is about what actually is.

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post

Click to expand...

He does sneak in a gratuitous bit of self advertising in there. But the quotes are directly on topic and his points are valid, and you are falling into an adhom here. Address the points, not the poster.

I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks.

Click to expand...

That seems to be exactly what he just did.

Suffice to say, my problem (which I think was painfully clear in the OP, but I'll gladly restate it) is not with people believing in things only when they think there's evidence, nor certainly with freethinking, which is my favorite thing in the world

Click to expand...

Um no, that isn't clear at all in your post. Go re-read it. You directly attack this and now say it isn't your problem. You only make any mention of the group you now target (which doesn't even include most atheists) much later on.

If atheists can call themselves exclusively "freethinkers" and define their position as meaning the same thing as believing in something only when you have a good reason to, then I am allowed to do the same. I and all other Reasoners. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Atheists can define themselves that way because that IS the reason they do not believe in God(s). Theists like to pretend there are other reasons, but there really aren't. I for one would allow the "Free thinker" label to be put upon anybody who doesn't name "Faith" (the opposite of reason), "tradition", or "reverence" (ie, believing out of obedience or respect) as their motivating forces. If you read the quotes above re what skepticism is, you can see each of these forces addressed. You can't really call somebody "reasoner" if they are proudly flaunting its opposite (faith).

Pygoscelis said:

Um, but you are advocating religion and faith, are you not?

Click to expand...

Now there's a loaded question if ever I heard one!

How is the scientific method "unreason"? The scientific method is specifically designed to remove our biases and desires when examining the wolrd, to do experiments, to replicate results and to eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible. The scientific method IS reason. Scientists have biases and sometimes try to fudge results, but that is human frailty and the result of NOT following the scientific method. The scientific method can also lead us to wrong ideas, but only if we extrapolate too much from the data; only if faith creeps in.

Click to expand...

Which is why I put the phrase in quote marks. The actual scientific method is--get this--a method of science for scientists, and not this ill-defined general philosophy that people like zoro use the term to describe.

Because "common sense" can be misleading. Common sense would tell you that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Philosophy is about what makes sense. Science is about what actually is.

Click to expand...

Philosophy almost never makes sense. And how is it common sense to believe something to be flat when the clouds move over it and around the horizon in a way clearly indicating curvature--a curvature which can also be seen from any high enough point, and in the sinking of ships (which later return) out of sight on the horizon? If you would just trust in common sense a little more then you would see how silly it is to deny it under almost any conditions. In any case you're not going to win any people over to your position by confessing that it frequently contradicts common sense.

He does sneak in a gratuitous bit of self advertising in there. But the quotes are directly on topic and his points are valid, and you are falling into an adhom here. Address the points, not the poster.

Click to expand...

Anyone who actually bothered to read my post, and read it carefully, will not need an explanation of any kind. I am gravely doubtful that you would have thought zoro responded well at all if you did not agree with his position of "skepticism" to begin with. You're almost right about one thing: probably I shouldn't have responded to zoro's post at all in the first place. vale's lily was probably right that we should all just ignore zoro all the time.

Um no, that isn't clear at all in your post. Go re-read it. You directly attack this and now say it isn't your problem. You only make any mention of the group you now target (which doesn't even include most atheists) much later on.

Click to expand...

I dare you to tell me where I have attacked the attitude that people should believe in things only with good reason, which I propagate constantly. And just in case anyone would be misled otherwise, here is what I did say, read it and weep:

Yahya Sulaiman said:

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself instead of by what it itself actually is, with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in just so happening to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist”; to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners”; every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

Click to expand...

Pygoscelis said:

Atheists can define themselves that way because that IS the reason they do not believe in God(s). Theists like to pretend there are other reasons, but there really aren't. I for one would allow the "Free thinker" label to be put upon anybody who doesn't push "Faith" (the opposite of reason), "tradition", or "reverence" (ie, believing out of obedience or respect) as their motivating forces. If you read the quotes above re what skepticism is, you can see each of these forces addressed.

Click to expand...

If I spent an hour pondering I couldn’t come up with a better hypothetical statement you could possibly make to betray your own prejudice and closed-mindedness than that. So we Reasoners (again I use the word for the reason I listed above: in protest) only make believe about atheists because we all are well aware that the only reason any of the millions and millions and millions of them ever disbelieve in God is because there very well is indeed no good reason to? Or do you just mean “theists like to make believe that there are any other considerations to be made than whether or not there is good reason for believing in something”? Yeah, because as a theist I say that there are alternatives all the time, don’t I?

This has gone far enough. It is an extremely well known fact that a debate has already been won (though in the most unfortunate and infuriating way possible) when nobody on a given side of it is even capable of responding with anything except rebuttals to points never made and statements which basically amount to, “I’m right, I’m the one who’s being reasonable, and you know it, you just won’t admit it!” I mention ulterior motives in atheists redefining a word for their own purposes, I am accused of attributing ulterior motives for their very atheism itself; I make a statement about my idea to refer to theists as “Reasoners” in protest; in response I get a statement about “logical proofs” being impossible. I attack the elitist redefinition of a term to exclusively refer to one side of a debate and to mean “believing in something only with good reason”; I am accused of attacking the very practice of holding to the “believing only with good reason” criterion!

I am wasting too much time responding to all these pathetic straw men and it’s making me too angry. This may be my last post in this thread.

Yahya Sulaiman said:

I am wasting too much time responding to all these pathetic straw men and it’s making me too angry. This may be my last post in this thread.

Click to expand...

He started a thread with an OP full of straw men and arrogant/aggressive posturing and now he complains about straw men (his own? I'm can't really tell here) and runs away from his own thread. I think nothing more really needs to be said.

If you really think that any unbiased party reading this thread is going to take your side, go ahead and keep thinking that. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss, I guess. I made myself abundantly clear in the OP and every single rebuttal has only been a deliberate(?) misunderstanding of what the OP said, as I have listed only a few examples of in my previous post. If any more rebuttals come, experience teaches that they will be more of the same. Like I said, this is always a good sign that I have succeeded: whenever I'm any likelier to be wrong and there are any even moderately intelligent dissenters about, there are generally at least a few people actually addressing the real points, and with relevant rebuttals, fallacious or not. But suspiciously, every time I really hit the nail on the head with something, the thread is always exactly like this one, it's just the oddest thing.

Yahya Sulaiman said:

If you really think that any unbiased party reading this thread is going to take your side, go ahead and keep thinking that. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss, I guess. I made myself abundantly clear in the OP and every single rebuttal has only been a deliberate(?) misunderstanding of what the OP said, as I have listed only a few examples of in my previous post. If any more rebuttals come, experience teaches that they will be more of the same. Like I said, this is always a good sign that I have succeeded: whenever I'm any likelier to be wrong and there are any even moderately intelligent dissenters about, there are generally at least a few people actually addressing the real points, and with relevant rebuttals, fallacious or not. But suspiciously, every time I really hit the nail on the head with something, the thread is always exactly like this one, it's just the oddest thing.

Click to expand...

You may have hit a nerve in zorro (prompting him to reply to a post the rest of us chose to ignore for a few days) but you didn't hit a nail. There are no real points that haven't been addressed already in the posts above, and whatever point you were attempting to make has been lost.

Perhaps with more civility and coherency it would have come across. But here I only see a bunch of strawmen and adhoms. I honestly do not know what it is you think you suceeded at proving.

That you refer to "your side" is pretty telling here as to your motivation but not the substance of your argument.

If there is any lack of clarity or coherency in the OP, you are always free to ask questions about what such-and-such meant. But you haven't done so: you've just said that its point is "lost". If you had any interest in it being "found" you would or should have asked for clarification by now, and if you don't care then you have no reason to be posting here at all.

vale'slily said:

I don't think anyone of us have ever seen you write much beyond those words plus 'tribalism' and 'faeries' of course-- it gets tedious.

Click to expand...

It's not like it's a unique tactic of Pygoscelis. Have you not noticed that it's impossible to use the term "straw man" at all, even legitimately, without someone automatically responding that no you're the one making the straw man, not them? It's the most overused and inevitable form of retaliation on the board, if not in the whole intellectual world. Not that it's immensely less likely that the term will pop up anyway even if you don't say it first: any excuse to (mis)use the expressions "straw man" and "ad hominem" is a good enough one for most of the types you'll run into in places like this. Apparently the words just make people feel smart or something. I should probably stop using them at all myself, even though I use them correctly: it just feeds the beast.

P.S. If you don't want to hear childish comparisons of theism or theistic concepts to fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus, etc., just don't talk to atheists. There's no other way of avoiding that dreck.

Funny, that's probably the first time in my life that I've been told I have patience and a pleasant countenance.

Yahya Sulaiman said:

It's the most overused and inevitable form of retaliation on the board, if not in the whole intellectual world.

Click to expand...

If you see it as "retaliation" then it was probably an adhom the person is responding to. To retaliate, somebody has to have been attacked. We need to stop seeing this all as some kind of fight between posters, and instead see it as an exploration of the ideas themselves. I don't matter, neither do you. The topic is what matters. Personalizing it and attacking people instead of points (which I maintain is what you did above with Zorro and is what lily does in 99% of her posts) is the adhom fallacy - and it SHOULD be brought up when people engage in it. We all do from time to time, but cooler heads and reason should prevail. Otherwise we'll never have discussions. We'll only have bickering, which is what this thread has become.

P.S. If you don't want to hear childish comparisons of theism or theistic concepts to fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus, etc., just don't talk to atheists. There's no other way of avoiding that dreck.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they are over imflamatory but those comparisons are usually used to illustrate a point (such as being unable to prove a negative or refraining believing in something without convincing evidence). What comparisons would you prefer? Should we instead compare to Zeus and Thor?

Sulaiman, you started this thread. The usual purpose for initiating a thread is not to post a rant but to start a discussion. In the OP you made what in my view are many unsubstantiated, erroneous, and belligerent statements.

In my response, I provided evidence and explanations that undermine every one of those statements. Not incidentally, in those explanations, I use my dictionary’s sole meaning for the mental activity known as ‘reason’: “think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic”. You have not responded to any of the points I made, except with your ad hominem:

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post, I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks. As it is, I don't debate those pop-up ads that pretend to be rational discourse and I see no reason why this would be significantly different.

Click to expand...

Incidentally, in response to your attempt to insult, I would ask: why is it that, on every one of your posts, you advertise your website? Pot: meet kettle! Further, apparently your advertisements needn’t have anything to do with the thread’s subject. Interesting. Maybe I should try that. On every post, I could just type in http://zenofzero.net/ , http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/ , and http://meansnends.blogspot.com/ . Nah, I don’t think so. I think I’ll just provide any readers of particular posts of mine with links to where I address the concepts under discussion more completely. It would seem to be potentially more useful to the reader.

But of more relevance and in spite of your obvious hostility and admitted “anger”, I invite you to proceed with your “full, point-by-point shattering of all [my] straw man attacks.” If you don’t, you should realize that a common consequence of dragging around red herrings is that the dragger’s odor becomes quite intolerable.

Pygoscelis said:

If you see it as "retaliation" then it was probably an adhom the person is responding to. To retaliate, somebody has to have been attacked. We need to stop seeing this all as some kind of fight between posters, and instead see it as an exploration of the ideas themselves. I don't matter, neither do you. The topic is what matters. Personalizing it and attacking people instead of points (which I maintain is what you did above with Zorro and is what lily does in 99% of her posts) is the adhom fallacy - and it SHOULD be brought up when people engage in it.

Click to expand...

No, it is not the ad hom fallacy. I have explained this over and over and over, and still nobody gets it. Is the difference between mere mudslinging (attacking a person instead of their argument) and ad hominems (attacking the person to refute the argument when the alleged personal traits in question have nothing to do with it) really such a fine distinction???

We all do from time to time, but cooler heads and reason should prevail. Otherwise we'll never have discussions. We'll only have bickering, which is what this thread has become.

Click to expand...

You're right. For once I actually wish the mods would close this mother down when ordinarily I view them as locking threads willy nilly. Does that make me a hypocrite, I wonder?

Perhaps they are over imflamatory but those comparisons are usually used to illustrate a point (such as being unable to prove a negative or refraining believing in something without convincing evidence). What comparisons would you prefer? Should we instead compare to Zeus and Thor?

Click to expand...

If I thought you had the slightest respect for the ideas of the existence of Zeus and Thor then I might consider it. I hear a lot from atheists about all gods being equally unlikely in their eyes but given the context, tone, and wording this almost never seems to be expressed as a rational follow through of their own belief but instead their nine hundredth means of scoffing and scorning. The idea is, I think, that we are expected to find the idea of Zeus just as "primitive" as they do (even though "Zeus" really is just the Greek word for "God", and would automatically be translated into Arabic as "Allah"), and therefore are expected to empathize with their snobbery. I don't buy it. As for a better analogy, the only one amongst the endless line of nontheistic cliches that I've ever heard which doesn't sound like it was dreamed up by a four-year-old schoolyard bully is the "mile run" one. It's misconceived (or rather perhaps I should say misapplied), but at least it's not insulting and infantile.

zoro, you already do link to your pamphlet in every post you make, or at least every one that I can remember seeing. The ones you gave in the very post I'm responding to--your previous post--are the closest to subtle you've yet got.

I do keep my website's url in my signature, yes (though you'll notice it's not the only one), but I don't openly advertise it in my very textual post contents every single chance I get.

Flooding the page with quotations as emotional appeals is not the same thing as rebutting. My OP made a very simple point, that nobody has the right to reserve terms that mean "believing in something only when you think you have good reason to" and "thinking freely" so as to refer exclusively to themselves at the behest of everyone in the world who happens to hold a different viewpoint from their own. If you people are The Freethinkers, then that automatically implicates everyone who disagrees with you as not thinking freely, one of the surest and most common signs of human prejudice and closed-mindedness. If a believer thinks (as I'm sure most do) that he has come to his belief only because some evidence or other supports it then whether he is right or not he has just as much right to define his position as "believing in something only when the evidence supports it" as disbelievers do. That is to say, no right. It is elitist, it is narrow-minded, it is haughty, it is offensive, and it is stupid. There is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or in logic. I predicted several posts ago that everyone would just keep dancing around this point and I was right (the only thing I forgot being Pygoscelis's inevitable tactic of acting like the point hasn't been made clearly at all, even though Pygoscelis's previous posts on the matter as always act like they understand it very well), and I predict again that if the thread continues then they will still do so. This is getting so pointless.