Skepticism

[miguel]

SSH, these guys will believe what any scientist will tell them to,
and  just because they have risen Science into something very close to Divinity.
They blindily accept that a certain medicine (they never get the chance to test or understant how it was made) will cure a desease because it is writen on the back of a package. Some years later that same medicine will harm people more than it cured.
Why was the movie "I am Legend" so popular? Have you thought about what science CAN DO to humanity?
I am not against science, I am against this so called globalization! We are being swallowed by it.

I guess you have to ask yourselves if the world would actually be better without your local church, and the families that go there on Sundays? The peace that shows on the faces of the people coming out of there and then go home and have lunch, all together. Is it that bad? Or, was it that bad for you?

[SSH]

Again, you discuss how I say what I say, not what I say...

Actually, I discuss what Khris said..

The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree...

So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

But the thing is, if you believe that people have some kind of soul/spirit/personality/free will other than what genetics or chemistry or circumstances dictate then you admit that there is more than just physical reality. There seems to be a stark choice between being a fatalist material philosophy (i.e. only the physical is real and we have no free will: our whole lives are inevitable) and believing that there is the possibility of something metaphysical that can influence what goes on in our brain. And if there's a possibility that something outside of physics happens inside our heads, it suddenly makes the whole possibility of something metaphysical outside of our heads possible, be it Jesus, Allah, Buddha or something else.

I guess you have to ask yourselves if the world would actually be better without your local church, and the families that go there on Sundays? The peace that shows on the faces of the people coming out of there and then go home and have lunch, all together. Is it that bad? Or, was it that bad for you?

While I freely admit that there are some churches out there that have services that make the prospect of an eternity in hell seem like a holiday, there are others that are not like that (like mine). 99% ( ) of the atheists here were forced to sit through such services in their youth and that has left them with a deep-seated fear and loathing of church and a desire to rescue people from such a thing. Fine. But they've extrapolated from their limited experience to the whole world and such generalisations are always foolish.

[loominous]

The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree...
So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

What I am not going to do is to take the first pilgrim answerI can figure, and, without any evidence, believe on it for all my life.

To contribute with an attack of my own on poor ol Nacho: Shouldn't a skeptic dismiss the concept of free will until it's been proven?
As far as I know, there's no scientific basis for it, even "just in a degree".

Someone may want to invoke quantum mechanics into it, saying that this can break up the causal chain, that would otherwise lead to determinism, but if our free will then consists of random activities in the brain that we're not in control over, the label 'free will' would be pretty strange.

You can of course just say that while determinism may be true, as long as we're the cause for our actions - even though they're predetermined - this is enough to labeled acts of free will ('soft determinism' (can't have too many terms introduced in this thread)).

Loominous, I think the point about how the world began is a good one, but I would reorder the argument a little bit, saying that:

1. Absent any evidence, we should assume the non-existence of God.
2. Thomas Aquinas presents the existence of the world as evidence for God.
3. Debate about whether this is valid evidence that overrules the initial skeptical stance.

Oh, I'm not saying that the fact that it attempt to answer a question makes it a legit answer, it's just that I don't like lumping poor answers together with awful ones.

Which brings up another complicating factor:

You can be both a weak and strong atheist at the same time, but in regards to seperate gods, as they're not all the same.

So you can be a weak atheist in regards to for instance the christian god, as it's hard/impossible to disprove, but a strong atheist in regards to for instance Thor, or some god that you can actually disprove.

Again, just want to bring in some nuance. God can be scientifically disproven, if his attributes are of the right kind.

Edit: Bummer, SSH introduced the same argument (though more extensive) a few seconds earlier.

[SSH]

To contribute with an attack of my own on poor ol Nacho: Shouldn't a skeptic dismiss the concept of free will until it's been proven?

Indeed, and the arguments that Nacho (and moreso Khris) has put forth would indicate that while he may want to be a Sceptic, he is actually a Strong Atheist. As I said before, the sceptic and weak atheist arguments are easier to defend and so many Strong Atheists lie (or are in self-denial) about their true beliefs because they can't actually justify them. At least I acknowledge that I can't PROVE there's a God, so my intellectual honesty is greater than theirs.

[Khris]

There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES.

Once again you prove that you simply do not understand what the word evidence means. A mafia boss giving his testimony in a court is still evidence EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Richard Dawkins giving his in a court is still evidence EVEN IF I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. etc. There is not zero evidence, just evidence YOU don't find convincing BUT OTHERS DO.

I'm aware of all that. Let me give you an example: Say you have two groups of people, one of them is praying to god (asking him to grant wishes), the other is doing the same, but it's praying to a glass of milk or a rock.
The outcome of this test, which has actually been conducted in a similar form, was that the likeliness of the wishes getting fulfilled was the same, whether the people prayed to god or to the rock. To me, that's evidence that god doesn't give a shit about prayers. It might be evidence to other people that god works in mysterious ways, but well, what can I say.
If I saw one conclusive piece of evidence pointing towards "there's a god", I'd become a believer on the spot. I very probably never will.

About being a skeptic or strong atheist or whatever: I lead my daily live without even slightly pondering the question of gods existence. When asked if I believe there's a god, my honest answer would be: "I don't think so, but I can't be sure."

spelling edit

[Nacho]

Ohhhhh! Now I see the reason of this "Do you believe in free will" movement that started some pages ago!

True. I am not one of those skeptics that are thaaaat skeptic that enter into the cynism (Not insulting, it was a filosophical trend, as well...) So, I launch hypotesis and I dare myself to "think" that what I can preview is going to be true at the end. If my hypotesis are false, I don't hesitate to say "Hey! I was wrong".

I am quite aware that there are lots of possibilities that in the near future my guessings about how mind works can be rebated with scientific studies. I don' t think that my guessings about Religion will.

Happy?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

my honest answer would be: "I don't think so, but I can't be sure."

I respect this sort of reply, Khrismuc, because it's not a condemnation of the belief and it's expressed in a mutually respectful way (ie, you don't believe but you're not attacking someone else for that choice).

I honestly believe that if more people approached 'tense' topics with that sort of attitude the world would be a much better place; not because you're not stating your case (obviously you are if you say you don't/do believe) but because you're doing so in a way that either ends the discussion on a positive note or encourages further, respectful conversation on the topic from both sides.

Also, it's THANKSGIVING IN AMERICA!  I am shooting cooked turkeys at everyone right now!

[Nacho]

I concur, Prog... From now, every approach I do to this topic will be which much more care. In my deffense, I must say that I just used "stupid" for some stories in the Bible, if taken literal, and that I haven' t used them from lots of pages before.  Thanks everybody for helping me improving my skeptic tactics for the next time I need them.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to everybody! 

[Akatosh]

Again, just want to bring in some nuance. God can be scientifically disproven, if his attributes are of the right kind.

... which is exactly where the trouble lies. Since you can give him/her/it/them any attribute whatsoever - including unmeasurable ones - how could you determine whether or not it exists?

Oh, and yes, happy festivities.

[Nacho]

Well... According to all we know about Big Bang, if a creator existed, he dissapeared when the time was created.

Of course, what we know about Big Bang could be false... We will have to wait, but, atm, science says "No!".

[Akatosh]

I shall answer that with a clear, dedicated "maybe".

[Nacho]

Okay... an extremelly quoted "maybe" is ok? 

[SSH]

But, but... I want to keep arguing. 

[Nacho]

Okay! I have a question... Imagine that you go to a priest, that is supposed to be the sheppart, with a doubt. Let' s imagine that this doubt is about homosexuals... You have a fiend who is homosexual and you think that your priest can give some good ideas about his situation: How to accept his new condition, how to match that with his religious life, etc...

And the priest starts to be completelly arrogant about the topic and tells you something you consider totally stupid. (For example, and using this case: "Your friend is a pervert! You can' t be his friend anymore! Tell me who he is and I will take him out of this church forever!!!")

What to you do?

Now, imagine the same case, but now the "IYHO" stupidity comes from "Rome". What do you do?

Not asking pretending to argue, and being an ass... I am just curious.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I've never met a priest who was anywhere near the bible-banging 'old timey religion' stereotype, though I do know of some Christian fundamentalist religions who take a very dim view of homosexuality because it's considered a sin.  Something important to note, though, is that most of the religions who are really tough on other people are equally (if not more so) tough on themselves.  Fundamentalist Pentecostals, for instance, shun many of the 'conveniences' of life because they consider them as pathways toward sin (television, computers with internet, all sorts of fun things).  I mainly know this because my older brother got involved with an old Pentecostal church in Houston when he lived there, and the women dress very plainly, wear no makeup, and the men wear dress shirts and such.

It's all very Leave it to Beaver, which is a bit strange to me, but who am I to judge?

[SSH]

Nacho, if any minister of a church I went to was such an idiot, I'd move church (and point out to him the problem and bring it up with his superiors if possible (many churches I know are independent)). As for Rome, I'm not likely to be in a situation where what Rome thinks is relevant.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks its a sin or not, Christianity is supposed to be about forgiveness. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (and so why pick on a gay person, specifically?) and "whosoever believes in me shall not die but have eternal life".

[Nacho]

Okay, so, basically, trust in your morale rather that what the "authority" (note the quotes marks) says.

I agree... But brings some interesting points to the discussion. I am not going to mention them, I am tired.

[auriond]

Okay! I have a question... Imagine that you go to a priest, that is supposed to be the sheppart, with a doubt. Let' s imagine that this doubt is about homosexuals... You have a fiend who is homosexual and you think that your priest can give some good ideas about his situation: How to accept his new condition, how to match that with his religious life, etc...

And the priest starts to be completelly arrogant about the topic and tells you something you consider totally stupid. (For example, and using this case: "Your friend is a pervert! You can' t be his friend anymore! Tell me who he is and I will take him out of this church forever!!!")

What to you do?

Now, imagine the same case, but now the "IYHO" stupidity comes from "Rome". What do you do?

Not asking pretending to argue, and being an ass... I am just curious.

I really didn't want to write in this thread anymore but...

This is really (almost) happening to a friend of mine. But she simply never came out, and she managed to find a more accepting, open-minded church that she is more comfortable with.

Surprisingly though, there are also non-religious people who are against homosexuality, at least in my experience. They say it's "unnatural" and some propose that it's a psychological illness (mental problem). Society in general can really be asses about homosexuality, regardless of religion.

[Nacho]

True. There are assholes in every segment of the society.

But Religious claim their morale is divine inspired, so, it should be flawless. Finding a religious flawed morale could indicate that it' s not actually divine inspired... At least as I see it. And we do not find one... but lots.

[Ghost]

Wow, I like the recent change in tone, but *this* really made my day- I am going to collect it, I am that shallow:

You have a fiend who is homosexual

I know it is a typo, and one that easily happens, but it's top notch.
->