Are atheism and skepticism mutually exclusive?

[Steven]

This discussion started in the Introductions thread and I thought it deserved a thread of its own. I've copied and pasted the first few exchanges and who wrote them. Here is a link to the original discussion: http://ummash.org/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

cold says:
"I have one question:
At the top of this page a banner sits that says "Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists"
I would resemble myself to a skeptic, so what may I ask is the comparison between an Atheist and a skeptic, and that of a Christian and a skeptic?
Aren't we just choosing sides here? Skeptics aren't buddies with atheists, atheists have the same crazy beliefs as Christians only opposite!
Go ask Micheal Shermer of skeptic magazine, atheism is fundamentally no different then Christianity."

Katie says:
"About your question Tom, a skeptic is a person who questions claims, and examines evidence carefully before coming to a decision. Being an atheist, and being a skeptic aren't mutually exclusive.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that 'not having an affirmative belief in god' is a 'crazy belief', on par with other religions?

Atheism comes from the Greek word Atheos meaning 'without theism'. Theism meaning an affirmative belief in a deity. It doesn't, unlike many people say, mean 'dogmatic belief that god/s don't exist, no matter what the evidence says'."

steve coutts says:
"I would say that atheism is the logical "conclusion" of being skeptical. As Katie says, "a skeptic is a person who questions claims, and examines evidence carefully before coming to a decision". I don't think anyone can ever be 100% atheist and say "I know there is no god" because we can never fully rule out anything until we have all the evidence (which we will probably never have). However the absence of evidence in this case says that god's existence is very unlikely. So while we must technically be agnostic about such things (like fairies or unicorns) in that we can never know anything for certain, we can in practice be atheist. I tend to say I am an atheist to convey the fact that I have looked at the evidence (or lack thereof) and have come to the conclusion that god's existence is unlikely. If new evidence (and it would have to be proper scientific evidence) was discovered that without a doubt showed that god exists, I would change my mind. I somehow doubt that a theist would be so open to changing his mind.

Appealing to authority is no way to win an argument. Besides I highly doubt Michael Shermer would make such a sweeping generalization."

cold says:
"You cannot say there is no god, you simply can't prove it and there are certainly enough things unsolved in this universe to warrant a belief in god. If you are calling yourself an atheist, you are saying that you believe there is no god, you can't split hairs here. If you are an atheist, you are certainly not a skeptic that's like having your cake and eating it too. I'm sure a Christian would love to say "yea I'm a christian, but I'm still a skeptic too", I'm sure we'd all have a laughing fit over that, but when someone say "I guarantee there is no god, but I still am skeptical",.. well I hafta laugh at that."

Katie says:
"Well, you either have a belief that there is a god, or you don't have a belief that there is a god. Agnosticism isn't really a 'mid-point' in the debate because Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a statement regarding knowledge, and Theism/Atheism is a statement regarding belief. Those are two very different things.

It can be compared to the quadrants of an X, Y axis, more than a straight line. People's beliefs can be divided into these four quadrants.

Gnostic Theist- I know that God exists.
Agnostic Theist- I can't say for sure whether or not God exists, but I believe in it.
Agnostic Atheist- I don't know whether or not God exists, but I see no reason to believe in it.
Gnostic Atheist- I know that God doesn't exist.

The problem is that religion, and the three Abrahamic ones in particular, are put on a higher ground. It's perfectly fine for a skeptic to say that they don't believe in ghosts, or fairies, because in our society, only crazy new-agers believe that. No one would chastise us for stating that we don't believe in the gods of Ancient Egypt, or the old Norse gods. So why should we hesitate so much about newer gods that are quite equivalent? If they want us to believe in these gods, or seriously entertain the possibility, then they should back up their claims. People would ask for some proof of any other extraordinary claim."

[Steven]

1)You cannot say there is no god, you simply can't prove it and 2)there are certainly enough things unsolved in this universe to warrant a belief in god. 3)If you are calling yourself an atheist, you are saying that you believe there is no god, you can't split hairs here. If you are an atheist, you are certainly not a skeptic that's like having your cake and eating it too. I'm sure a Christian would love to say "yea I'm a christian, but I'm still a skeptic too", I'm sure we'd all have a laughing fit over that, but when someone say "I guarantee there is no god, but I still am skeptical",.. well I hafta laugh at that.

Tom

1)For the record I never said "there is no god"; I simply said it seems very unlikely given that no one has been able to produce any evidence for his existence. So, do you also believe in fairies and invisible pink unicorns? We can't disprove those either, but are you prepared to say that you think there is a 50-50 chance of them existing?

2)This is called the "god of the gaps". Whenever we can't explain anything, we say god must have done it. But what about people hundreds of years ago not being able to explain lightning or disease or any number of natural phenomena? As science explains more and more, god it would seem has fewer places to hide. I'm not saying we will someday know all there is to know, but automatically attributing that which we don't understand to god makes no sense and actually stops people from wanting to investigate further.

3)I think we are getting bogged down in semantics here. I also think there are degrees to everything. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but for the sake of argument I will say that I am technically agnostic, but lean heavily towards god's non-existence. So I live my everyday life under the premise that god most likely doesn't exist and so am an atheist in practice. There are many things that could possibly exist, but just as I don't half-expect to see a unicorn walking down the street, I also don't half-expect that god is going to strike me down with a bolt of lightning.

[X]

There is a subtle difference between believing there is no god, and not believing there is a god.

The former is commonly referred to as hard, or strong atheism.

The latter would represent myself, and a large majoriy of other atheists.  It asserts, as Steve has posted, that there simply is not enough evidence to convince us that a gos, or gods, or whatever alternative you may find comforting, exists.

Being an atheist, therefore, does not rule out skepticism but instead embraces it.

Link to Religious Tolerance definitions of atheist.

[cold]

Hi all

Thankyou X for broadening my understanding of atheism, I was unaware of strong vs weak atheism. It certainly puts things into perspective.

So everyone seems to be on the same page then, we can neither prove nor disprove gods existence. The chances are we never will be able to prove it, so what's next? We go and have parties, celebrating the fact that we don't know whether there is a god in the universe? We book rooms and have meetings about it?

I stumbled into this sorta thinking about 4 years ago and haven't looked back, I no longer discuss religion with anybody, and as long as no one is preaching to me, I don't have an issue.

What is left to discuss exactly?

Tom

p.s. I was sorta thinkin about joining a youth group or something and pretending to be a believer for a year or something, kind of an undercover thing,..just to fuck with people yea know?

[Steven]

Hi Tom,

Atheism itself isn't anything beyond a rejection of belief in god. Obviously, one can't build a group solely around not believing in something. But using atheism as a starting point, we can adopt a secular humanist approach and get involved in all sorts of causes. We atheists/agnostics/skeptics have a reputation for being very negative and I think one of our aims should be to amend this perception. I actually think that atheism is life-affirming in that it shows us that this is the only life there is and we have to make the most of it and do our best to make it better for everyone. From this many things follow. I happen to think scientific education is a very important example of something that improves our lives and I hope one of the purposes of our group will be to promote scientific understanding by having discussions and hosting speakers on a wide array of topics. But beyond those loftier goals, hopefully this group will end up being a similar kind of social network to what religious people have, where one can simply meet and talk with like-minded people.

I found this article by Michael Shermer which talks about some of the things I've said. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=423C1809-E7F2-99DF-384721C9252B924A&pageNumber=1&catID=2&colId=13

[Katie]

Sure, it seems kind of odd to have a specifically 'atheists' group, but we can do more than talk about religious topics.

For example, on our meeting on the 4th, we went to go see a Chemistry lecture about dating methods and other ways that chemists interact with archeology.

I believe our next meeting has the president of the Humanists Association of Manitoba coming in for a talk.

So, we can talk about science, we can talk about philosophy, we can talk about whatever.

It's also good to just find a student group where you're likely to get along with other people. Most of the other student groups are either academic, ethnic, or religious based. If you just want a place where you can come, hang out, and talk about topics that don't revolve around studying for a specific field, or talking about 'God's love', then this would be a pretty good place.

About your undercover idea, I like it! I think I would get too frustrated after a few weeks, and find better stuff to do with my time. But, if you're free every Wednesday evening (or whenever they have youth groups these days), then I would go join a really crazy one, like 'The Meeting Place' downtown. My brother in law went there during his early 20s, and he said that it was like talking to a brick wall to these people about science and philosophy.

[cold]

I c I c.

All skeptical things apart, I really want to know what makes religious aficionados tick. I think if we can begin to understand why they believe what they believe, we can maybe push a more logical agenda onto there plate. Michael Shermer has a great book dedicated to this (why people believe weird things). I think if people were forced to read this book when they were young, religion would not exist as it does today.

Katie I went to the meeting place on and off for about 2 years back in the day, it's pretty intense. They had smoke shows and laser lights, it was a real production. Unfortunately, 2 of my brothers still attend and they would be on to me in a heart beat.

I was thinking something even crazier, are you familiar with springs church on lagimodiere? They kick people out with cancer because they say that if you contract cancer you have been sinning to much. The place is a total cult, designed to make tons of money, the people that go there are total fruit loops, I'm sure it would fun.

Tom

[X]

1st Point:  Cold; you're welcome.


2nd Point:  Regarding this undercover idea, I'd like to ask all who contemplate this to think carefully about their purposes behind doing so.  Going to bolster one's ego is morally questionable.  Going to get an understanding/appreciation of why people believe this stuff is fine.  Just don't go around witnessing to them about your beliefs.  They have theirs, you have yours.  Belief is the kind of thing people have to change for themselves, and to do that they need to want to change.

However, this is only my opinion based on my personal understanding of things at present.  It could change with new evidence/ideas. It could be right.  It could be wrong.  It could be different.  You are not obligated to heed it, nor will I hold it against you if you do not.  You are entitled to be your own person, accountable only to those whom your actions affect.

[cold]

Hey X

I fully understand the ramifications of this endeavor. It is a witnessing event solely, I would never try to change someone's belief. People believe things for various reasons, and to try and change that is 'morally questionable'.  In general people only change on account of themselves not on something someone else says.

Perhaps something even more challenging, and would certainly require planning would be to infiltrate a scientology group.

Tom

[brian]

I live close to springs and from what I hear it is a really nice big building filled with crazy people.  I think you have to pay them a lot of money, or they expect you to donate a lot or something, so that might be an issue.  Personally, I would probably go nuts from all the crazy floating around.

But closer to the original topic, I think we can sort of disprove the existence of god just by looking at the origin of religious theories.  For example, we can disprove the FSM just by looking at the fact that it is a bunch of stuff made up by a 25 year old out of work physics major protesting (un)Intelligent Design.  It shouldn't be too difficult for us to realize that something that is made up by people who don't have a lot of credibility to begin with (flat earth, evolution, etc.) with no scientific evidence to back it up (and part of their story even contradicts scientific evidence) is a load of crap.  Personally, I feel confident enough in the nonexistence of god to say "god does not exist."

Also, I agree with Steve that atheism can be life-affirming.  I get to sleep in on Sundays, eat bacon (well, personally I like the tofu bacon substitute), not wear funny hats, and try to enjoy my life and help others enjoy theirs instead of wasting it trying to score points with the big guy for the false promise of eternal rewards.  As long as no one mentions Pascal's wager, I'm ok 

[X]

Cold:  I figured that.  But being posted on a public forum, it had the chance of being read and (mis)interpreted by any number of other interests.  If MASH wishes to be respected in a world with a largely anti-atheist public sentiment,  it would be wise to consider the potential ramifications of how we present ourselves.
Stating our beliefs outright is one thing.
Attempting to be subversive for kicks is another.
Really, it's not intended to you specifically, but it provided a good example I decided to use for a general point.

I'm not going to comment on the Scientology idea, except to say it would lead to much ridiculing, which is  a direction I'd rather not head.


Brian:  Refuting Pascal's wager is fairly simple.  Just add another column for every god humanity has worshipped, and make the appropriate consequences.  Remember, those faiths believed every bit as fervently as the Christian one to which Pascal's wager is normally applied.
There is also Culberson's Challenge, published in the summer 2002 Atheist Alliance newsletter.
Or, you could simply Google "Refuting Pascal's Wager" and come up with a whole host of insightful arguments such as this piece, or this one to give you the first two results.

Happy Thanksgiving all,
~X

edit:  fixed my clumsy hyperlinking.

[Katie]

Well, if The Meeting Place is out, then I suppose that a place like Springs Church would be good, if it's close enough to you. There's also Calvary Temple downtown, and Church of the Rock (near McGillivary) that might be a bit on the crazy side. Or, there's always that Pentecostal one near Lindenwoods.

Oddly enough, I pass by the Winnipeg chapter of The Church of Scientology every week when I go record shopping, and/or to a concert at the Garrick.

My only concern with Scientology is that they're more likely to ask you for money upfront for things such as a Dianetics book, and maybe expect you to enroll in some courses. At the larger evangelistic churches, you can melt into the crowd a bit easier. If you want to actually talk to the preachers, it might get a bit more fishy.

Again, I also know that this is all for a learning experience, and not for belief pushing. Besides, it's nearly impossible for one person to take on a congregation full of people on a 'Jesus high'. It won't work. In a church setting, they have too much validation that their beliefs are correct to even listen to a person with differing views.

But, it would be an excellent feature if we were to print out a monthly newsletter (just throwing it out...).

Knowing that new information about Springs Church though makes it kind of creepy that the Winnipeg Sun features it so much (yet kind of predictable).

[brian]

Well, my mention of Pascal's wager was pretty much tongue in cheek, as Pascal's wager is a pretty stupid argument to begin with for all sorts of reasons.  Plus, when you believe that god does not exist, the whole wager goes out the window.

A newsletter would be a cool idea though...

[Steven]

Pascal's wager is really only an argument for pretending to believe in god. I don't know about anyone else but I certainly can't make myself believe in something. It's amazing how many people seriously advance it as a good argument for believing in god. Like what's so great about belief? Is god almighty so insecure that he needs us all to believe in him?

[brian]

Pascal's wager is really only an argument for pretending to believe in god. I don't know about anyone else but I certainly can't make myself believe in something. It's amazing how many people seriously advance it as a good argument for believing in god. Like what's so great about belief? Is god almighty so insecure that he needs us all to believe in him?

He also needs money