Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[NormalBeliever]

What is this “royalty”? Did you mean “loyalty”?

Mistake there.I meant loyalty but confused it with royalty.

 

[tonyrey]

Personally, Al, I have zero interest in having anyone regrow a limb or seeing stars dancing about the sky. They have as much relevance to me as probably Russell’s celestial teapot does.

Belief in a personal God is personal. There are no proofs.

Is there proof of persons being created by impersonal things? That’s a hard story to swallow. It sticks in your gullet unless you are extremely gullible…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And that is why it is not only a false philosophy but a useless one.

Since the same is true for theism it is also a false philosophy and a useless one - according to your opinion. If the only thing you know about someone that she is a theist, you cannot make any prediction about her disposition, if she is cheerful or depressed. If she is helpful or selfish. If you visit the Moral Theology forum you will find hundreds of guilt-ridden, depressed people - and they are depressed BECAUSE of their belief. Just show me some atheist who is “depressed” BECAUSE of their LACK of belief.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

Quoting the bible is not an argument. Especially not a quote which is a direct insult AND a biological idiocy.

Joy is the hardest part of the invention, because what is there to be joyful about?

A lot things in this world give one the reason to be joyful. And a lot also gives reasons to be sad or horrified.

Easter morning has to be a worse than dull moment for atheists when they see how much Christians are filled with joy at the prospect of their resurrection.

Now you really went off the deep end. Do you really think that seeing the believers go to their churches evokes some “depression” and “desire to be like them”? Do you really think that the atheists become “envious”? Sheesh.

I wish you could be as honest with your atheism as Sartre and Camus were.

I wish you stopped this nonsense. Sartre and Camus are not representative of atheists just like Torquemada was not a representative of Catholics. Looks like you have this desire to put down the atheists. I suspect that is comes from your uncertainty. And the fact that you keep on pointing to two, irrelevant representatives of atheism makes it even worse.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since the same is true for theism it is also a false philosophy and a useless one - according to your opinion. If the only thing you know about someone that she is a theist, you cannot make any prediction about her disposition, if she is cheerful or depressed. If she is helpful or selfish. If you visit the Moral Theology forum you will find hundreds of guilt-ridden, depressed people - and they are depressed BECAUSE of their belief. Just show me some atheist who is “depressed” BECAUSE of their LACK of belief.

Quoting the bible is not an argument. Especially not a quote which is a direct insult AND a biological idiocy.

A lot things in this world give one the reason to be joyful. And a lot also gives reasons to be sad or horrified.

Now you really went off the deep end. Do you really think that seeing the believers go to their churches evokes some “depression” and “desire to be like them”? Do you really think that the atheists become “envious”? Sheesh.

I wish you stopped this nonsense. Sartre and Camus are not representative of atheists just like Torquemada was not a representative of Catholics. Looks like you have this desire to put down the atheists. I suspect that is comes from your uncertainty. And the fact that you keep on pointing to two, irrelevant representatives of atheism makes it even worse.

This is all a trifle absurd, isn’t it?

You have been slamming Christians as cowards and hypocrites and depressed right along, as if atheists were nothing but brave and conscientious and joyful.

The question is not whether there are not both types of people in both camps, but rather whether one of these two camps even offers a reason to be joyful. Please tell me what kind of joy is offered by atheism?

“Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures.” Thomas Aquinas

Please do not confuse your own carnal pleasures with joy.

 

[tonyrey]

A lot things in this world give one the reason to be joyful. And a lot also gives reasons to be sad or horrified.

In your opinion what is the ratio of joyful reasons to sad reasons? That is the logical way to assess the credibility of the two positions, assuming that each reason is equally powerful. Of course the view that death destroys everything may outweigh all other considerations. It is hardly inspiring to believe everything we love, enjoy and live for is brought to an abrupt end after a relatively few years on this planet. Is death really a blessing? And if so why?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is all a trifle absurd, isn’t it?

Not just a “trifle”. It is absurd to the extreme.

You have been slamming Christians as cowards and hypocrites and depressed right along, as if atheists were nothing but brave and conscientious and joyful.

I have never uttered a blanket statement about any group. That would be undue generalizing. I only directed your attention to actual theists who are guilt-ridden and depressed BECAUSE of the contradiction between their urges and the prohibition against acting on those urges. Concrete examples, not some general accusations.

The question is not whether there are not both types of people in both camps, but rather whether one of these two camps even offers a reason to be joyful. Please tell me what kind of joy is offered by atheism?

That is not the question. The point is that neither stance (be it theistic or atheistic) has any predictive value about the disposition of the members of each group.

Atheism is nothing else than the lack of belief in the “supernatural”. Atheism does not “offer” anything. It simply allows (but does not encourage nor discourage) everyone to consider what principles they wish to base their life upon. Atheists can be superstitious, can be rational, can be driven by their emotions, can be kind, can be cruel, can be generous or stingy. But so can the theists.

There are many examples of theists who are filled with joy or rapture when they contemplate their deity. There are others who are filled with guilt and despair when they contemplate their deity. These joyous or depressed attitudes are the direct corollary of their beliefs. Of course the same kind of “rapture” can be achieved by using certain chemicals.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of a belief system. (According to the old saying: “if atheism is a belief system, then baldness is a hair-style”). From the lack of belief follows - NOTHING. What you said in your previous post was ridiculous. When looking at the procession of the believers on Easter most atheists will think nothing. Some will grin when they see that on Easter Sunday there is a huge crowd, while on other Sundays there is only a trickle. But not one of them will become “depressed” because of their lack of faith.

Please do not confuse your own carnal pleasures with joy.

Please do not try to make assessments about me (or other atheists).

---

A special thanks to the moderators for opening up the discussion about atheism. The amount of misunderstanding is staggering.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not just a “trifle”. It is absurd to the extreme.

I have never uttered a blanket statement about any group. That would be undue generalizing. I only directed your attention to actual theists who are guilt-ridden and depressed BECAUSE of the contradiction between their urges and the prohibition against acting on those urges. Concrete examples, not some general accusations.

That is not the question. The point is that neither stance (be it theistic or atheistic) has any predictive value about the disposition of the members of each group.

Atheism is nothing else than the lack of belief in the “supernatural”. Atheism does not “offer” anything. It simply allows (but does not encourage nor discourage) everyone to consider what principles they wish to base their life upon. Atheists can be superstitious, can be rational, can be driven by their emotions, can be kind, can be cruel, can be generous or stingy. But so can the theists.

There are many examples of theists who are filled with joy or rapture when they contemplate their deity. There are others who are filled with guilt and despair when they contemplate their deity. These joyous or depressed attitudes are the direct corollary of their beliefs. Of course the same kind of “rapture” can be achieved by using certain chemicals.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of a belief system. (According to the old saying: “if atheism is a belief system, then baldness is a hair-style”). From the lack of belief follows - NOTHING. What you said in your previous post was ridiculous. When looking at the procession of the believers on Easter most atheists will think nothing. Some will grin when they see that on Easter Sunday there is a huge crowd, while on other Sundays there is only a trickle. But not one of them will become “depressed” because of their lack of faith.

Please do not try to make assessments about me (or other atheists).

---

A special thanks to the moderators for opening up the discussion about atheism. The amount of misunderstanding is staggering.

Atheism most certainly is a belief system. It is the belief that:

There is no God.
There is no soul.
There is no afterlife.
There is no morality but the one I choose for myself.
There is no objective absolute truth, goodness, or beauty.

On and on your belief system goes, negative as it may be rather than a positive belief system

These are belief because a belief is defined as something you hold to be true without proof of the same.

It would be the chronic assertion of an atheist that there is no proof that anything the theist believes in is true. Yet, by the same token, there is no proof whatever that anything the atheist believes in is true.

Stop pretending you have the objective truth about anything when, so far as I have been able to tell, most atheist declare they don’t even believe in objective truth about anything.

And please top these chronic allegations of ad hominems. If you can’t stand me making an argument without uttering the truth as I see it, we might as well just take our marbles and go home.

Sometimes the truth has to hurt, and especially when light shines on error.

This is a Catholic forum. If you want assent to your philosophy, try an atheist forum.

We are both travelers through life.

The only difference between us is that you have lost your guide … Jesus Christ.

I will pray for your immortal soul. Good bye. :sad_bye:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Atheism most certainly is a belief system. It is the belief that:

There is no God.
There is no soul.
There is no afterlife.
There is no morality but the one I choose for myself.
There is no objective absolute truth, goodness, or beauty…]

@Pallas Athene - I’m going to pre-empt the discussion on semantics that I think could naturally follow by this and just inform you that there have already been several conversations on this (ex: see this one). But in any case do as you deem appropriate.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

@Pallas Athene - I’m going to pre-empt the discussion on semantics that I think could naturally follow by this and just inform you that there have already been several conversations on this (ex: see this one). But in any case do as you deem appropriate.������

You are absolutely correct. It is a waste of time. As I said before:

If atheism is a belief system, then baldness is a hair-style.

 

[tonyrey]

You are absolutely correct. It is a waste of time. As I said before:

If atheism is a belief system, then baldness is a hair-style.

Some are born bald, some achieve baldness and some have baldness thrust upon them!

If atheism is not a belief system it is insignificant. Nothing shall come of nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism most certainly is a belief system. It is the belief that:

There is no God.
There is no soul.
There is no afterlife.
There is no morality but the one I choose for myself.
There is no objective absolute truth, goodness, or beauty.

On and on your belief system goes, negative as it may be rather than a positive belief system

These are belief because a belief is defined as something you hold to be true without proof of the same.

All negative beliefs have positive implications. If you don’t believe in God you live as if there is no God. As Sartre pointed out, in life you can’t sit on the fence. Even doing nothing is a form of commitment.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

All negative beliefs have positive implications. If you don’t believe in God you live as if there is no God. As Sartre pointed out, in life you can’t sit on the fence. Even doing nothing is a form of commitment.

“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” – Freewill, Rush

 

[icamhif]

Indeed. So there is no hard evidence. As far as I am concerned, this kind of “faith” is not a virtue. God is supposed to have given us the ability to reason. I would say that employing that reason would be a virtue. To deliberately discard reason for unsubstantiated, blind faith is not a virtue, it is an iniquity. Why would God give us the ability to reason, and then demand that we suspend this reason for blind faith?

But, again this is my subjective opinion. Other people might disagree.

Yes, we will agree to disagree. The “evidence” you consider as “anecdotal” or “so full of holes” are the same “evidence” that I see as good reasons to have faith, which I don’t see as a blind faith. I can choose to explain away the evidence and live my own life if I want to, or I can choose to trust in Christ as my God and Savior in light of the evidence. Though there are things I don’t fully understand like the problem of evil and suffering, I give God the benefit of doubt in light of what He has revealed to me, and how He has made my life for the better. As far as my own life is concerned, that’s good enough or me. In return, I don’t judge those who interpret those evidence the secular way and come to the opposite conclusion. As a former fundamentalist, one of the hardest things I learned to accept is that many intelligent and reasonable people can and will examine all the same facts and come to different conclusions. I personally don’t think that God is going to judge us for what we sincerely decide to do, in light of what we think is the correct choice. But that’s just me, of course; I am not in any position to judge who will be saved an who will not.

 

[Bradski]

As a former fundamentalist, one of the hardest things I learned to accept is that many intelligent and reasonable people can and will examine all the same facts and come to different conclusions. I personally don’t think that God is going to judge us for what we sincerely decide to do, in light of what we think is the correct choice.

Well said, Ike.

 

[tonyrey]

“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” – Freewill, Rush

Precisely. There’s no escape from responsibility regardless of what we claim to believe or disbelieve. That in itself is significant evidence that we don’t exist by chance. The only alternative is that we can’t choose what to believe - which is self-contradictory. If we can’t choose what to believe the belief that we can’t choose what to believe is beyond our control - and all beliefs are equally suspect. There’s no way of deciding which are more reliable than others! In other words the notion that we can’t choose what to believe is sheer nonsense! The sceptic cuts his own intellectual throat…

 

[tonyrey]

Well said, Ike.

And so say all of us - if we attach any importance to sincerity.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Precisely. There’s no escape from responsibility regardless of what we claim to believe or disbelieve. That in itself is significant evidence that we don’t exist by chance.

I don’t see that one concept necessitates the other. I can see where if the universe came into existence through means other than a deity that for a sentient being choose not to decide is still a choice that being makes.

 

[GodMadeMe]

Yes, we will agree to disagree. The “evidence” you consider as “anecdotal” or “so full of holes” are the same “evidence” that I see as good reasons to have faith, which I don’t see as a blind faith. I can choose to explain away the evidence and live my own life if I want to, or I can choose to trust in Christ as my God and Savior in light of the evidence. Though there are things I don’t fully understand like the problem of evil and suffering, I give God the benefit of doubt in light of what He has revealed to me, and how He has made my life for the better. As far as my own life is concerned, that’s good enough or me. In return, I don’t judge those who interpret those evidence the secular way and come to the opposite conclusion. As a former fundamentalist, one of the hardest things I learned to accept is that many intelligent and reasonable people can and will examine all the same facts and come to different conclusions. I personally don’t think that God is going to judge us for what we sincerely decide to do, in light of what we think is the correct choice. But that’s just me, of course; I am not in any position to judge who will be saved an who will not.

I God who judges us for rational errors is not God. Thats a tyrant. A Man of absolute faith in that which just so happens to be true will surely be saved by the mercy of God. But a man who lives in error will be judged according to what he knows and if he acts for the good according to what he knows then he too will be saved by the mercy of God even if his errors are grave; for he did not know they where grave.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

As a former fundamentalist, one of the hardest things I learned to accept is that many intelligent and reasonable people can and will examine all the same facts and come to different conclusions.

Very true. This reminded me of a great mystery, written by Anthony Berkley, the title is “The Poisoned Chocolate’s Case”. Without giving anything away the five people who investigate a murder all come to different conclusions… each one is better and more convincing than the previous one. Very well written story.

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely. There’s no escape from responsibility regardless of what we claim to believe or disbelieve. That in itself is significant evidence that we don’t exist by chance.

You have not explained how we have the power to choose if we are biological computers. Are computers responsible for what they do?