Surely just an opinion, cynical1?
…and not even mine… Sorry…I saw the word skeptic and that came out of the cobwebs…
Not everyone who posts here identifies as sceptic so I’m not sure who we is.
I was doing just that.
Are you asserting that words on a screen are never acceptable as objective evidence of subjective experience?
We? Perhaps you would feel such an obligation. Does everyone?
Allow me to iterate: I was doing so.
Working for whom? BTW, this is a forum designed to focus a/theism, not skepticism.
I’ll re-iterate. That’s what I was doing.
1 Like
Another salient point is the type of claim of course, after all toothache is both objectively and nomologically possible, the most we can say for deities is that they’re epistemically possible.
Of course he also proposed testing how a perception aligns with reality, how it interacts with other perceptions, and whether it has been thoroughly examined. The quote is meant to avoid dogmatic absolutes, to be fair most atheists here seem to avoid such absolutes, not all and not always of course. Nothing wrong with scepticism per se, only absolutes.
Well, the one about running into a house fire wearing polyester is pretty reliable…
Not if you’re trying to set yourself on fire. 
Which would imply you are relying on the absolute. 
1 Like
You’re splitting hairs.
An atheist awaits the presentation of evidence by the theistic claim maker. This position entails a necessary scepticism of the claim by the atheist. So, one cannot be divided from the other. Therefore, the atheists in this forum are necessarily sceptical of the claims made here. As I said earlier, it is the working standard of this forum and not just my opinion.
You’ve practised this necessary scepticism towards my claim. So, your very actions support my contention that scepticism is the working standard of this forum.
Am I asserting that words on a screen are never acceptable as objective evidence of subjective experience?
Perhaps I should follow rat_spits line and say that the words can never do the experience justice?
Then, on that basis the words on a screen fail to do the job.
Strange how he and I, who disagree so much should agree on this.
ANYONE who asks a claim-maker for evidence to support their claim must necessarily be practicing scepticism, even if they don’t think of themselves in these terms.
As mentioned earlier CyberLN… this would include you.
Hello there, fellow sceptic.
If one believes in alien visitations but not in gods are they a sceptic or are they engaging in scepticism about a finite subject?
I think a skeptic is a person inclined to an overall questioning behavior, not one relegated to questioning a single subject. Therefore, I think a person who identifies as atheist doesn’t necessarily engage in scepticism about anything else.
Of course you will hold particular definitions to particular words, as does everyone.
Ah now the word trying, does not suggest an absolute to me..
Maybe I should have been a solicitor or a barrister.
A Hindu can be sceptical of the claims made by a Muslim. A scientist can be sceptical of the claims made by a fellow scientist. A father can be sceptical of a child’s claim to have done their homework.
All of the above are practicing scepticism, even if they don’t think of themselves in those terms.
But in this forum, regardless of what a member calls themselves or what they think of themselves, if they call into question something claimed by someone else (as you did to me) then they are practicing scepticism.
Did you practice scepticism towards my claim, CyberLN?
Yes, you did.
Therefore, like it or not, you were a sceptic when you did that.
Since the calling into question of claims is the working standard of this forum, then it logically follows that ALL of the members doing this were sceptics when they did that. And whenever they do that. And whenever they next do that.
Unless you would like to argue that being sceptical like this doesn’t make a person a sceptic whenever they do it?
We have had a few atheists on here, not many I grant you, that have themselves used absolute claims, and rather than expressing their atheism solely as a doubt, or one of scepticism, expressed it with positive and absolute claims.
Layman’s terms, their claims were as batshit crazy as any theists we’ve seen. I think generally speaking most atheists who stay express a healthy scepticism for claims, but it’s not always the case.
I was waiting for that. If an atheist is a sceptic, then it might not necessarily apply to claims other than theistic ones, as I said we have had some currayzee atheist posters on here.
(20 characters, 20, 20)
I don’t understand what you mean about 20 characters.
I began explaining about a single subject but in my last message I clearly opened the spectrum up to include EVERYONE who calls a claim into question, citing both religious and secular examples.
Whoever does this, regardless of age, creed, sex, ethnicity or any other factor is being a sceptic when they do it.
But now I’ll retype what was a rhetorical question and ask you again, directly.
Did you practice scepticism towards my claim, CyberLN?
Please answer.
A post must contain a minimum of 20 characters. Quotes do not count as characters.
I’ll say it again, using different words. You seem to define anyone who engages in scepticism as a sceptic. I do not.
I take your point to be that a skeptic is someone who practices skepticism broadly across all topics, whereas a person who is skeptical about some specific thing is not necessarily a skeptic in that sense.
Since Young Earth Creationist might come here and be “skeptical” about evolution, but not about his religion’s general truth claims or even its alternative explanations about the origin of species, I would have to agree.
I doubt that Walter would disagree with that point. Over to you, Walter.
2 Likes
Ah, so it’s a matter of choice then?
Just as you’ve chosen to dodge answering my question to you?
I see.
Earlier I commented that I was agreeing with rat_spit, as unlikely as that sounds. But now something even stranger is happening in this thread. Now it feels as if I’m talking to one of the Christians who visit this forum.
When asked a direct question which they realise giving an answer to would would weaken their position, they sometimes dodge it.
I hope that’s not what’s happening here, between us CyberLN?
Summary of Differences
| Type of Skeptic | Core Question Asked | Ultimate Goal |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophical | “Can human beings ever truly know anything for certain?” | To avoid error by suspending judgment. |
| Scientific | “Where is the empirical evidence to support this claim?” | To discover objective, measurable facts. |
| Colloquial | “What is the catch, and why should I believe you?” | To protect oneself from being fooled or cheated. |