I don't think scepticism works that way...[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing skepticism with analphabetism.
- Status
I think you are confusing skepticism with analphabetism.
C
Chazwozel
I don't think scepticism works that way...[/QUOTE]
Why not? You don't enjoy reading fiction novels or watching fictional TV shows and movies?
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I don't think scepticism works that way...[/QUOTE]
Why not? You don't enjoy reading fiction novels or watching fictional TV shows and movies?[/QUOTE]
Scepticism isn't hatred for all things paranormal, scepticism is only not believing in stuff in a whim and/or always considering the possibility that something isn't true.
How do you believe in something that's been proven?!
How do you believe in something that's been proven?![/QUOTE]
I guess he's means believeing in accepting it as truth. Sounds illogical? You think he should have said "knowing"?
Ask our dear friends that don't "believe" in evolution. I never see this example in the discussions about this topic on the internet, but I have had atheists tell me evolution is bullshit and that we are not primates. If you can disbelieve stuff that has been scientifically proven, you can also believe it, can't you?
Nothing is ever scientifically proven. There is evidence that supports a given theory but no such thing as proof.
M
makare
I always thought skeptics allowed for the possibility of things but were refraining judgment until there was more proof.
Fence sitters, I call em.
Fence sitters, I call em.
No, a true skeptic can hold beliefs (and should) but allow for the possibility that they are wrong and actively seek more information to disprove (rather than confirm) beliefs, both their own and others. Of course, if something cannot be disproved at all (like ghosts), then the default position is likely to be disbelief.
M
makare
That's pretty much what I said. They refrain from final judgment until there is more proof. Until then they obviously have a belief either way.
Well, my definition can include people who have religious beliefs, as long as they regularly acknowledge (at least to themselves) that their belief may be wrong. I don't see anything noble in having a "final judgment" on things that we can never know for certain. That just seems hard-headed.
I've had too many strange experiences to fully write off paranormal activity... so I guess you could say I believe ghosts exist.
I don't believe in ghosts, but like SJ, I will allow myself occasionally to be afraid of them. Mostly this is for fun (you can only watch so many movies/read so many books before you get spooked at night). I love a good ghost story, especially those purported to be true, and will fully allow myself to become emotionally invested enough to freak myself out. In the cold light of day though? Nothing doing.
Most skeptics I know have absolute faith in their own beliefs and only try to disprove the beliefs of others.[/QUOTE]
That definition skeptic doesn't sit well with me because it means we have to include flat-earthers and intelligent design believers as skeptics, as well as conspiracy theorists since they all are skeptical of something. I don't think someone can adopt the label of Skeptic unless they put their own beliefs under the microscope as well. Everyone is skeptical of something but a skeptic has to doubt everything.
Most skeptics I know have absolute faith in their own beliefs and only try to disprove the beliefs of others.[/QUOTE]
That definition skeptic doesn't sit well with me because it means we have to include flat-earthers and intelligent design believers as skeptics, as well as conspiracy theorists since they all are skeptical of something. I don't think someone can adopt the label of Skeptic unless they put their own beliefs under the microscope as well. Everyone is skeptical of something but a skeptic has to doubt everything.[/QUOTE]
Yet, they call themselves skeptics. Similarly as to how many people call themselves Christian, Muslim, open-minded, democrat, whathaveyou yet they do not hold the same beliefs that come with that label. Can't stop it though.[/QUOTE]
That's very true. I should hope that such people can be debated on the point, though, since they don't have holy writings to support their faith. I'm not dogging on the bible here, it is just not something that be argued about usually, except with scholars. "Because the bible says so" will tend to end a discussion on a given matter.
---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------
Also, this thread needs more comics.
I don't really believe ghost exist but I do believe that there are things that happen that are beyond our current understanding but just cause we don't understand them does not mean they are one thing or another. that being said since there is no proof one way or another I can't say they don't exist but I can say I have my doubts that they exist.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
yay SMBC!Also, this thread needs more comics.
Also a SMBC video
-----
Also Chaz, you should show your friend this:
EDIT: Also, Long post with few words.
THat's pretty much what agnostics are, I think.
THat's pretty much what agnostics are, I think.[/QUOTE]
The best definition I ever heard of a true agnostic is one that is unsure what to believe and is actively seeking to do so. I think many proclaimed agnostics are either apathetic or fence-sitters, though.
Dave
Staff member
I consider myself agnostic. It's not that we're fence sitters as much as reluctant to profess any beliefs that we can't prove. I'm not atheist because I believe that there's a chance for there to be a higher power, I'm just not convinced that ANY Human religion has it right - nor do I think they ever could. This lack of belief in a specific thing does not preclude a complete lack of belief in everything, as an atheist has.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
The more I find out about Buddha, the lesser I think about Jesus.
fade
Staff member
Does one necessarily imply the other?
I'm pretty sure i can prove that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat while i'm hitting you with it...
Or that there's gravity by throwing you off a cliff...
Or evolution if i can observe life for a few million years...
It's just that some hypothesis' and theories are harder to prove then others.
fade
Staff member
A theory explains observations. In the first case, the theory--unprovable but supportable would explain why the bat hit your face without going through.
The second, you've observed that things fall down. You can theorize that it's due to an action-at-a-distance force called gravity, which is due to the amount of matter in an object.
The second, you've observed that things fall down. You can theorize that it's due to an action-at-a-distance force called gravity, which is due to the amount of matter in an object.
I'm pretty sure i can prove that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat while i'm hitting you with it...
Or that there's gravity by throwing you off a cliff...
Or evolution if i can observe life for a few million years...
It's just that some hypothesis' and theories are harder to prove then others.[/QUOTE]
The first one isn't a theory. The second two are, but you cannot prove they are due to gravity or evolution, only that your specific predictions that you derived from them came to pass. Something else could make nearly identical predictions. If other explanations still exist (and they always do) then you've proved nothing.
Agnostic here. True agnosticism is not "fence-sitting", it's the belief that whatever you're agnostic about is unknowable, unprovable. The clever among you will have noticed this means you could actually be agnostic and still religious. Which is why I consider myself Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. I don't really belief a deity exists, but I'm not arrogant enough to KNOW for certain. My position is that it's irrelevant. If there's any sort of Prime Mover it is quite beyond our comprehension, ergo meaningless for our every day lives.
I'm quite sure I know just about the same about any sort of deity than the Pope or any other religious leader on this planet, though. When it comes to established religions and deities, yes, I'm 100% atheistic.
I'm quite sure I know just about the same about any sort of deity than the Pope or any other religious leader on this planet, though. When it comes to established religions and deities, yes, I'm 100% atheistic.
I'm pretty sure i can prove that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat while i'm hitting you with it...
Or that there's gravity by throwing you off a cliff...
Or evolution if i can observe life for a few million years...
It's just that some hypothesis' and theories are harder to prove then others.[/QUOTE]
The first one isn't a theory. The second two are, but you cannot prove they are due to gravity or evolution, only that your specific predictions that you derived from them came to pass. Something else could make nearly identical predictions. If other explanations still exist (and they always do) then you've proved nothing.[/QUOTE]
It's my theory that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat...
And i was talking about the simpler notion of proving that there is a force pulling you towards the earth (gravity) or that animals turn into other species through tiny changes over time as opposed to the more complex notions of what the exact mechanisms are. Though i guess you could say those are now facts and not theory... still, you can scientifically prove stuff, even if you might not call it theory then (as apparently the greeks wouldn't have: Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I'm pretty sure i can prove that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat while i'm hitting you with it...
Or that there's gravity by throwing you off a cliff...
Or evolution if i can observe life for a few million years...
It's just that some hypothesis' and theories are harder to prove then others.[/QUOTE]
The first one isn't a theory. The second two are, but you cannot prove they are due to gravity or evolution, only that your specific predictions that you derived from them came to pass. Something else could make nearly identical predictions. If other explanations still exist (and they always do) then you've proved nothing.[/QUOTE]
It's my theory that i'm hitting you in the face with a baseball bat...
And i was talking about the simpler notion of proving that there is a force pulling you towards the earth (gravity) or that animals turn into other species through tiny changes over time as opposed to the more complex notions of what the exact mechanisms are. Though i guess you could say those are now facts and not theory... still, you can scientifically prove stuff, even if you might not call it theory then (as apparently the greeks wouldn't have: Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)[/QUOTE]
Making an observation is not proving anything. When you say something is proven, there has to be a thing that you are referring to that is proven. Those things are theories. In your link to the wikipedia article on Theory, "proven" appears twice and in both cases it is in reference to things being proven false. We can demonstrate a theory is unworkable (false) or we can maintain that a theory still works with our observations, however a given theory should never be said to be true.
Ultimately, there is a difference between pragmatism and proof. Einstein showed that Newton's theory of gravity was not entirely correct but we still use it since it is still pragmatic to discuss gravity in Newtonian terms. Einstein's theory of gravity will likely be falsified as well at some point, since it has inconsistencies with quantum mechanics. Something will come along that works better than general relativity, though perhaps general relativity will still have its uses as well, even it is has been shown to be false.
I think a lot of hard core religious types have probably forgotten that passage...
M
makare
The bible has changed form a lot over the years. I wouldn't get too excited Calleja.
- Status