Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m sorry that there is no single term to define us in broad strokes or that the word atheist doesn’t go beyond its definition. You’re going to have to deal with us as individuals. Even better, focus on the commonality among atheists (the lack of belief in any gods) and convince us that we are incorrect.

I don’t think anyone is going to convince you that you are incorrect. The problem for you is that you cannot convince yourself that you are correct if you are going to rely on evidence that can’t possibly exist.

 

[Bradski]

The problem for you is that you cannot convince yourself that you are correct if you are going to rely on evidence that can’t possibly exist.

Quite possibly the weirdest argument I’ve heard for some time. And being something of a regular on this forum, that is saying something.

‘There is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible. Therefore I believe that X does not exist. But….as there is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible, I must be wrong in that belief’.

Queue Eee Dee.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, on all those. I’m not going to lay my position on everything. Just be assured that I am more than my atheism.

I don’t doubt that, Mike. The only thing I’m curious about is how you explain the origin of truth, justice, human rights, liberty, equality, fraternity and love. Do they apply to persons on other planets?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Quite possibly the weirdest argument I’ve heard for some time. And being something of a regular on this forum, that is saying something.

‘There is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible. Therefore I believe that X does not exist. But….as there is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible, I must be wrong in that belief’.

Queue Eee Dee.

There is no credible evidence of civilizations on other planets.

Does it follow to you that there are no civilizations on other planets?

I would say you might very well be wrong in that belief, because it is a belief without evidence.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok, atheist describes a part of who you are.
Who are you at your core, if it is not full time atheist?

Just an everyday guy, no one special. With many interests, philosophy is one of them. Games to play, books to read, the Bundesliga fixtures to watch, cooking delicious meals, and many other fun activities. I see those scrupulous people whose whole life revolves around their “afterlife”, who are worried about the “sins” they committed and I feel very sorry for them.

And why are you here to be part-time atheist with Christians who are “all in”, or should be anyway. Whether or not a Christian is all-in, that is the invitation of Christianity: to be all-in for Christ.

Plain, old fashioned interest. I have been Christian a long time ago, until I realized all the contradictions in the faith. Right now I am curious how can people maintain that God is loving and caring, when not only there is no sign of this, but every sign points to total indifference (or worse). To believe that there is someone who was the first cause or a creator is one thing. But to believe that this creator “loves” us is simply mind-boggling. (No need to bring up the “God so loved the world…”, please. Not in this thread anyhow.)

How can there be a discussion between a part time believer and a full time believer? And what’s the point?

It is very difficult. Looking from my side most believers use a special “vocabulary”, where love and hate cannot be separated, where black is white, where erotic love is “evil” if it is separated from procreation. But once in a blue moon there is someone with whom a limited conversation is possible. And it is worth to wait for such a person.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m sorry that there is no single term to define us in broad strokes or that the word atheist doesn’t go beyond its definition. You’re going to have to deal with us as individuals. Even better, focus on the commonality among atheists (the lack of belief in any gods) and convince us that we are incorrect.

I think the commonality may lie more in what Mike’s signature suggests:

Lisa Simpson: They can’t seriously expect us to swallow that tripe!
Principal Skinner: Now, as a special treat courtesy of our friends at the meat council, please help yourselves to this tripe.

It is a part of the human condition that what is real within ourselves can exist only in the imagination of the other, who will understand in whatever way he does.

What does connect us is love.
In understanding someone, we give our mind over to that person, embracing their ideas within our own framework of understanding.
Now, there appears to be something about a belief in God that some find irrational or offensive in some manner.

Let me try to summarize my beliefe:
Love is a transcendent divine Being, who is the Source of all this.
As such He is Beauty, Truth, Goodness and Life eternal.
We exist within the ocean of His compassion.
Caring for one another, we manifest His will.
The consequences of actions motivated by what is not love are to bring us ever further from the truth, from the light, from joy.
As Father, in the Son and through the Holy Spirit, God who is One, omniscient and omnipotent, He is with us always, guiding us back to our Source.

From that basis, all of Catholicism makes sense.

So, I get it, atheists don’t want to be fed this tripe.

 

[Aloysium]

Quite possibly the weirdest argument I’ve heard for some time. And being something of a regular on this forum, that is saying something.

‘There is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible. Therefore I believe that X does not exist. But….as there is no evidence for the existence of X that I find credible, I must be wrong in that belief’.

Queue Eee Dee.

I’m going to be blunt.

What constitutes credibility has to do with the reliability of the source and the consistency of the information with what is otherwise considered fact or truth.
One determines that the world has a certain nature (facts and truth) and that it can be known through specific methodologies (the source of the data).
In accordance with one’s beliefs, everything outside their system, may be consider not credible, whether it is indeed true or not.
Thus we see, that in restricting one’s sources and/or one’s vison of reality, there is every likelihood that one will will reject what would otherwise constitute evidence.

Since there is a God,
that you have not found him means that your understanding of what constitutes reality and how one explores its mysteries (your belief system, in other words) is wrong.
This is why it sounds weird to you - you don’t know what people are talking about.

Beliefs take different forms, but have to do with what one considers true.
A statement about what isn’t, does not address what is reality.
Rather, it simply denies the validity of philosophical, theological frameworks which enable us to see reality.
Many modern atheists appeal to empricism as the possibly sole means of discerning what is real.
It is valid for what it reveals.
However, it is a narrow, precise light that illumines very specific aspects of creation, and nothing of the Transcendent or Divine.
In being a-theisic one reveals oneself to be a mere juggler of ideas, as opposed to a seeker of the truth personally, as it is right here, right now.

To my mind, Atheism isn’t a religion since it does not add anything to one’s understanding of absolute reality.
It is a social phenomenon in which Christian ideas, in particular are denied as being valid.

Again, this rejection of ideas and beliefs
is based solely on the nature of the source and type of evidence that would support those beliefs, and
it contributes nothing to our answering the basic questions of humanity regarding its existence.

 

[clem456]

…
Again, this rejection of ideas and beliefs
is based solely on the nature of the source and type of evidence that would support those beliefs, and
it contributes nothing to our answering the basic questions of humanity regarding its existence.

Thanks for saying it concisely.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is what finally began to bother me about my being an atheist.

That I had entirely dismissed as irrelevant any notions of metaphysical reality just because metaphysics would not submit to the methodology of physics.

How could I even be so certain the laws of physics were so reliable as I had been led to believe?

Physicists kept changing the rules of the game!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That I had entirely dismissed as irrelevant any notions of metaphysical reality just because metaphysics would not submit to the methodology of physics.

As soon as you will be able to provide a reliable, objective, repeatable method to separate true and false propositions about the objective reality, this method will be taken seriously and it will enrich us in pursuing our quest of knowledge. It does NOT need to be based of a litmus-test, or measuring electricity… but it must be objective, repeatable and reliable. Simple, eh? Just give us the method of “supernatural” epistemology, and we shall be all convinced.

Physicists kept changing the rules of the game!

Nonsense. The rules do not change, the hypotheses do.

 

[Bradski]

There is no credible evidence of civilizations on other planets.

Does it follow to you that there are no civilizations on other planets?

I would say you might very well be wrong in that belief, because it is a belief without evidence.

I guess you think that if you repeat the argument, it will sound less inane. Maybe if you used upper case.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t doubt that, Mike. The only thing I’m curious about is how you explain the origin of truth, justice, human rights, liberty, equality, fraternity and love. Do they apply to persons on other planets?

For the most part this is a slight variant to the question every atheist around here gets asked frequently: How do you have morality if it doesn’t come from something beyond humanity?

Previous times I’ve been asked this question I’ve talked about combining the golden rule (a concept by no means exclusive to Christianity) with treating others like equals and not dehumanizing them. I’ve talked about cooperative evolution and how the topic that shall not be named as imparted certain characteristics in most of us to maintain those ideals that you mentioned. I’ve talked about seeing mistakes in our history by taking the perspective of the various participants and find if mistakes were made. I’ve talked about how we as people make choices each day whereby we can choose from various action as well as inaction, and why we should opt for those actions which did the least harm and the most good for all. I’ve even talked about the benefits that a non-religious morality can have over a religious one (namely that if a deity or religious body calls for an immoral act it is far likelier that a non-religious person will act morally than those who are bound to that deity or religious body).

Honestly, I’m not in the mood to go over “where do atheists get their morals” again. Besides it’s not really the topic at hand.

You do bring up an interesting question as to whether aliens would have a morality system like those of humans. The best answer I can shrug is “probably?” There’s a lot of speculation involved. I know that our morality doesn’t match those of non-sentient beings here. Would it make a difference if aliens followed r-selection instead of K-selection? All I could say is that if we could meet up with an alien species that we should err on the side of more as opposed to less rights for them.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t think anyone is going to convince you that you are incorrect. The problem for you is that you cannot convince yourself that you are correct if you are going to rely on evidence that can’t possibly exist.

I think that was a shot, but I can’t make heads or tails of it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think the commonality may lie more in what Mike’s signature suggests:

That quote is about the rationalizing that commonly occurs after errors are pointed out in religious understanding.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think that was a shot, but I can’t make heads or tails of it.

Dive deeper.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As soon as you will be able to provide a reliable, objective, repeatable method to separate true and false propositions about the objective reality, this method will be taken seriously and it will enrich us in pursuing our quest of knowledge.

Just as I said. Another atheist locked into the empirical method and unable to imagine any other.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I guess you think that if you repeat the argument, it will sound less inane. Maybe if you used upper case.

Instead of sarcasm, try some logic. Refute the point that is made, or your dismissal of it will seem lame to everybody but yourself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nonsense. The rules do not change, the hypotheses do.

Try not to be petty.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Just as I said. Another atheist locked into the empirical method and unable to imagine any other.

It is up to you to present an epistemological method, which allows one to separate the true propositions from the false ones. As I said, it does not have to be a physical one. Give us some method to evaluate.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Dive deeper.

Explain better