I'm now a skeptic

[mirror93]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

[Matthew Ellard]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

Skeptics can't show you to a non-religious way of life. All Skeptics can do is listen to a claim and then assess the evidence.

I think what you are saying is that : You can see the advantages of adopting the scientific method when it comes to assessing data and claims.

[mirror93]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

Skeptics can't show you to a non-religious way of life. All Skeptics can do is listen to a claim and then assess the evidence.

I think what you are saying is that : You can see the advantages of adopting the scientific method when it comes to assessing data and claims.

yeah, I expressed myself wrong

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

A religious way of life has a lot going for it. The validity of the underlying belief system has little to do with that.

As Dr Phil so often instructively says: "Do you want to be happy......or do you want to be right."

NOT a scientific question at all.

[Gord]

I think we should all be non-duelists.

[scrmbldggs]

.

[Gord]

You'll put your eye out!

[Poodle]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

What changed your mind, mirror93?

[mirror93]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

What changed your mind, mirror93?

it doesn't make sense anymore.
I was blind but now I see, evolution is true
so yeah.

[Austin Harper]

You once were lost but now you are found?

[mirror93]

Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.
that's why

[Gord]

Aude, igitur, esse semper idem.

[Nikki Nyx]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

There's a lot to be said for the comfort of religion; it offers an answer to everything without worries. But it cannot be that security blanket while also being factual, and therein lies the problem for the skeptic.

Having always been an apatheist, I never had to experience the emotional change-over you're going through...and it must be extremely difficult, Mirror. I have a great deal of empathy for you. Not only have you changed from believer to skeptic, but theist was actually your way of life, since you were a preacher. If I may, I'd like to make a few suggestions.

Don't blame yourself for your previous beliefs. We are all, at the end of the day, only human. We all make mistakes. I've certainly made my share! And still do. The trick is to learn from our mistakes, move forward without continuing to blame ourselves, and not repeat the same errors.

Don't completely trash your previous beliefs. While quite a lot of negativity has originated from organized religion, faith, in and of itself, has inspired greatness around the world and across cultures. Towering gothic cathedrals. Islamic mosques with intricate, handmade mosaics. The pyramids and stone circles of the world. Handel's Messiah and Bach's Mass in B Minor. Medieval icons. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Even an atheist feels awe at experiencing these accomplishments.

Recognize the historicity of religion and myth. It's endlessly fascinating, the ideas that we created to explain natural phenomena prior to science. And those ideas were valuable in their times and places, and still valuable to us now, because they help us to learn about those times and places. Without them, history would be a blank page to us.

Most of all, be at peace with the choice you've made. It will require you to be more self-reliant, knowing that the universe is random, not planned. Revel in the idea that there are unanswered questions; this is not something to fear, but something to rejoice in, because it means there are still things to discover. And enjoy this earthly life! It's pretty damn awesome, even when looked at through the lens of science. Science doesn't detract from the beauty of a rainbow, or the deep awe of a meteor shower. In fact, I happen to think that knowing how these phenomena occur make them even more amazing. Carpe diem et noctem, my friend.

[Monster]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

If you're happy, I'm happy.

[OlegTheBatty]

You'll put your eye out!

Mom never said anything about duelling. With her, it was always "don't run with scissors, you'll put your eye out."

Not a word about duelling.

[Gord]

Really? My mom warned me about duelling on no less than three separate occasions.

Luckily, I was born with five eyes, so I still have two left.

[OlegTheBatty]

Why would she warn you after you put an eye out. Did she hate you?

[Gord]

Well, if she didn't, I have no idea why she kept poking me in the eye with a rapier.

[OlegTheBatty]

No wonder she didn't want you duelling while she was soloing.

[Cygnus_X1]

Skeptics showed me the non-religious way to life. i was a non-dualist preacher, now I'm free from all religious trash. I'm now a new member of la skeptic famiglia.

I hope Placid, Relinquish95, Shaka, Gorgeous and some other clowns also set themselves free of their false religious dogmas.

You are confusing skepticism with atheism...or 'non religiousness'. The two are not the same, and not necessarily even connected. I know of atheists who believe the world is flat, or that the planet Nibiru exists.

Being a sceptic simply means questioning everything. I doesn't mean you have no beliefs...it means that you recognise that whatever beliefs you do have may be irrational, biased, or whatever, and that humans are complex beings who are quite capable of being 100% rational on everything except their pet belief....and maybe we shouldn't be quite so eager to beat the last vestige of comfort rag out of people.

In my books its OK to believe in crazy things....just as long as you are prepared to concede that they are crazy.

[Gord]

In my books its OK to believe in crazy things....just as long as you are prepared to concede that they are crazy.

Dude, that's so crazy it just might pork! I think that's the saying. That's the saying, right?

[mirror93]

This was the best decision I've ever made!!!!! UHU!

[Phoenix76]

As aforesaid, atheism is not skepticism.

Atheism, as I have light heartedly put previously, is not believing in a god, the devil, or other things that go bump in the night. But skepticism is the rational questioning of beliefs tended by others.

A skeptic does not necessarily disbelieve everything. In fact, once a skeptic has asked the questions and evaluated the responses, he/she may well believe in god, for example. I believe that a skeptic must rationalise the evidence put forth, and then, perhaps, make a decision as to belief or not.

As I see it, the only similarities between atheists and skeptics, is that the atheist does not believe in anything supernatural, whereas a skeptic, after thorough consideration of the evidence available, may well come to believe in the existence of a god,or some other mystic being. It is not cut and dried.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

A skeptic believing in God? ====== Not skeptical enough.

[Lance Kennedy]

As I have said before, it is important to know what kind of skeptic you are. The word skeptic simply means one who doubts. There are philosophical skeptics who doubt everything, whether that doubt is justified or not. I am a scientific skeptic who is focussed on evidence. I judge beliefs on the evidence, and I judge the evidence by whether it is credible, objective, and empirical. In other words, whether it stacks up to the scientific concept of good evidence.

[xouper]

As I have said before, it is important to know what kind of skeptic you are. The word skeptic simply means one who doubts. There are philosophical skeptics who doubt everything, whether that doubt is justified or not. I am a scientific skeptic who is focussed on evidence. I judge beliefs on the evidence, and I judge the evidence by whether it is credible, objective, and empirical. In other words, whether it stacks up to the scientific concept of good evidence.

Well said. I do the same thing. We have something in common.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I'm not a skeptic. I'm a pragmatist. "If it works..........close enough." I don't really care why. If it doesn't work, I don't really care why.

Now, if there's time to think about it, or just for grins, then some kind of analysis can take place. ALL the evidence, sorted weighed and compared. Nothing need be "believed in" or accepted or rejected. Just: if you want A..... then do B and C. When D works better than C, you start using D.

Simple. Eg: God may exist or not, but Prayer has never worked, so I don't use it. What to do with guns, AGW, fat in your diet, micro-nutrients etc? Literature search and take the majority view. When D becomes the majority view, replace C with it. Truth is the truth...........or does it simply work?

[Poodle]

That looks to me as though you are equating a majority view with the truth, bobbo. Surely not? Not even for a pragtising pragmatist.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Well, I failed. I was trying to say "the truth" was practically/in reality not really the issue. What works is what is important as is the search for same. EG: flat maps are not the truth, but they work, so they are used. Same with Newtonian Physics. And what is experimentation except finding out what works? We like to think it is the truth that is "driving" the reality we see, but our appreciation of it is by finding what works, which may or may not be the truth: it doesn't even matter.

But....close enough: the majority view (of those qualified to have an opinion) is at every point in time the best guess we have and is most likely the truth/what will work. It doesn't bother me at all for instance if we note ulcers first had the majority view that it was caused by stress.......but that answer didn't work for too many people, so the subject continued to be looked at. Today, the truth is microbes....and that will last until the next truth comes along.

I posted years ago that I believe in AGW because 97% of qualified scientist do. Utterly stupid or worse to thing otherwise................but............if that position falters and a new consensus forms around Unicorns causing GW, then that is what I will think. I will be right more often than wrong "most" of the time.

Ha, ha.........this is all about the material world. Sadly, I suspect "the truth" as it may be variously appreciated for emotional and values laden issues is more often found in minority opinions. I guess this follows from most of the harms in this world being caused by the majority? Ha, ha...........nice fit there.

Let me rephrase the offense: "Truth is the truth but it is found by what works." It is definitional on all levels.

[Poodle]

OK - that's better, bobbo. I see your point and it is, to a great extent, correct - ever closer approximation does work for a great number of purposes. It's practical - but nothing upon which to rest your laurels. "Things run in families" was a general truism, but stopping there would never have led to the medical advances granted by genetic research. Religion gave us stable societies but would have left us in the Dark Ages in all other ways. Basic atomic theory gave us the thermionic valve, but it took quantum theory to give us solid state electronics and, hence, our ability to have this conversation in this form at this speed.
I agree that 'close enough' works probably 99% of the time. It's that last one per cent which gives us breakthroughs.

[Lance Kennedy]

I doubt that religion gave us stable societies. In terms of the highest percentage of the population killed in war, the thirty year war was the worst ever experienced in Europe. It was fighting between Catholics and Protestants.

I agree with Bobbo that the majority of experts will most often be the correct answer. Of course, when we talk of experts, we are not talking of philosophers or clergy.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

It's practical - but nothing upon which to rest your laurels.

I like that. aka: what works needs to be kept working on.

Religion gave us stable societies but would have left us in the Dark Ages in all other ways.

I don't like that and will second Lance's comment and also note that it wasn't religion or the antipathy or the dispute among it that caused the Dark Ages. Ha, ha..............what caused the Dark Ages seems to be in ascendance right now from all the talk about political "tribalism" I hear right now. Small scale vs Large scale.......then you cross the Rubicon as with Best Korea right now. So many changes, so much never does.

[Lance Kennedy]

My view is that the Dark Ages were not "caused" by anything. After all, they were a continuation of what went before. Normally the Dark Ages are dated as starting with the fall of the Roman Empire. But the technology, art and culture of the various societies of the Dark Ages were pretty much on a par with the Romans. (With one major exception. The loss of the knowledge of how to make concrete.)

The real question is why there was no measurable technological progress. My answer is that it was a mixture of the inhibiting influence of the Catholics, plus the devotion to the teachings of the ancient Greeks, and the lack of willingness to challenge anything they had written. There were not enough skeptics around.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Hmmmm....you directly contradicted what I posted............... and I think you are right. Ha, ha=====>it all comes down to that concrete. No big splendid cities for a couple of centuries....but I like the subtlety of the Dark Ages reaching the same complexity and simply failing to progress. That deserves the label as much as what I thought before which is some kind of decline.............so thanks.

[Poodle]

The Dark Ages, eh? That was probably the most stable period ever in the history of Europe. Got a good idea? - prepare to be burned! Stable doesn't necessarily mean good - in societal terms it also means stagnant. The only majority view which counted was that of the church, and the church was not renowned for its liberal attitude toward the truth.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Ok.........I'm back to thinking the Dark Ages (as defined: a stagnation and lack of progress due to the stultifying nature of a culturally entrenched religious power system) was caused by Religion. My original thought was identifying the Dark Ages AS the fall of Rome which was caused by tribalism and people wanting what other people had: land, women, riches, and slaves. .............. but while both threads were in play, I think the religious one has a bit more depth to it....... and its hard to be more stable than concrete. It gets harder the more it ages....until it crumbles. Kinda a contest there between chemistry and weathering.

[Cadmusteeth]

I find it safe to say that the authoritarian nature of religion was a big part of it.

[Lance Kennedy]

The Dark Ages lasted over a thousand years. If it was merely the fall of one empire, I am inclined to think the recovery time would have been faster.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

The Dark Ages lasted over a thousand years. If it was merely the fall of one empire, I am inclined to think the recovery time would have been faster.

Are you intending to agree or disagree............with what???

Why not two step it? Dark Ages initiated by the Fall of Rome the one Empire that lead everything else, and RECOVERY was prevent by Religion.

Simple.

[Lance Kennedy]

Not disagreeing, Bobbo.