Is Skepticism Logical?

[There Is]

So I have to ask, because this has been a recent topic of debate over at the Skeptic's Society.

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?

Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?

Between choosing to label the idea of there being no God insane, or the idea that everything's possible despite all contradictions (even contradictions made logical) insane,

Which is more insane in your opinion?

Skeptical Atheist mindset vs. Everything's Possible mindset?

If you can give further detail on why, please do. ;)

[Baphomet]

As long as your not so skeptical that you don't believe anything and are really paranoid, I think it's best to remain skeptic...

Of course, that's just my opinion, feel free to remain skeptical about it.

[RenaissanceMan]

Scepticism is just one of the tools of logic. You should ALWAYS be asking if things seem reasonable to you. At the same time... it's a good idea to inventory your tool set once in a while, as well.

[There Is]

Scepticism is just one of the tools of logic. You should ALWAYS be asking if things seem reasonable to you. At the same time... it's a good idea to inventory your tool set once in a while, as well.
The reason I bring this up is I've heard Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this. :rolleyes:

[RenaissanceMan]

Atheism is a school of thought based on the concept that there is ONLY the natural world. Theism is a school of thought based on the concept that there is a super-natural world that cannot be manipulated by those in the natural world.

Religon is generally defined as a specific set of theistic beliefs. There are many religions.

Atheism uses science to define the natural world. As things are observed, studied, and understood... the known natural world expands. Note that even that which is not known can still be true... just not known.

[AGENT-ADAIR]

Skeptism is natural, you're naturally a skeptic.

You question, that is what man does.

Being normal isnt insane, at least to me it isnt.

[Hacim Nosretep]

Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this.
IMHO, the steadfast lack of faith that you describe is, in fact, almost exactly as you have heard it said. I state this because there is a tiny chance that some form of god exists. For instance, God could've been all like, "you know what? I is gonna create a universe in which everything looks like it might have just happened!" Since we have no discorporeal proof - that is, proof that somehow resides outside the universal membrane, we cannot categorically state that there is no god, the same way we cannot state that there is. Logic, rationale, even existence itself are artificial concepts, the feeble kickings of legos trying to comprehend the Raptoid Castle (R).

[seeker421]

So I have to ask, because this has been a recent topic of debate over at the Skeptic's Society.

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?
Take that arguement to it's conclusion. Logically following that line of reasoning would lead one to argue that everyone who doesn't believe in that imagined entity in the exact way you believe in him isn't logical.
Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?
Again carry this reasoning out to it's logical conclusion. Is it logical to expect Santa Claus every Christmas or to remove your teeth and hide them under your pillow when you need money?

Between choosing to label the idea of there being no God insane, or the idea that everything's possible despite all contradictions (even contradictions made logical) insane,
Here's where things get a little fuzzy. Is believing in things that are completely illogical insane? If so then most people would fall under this definition. I would say that atheists tend to be more logical than theists but not necessarily saner.

[kmisho]

As far as atheism being a religion, I'm sure most of you have heard this one:

Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hairstyle.

[calpurnpiso]

Yes, skepticism is logical, and sign of a healthy brain. The absence of skepticism appears ONLY in defective brains whose neural network has lost the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Skepticism can be lost by: the use of psychoactive drugs, fever, apoxya, alzheimers, religious-psychosis and other forms of mental illness....:)

[theguy]

Scepticism is just one of the tools of logic. You should ALWAYS be asking if things seem reasonable to you. At the same time... it's a good idea to inventory your tool set once in a while, as well.
The reason I bring this up is I've heard Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this. :rolleyes:
By name, Atheism is a category of religion, just like Monotheism and Polytheism.

[Tenspace]

Scepticism is just one of the tools of logic. You should ALWAYS be asking if things seem reasonable to you. At the same time... it's a good idea to inventory your tool set once in a while, as well.
The reason I bring this up is I've heard Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this. :rolleyes:
By name, Atheism is a category of religion, just like Monotheism and Polytheism.
Yep. Just like black is a color, bald is a hair color, and health is a form of disease. :)

[calpurnpiso]

Scepticism is just one of the tools of logic. You should ALWAYS be asking if things seem reasonable to you. At the same time... it's a good idea to inventory your tool set once in a while, as well.
The reason I bring this up is I've heard Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this. :rolleyes:
By name, Atheism is a category of religion, just like Monotheism and Polytheism.
Obviously you are ignorant of the etyology of the word ATHEISM. To educate you in its meaning. Atheism come from the Latin prefix "A" which means WITHOUT and THEOS which means GOD. Cicero was the first person to introduce the word ATHEOS to the LAtin language. The GREEK extension on words of "ISM" actually means SYSTEM, THEORY etc.

So, atheism simply means a LACK of BELIEF in: retarded idiocies, supernatural fairy tales, puerile fantasies, idiotic delusions etc. Also an atheos is a NOGOD person...So, believing atheism is a 'category of religion" simply shows amazing ignorance or of course Christ-psychosis infection. Along the mental illness of Christianity there is ALWAYS intellectual turpitude. As a fever is a sign of infection. Ignorance is usually a sign of Christ-psychosis infection. Atheism means: A=WITHOUT, THEOS=GOD, ISM=SYSTEM...ergo...WITHOUT GOD SYSTEM or WITHOUT a BELIEF SYSTEM..or....simply LACK OF BELIEF.

FYI, monotheism means: MONO=ONE, THEOS=GOD, ISM=SYSTEM...ergo..,it means ONE GOD SYSTEM or, the belief in ONE god.

Polytheism means: POLY=MANY, THEOS=GOD, ISM=SYSTEM. MANY GODS SYSTEM or, the belief in many gods.....please LAND...:)

[There Is]

Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this.
IMHO, the steadfast lack of faith that you describe is, in fact, almost exactly as you have heard it said. I state this because there is a tiny chance that some form of god exists. For instance, God could've been all like, "you know what? I is gonna create a universe in which everything looks like it might have just happened!" Since we have no discorporeal proof - that is, proof that somehow resides outside the universal membrane, we cannot categorically state that there is no god, the same way we cannot state that there is. Logic, rationale, even existence itself are artificial concepts, the feeble kickings of legos trying to comprehend the Raptoid Castle (R).
So you conclude that everything's possible, even the possibility that nothing's possible? :/

[AGENT-ADAIR]

Atheism is a religion, because it requires people to believe the non-existence of God when one has no proof. Then I respond with the idea that it makes no sense to believe in anything you can't see, like Genies or invisible unicorns. Still, one is accused of supposed faith based criminality, because of this.
IMHO, the steadfast lack of faith that you describe is, in fact, almost exactly as you have heard it said. I state this because there is a tiny chance that some form of god exists. For instance, God could've been all like, "you know what? I is gonna create a universe in which everything looks like it might have just happened!" Since we have no discorporeal proof - that is, proof that somehow resides outside the universal membrane, we cannot categorically state that there is no god, the same way we cannot state that there is. Logic, rationale, even existence itself are artificial concepts, the feeble kickings of legos trying to comprehend the Raptoid Castle (R).
So you conclude that everything's possible, even the possibility that nothing's possible? :/
It's possible.....but not likely.

:D

[There Is]

IMHO, the steadfast lack of faith that you describe is, in fact, almost exactly as you have heard it said. I state this because there is a tiny chance that some form of god exists. For instance, God could've been all like, "you know what? I is gonna create a universe in which everything looks like it might have just happened!" Since we have no discorporeal proof - that is, proof that somehow resides outside the universal membrane, we cannot categorically state that there is no god, the same way we cannot state that there is. Logic, rationale, even existence itself are artificial concepts, the feeble kickings of legos trying to comprehend the Raptoid Castle (R).
So you conclude that everything's possible, even the possibility that nothing's possible? :/
It's possible.....but not likely.

:D
I've seen the avatar picture you hold, on other sites. Is that really you, or just the general face of a frustrated wise skeptic? :D

[kmisho]

Some time ago, I read a great description of scepticism (paraphrasing):

Scepticism is merely the refusal to be victimized. Caveat emptor. Healthy scepticism. Second guessing. All of these things protect us not only from a certain amount of error but from those who would prey on our gullibility.

[BookThrasher]

As far as atheism being a religion, I'm sure most of you have heard this one:

Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hairstyle.
But some people shave their heads.

[kmisho]

As far as atheism being a religion, I'm sure most of you have heard this one:

Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hairstyle.
But some people shave their heads.
BUT

they then have no hair to style...

[AGENT-ADAIR]

So you conclude that everything's possible, even the possibility that nothing's possible? :/
It's possible.....but not likely.

:D
I've seen the avatar picture you hold, on other sites. Is that really you, or just the general face of a frustrated wise skeptic? :D
It's James Randi (www.randi.org)!

The most smarterest skeptic ever!

[BookThrasher]

they then have no hair to style...
Only becuse they actively rejected it.

Baldness is more like agnosticism.

[Revmonkeyboy]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. I refuse to believe in anything that has absolutely no proof. There is plenty of room to speculate about what might be, but be carefull what you elevate into the "what is true" catagory. Look at it this way, a salesman will always tell you his product is the best available, that is his/her job. It takes research to find what product will fill your needs. Be carefull about thinking a salesman is an objective observer of the market. Their product is the best because their employers pay the bills, not for any objective reasons. Skepticism could save you alot of money. :)

[There Is]

they then have no hair to style...
Only becuse they actively rejected it.

Baldness is more like agnosticism.
It's more like the main style being bald in the first place, and then choosing wigs as a hairstyle. Atheism is bald with no wig, agnosticism is being indecisive, yet still presuming there is the possibility of there being a perfect wig, ignoring that such a thing is subjective.

[Sternwallow]

It's more like the main style being bald in the first place, and then choosing wigs as a hairstyle. Atheism is bald with no wig, agnosticism is being indecisive, yet still presuming there is the possibility of there being a perfect wig, ignoring that such a thing is subjective.
That is a good perspective. It now makes a nice correspondence with religion in that a baby is (say always for this discussion) born bald. It acquires hair based on the hair of its parents. Later, due to influences outside the family, it can temporarily or permanently decide to wear another style of wig or, finding that hair is not useful in the warm climate and harbors parasites, may deliberately go back to bald. In any case, as age progresses the natural hair recedes from prominence in the person's life.

[There Is]

It's more like the main style being bald in the first place, and then choosing wigs as a hairstyle. Atheism is bald with no wig, agnosticism is being indecisive, yet still presuming there is the possibility of there being a perfect wig, ignoring that such a thing is subjective.
That is a good perspective. It now makes a nice correspondence with religion in that a baby is (say always for this discussion) born bald. It acquires hair based on the hair of its parents. Later, due to influences outside the family, it can temporarily or permanently decide to wear another style of wig or, finding that hair is not useful in the warm climate and harbors parasites, may deliberately go back to bald. In any case, as age progresses the natural hair recedes from prominence in the person's life.
Yes, but then what kind of bald do we choose? Obviously my avatar shows I've chosen creamy white, while you've chosen 'Have a Nice Day' yellow. :P

Look, all the emoticons are Atheist: :):|:(:D:o;):/:P:lol::mad::rolleyes::cool:

Truly there is justice in the world. ;)

[Sternwallow]

There Is, sorry, friend. My avatar is in disguise for internet security reasons. My true avatar is a whole different color of bald.

"I used to have wavy hair, now all I have is beach."

[There Is]

There Is, sorry, friend. My avatar is in disguise for internet security reasons. My true avatar is a whole different color of bald.

"I used to have wavy hair, now all I have is beach."
Let us not forget our good bald Atheist friend, James Randi :P

"I am frequently approached following lectures and loudly asked if I am a Christian and/or whether I believe in God -- the assumption being that I understand what the questioner means by both terms. My answer has always been that I have found no compelling reason to adopt such beliefs. Infuriated by such a response . . . [they] usually turn away and leave ringing in the air a declaration that there is just no point in trying to reason with me and that I will be 'prayed for.'

"I have no need of this patronization, nor of such a condescending attitude, and I resent it. I consider such an action to be a feeble defense for a baseless superstition and a retreat from reality." - From Randi's book The Faith Healers, page 303.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/avatars/908.jpg

http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=James_Randi

[Sternwallow]

There is,
I'm told I resemble James Randi, but that may just be my loathing for religion, my beard, glasses and reflective cranial expanse.

[kmisho]

they then have no hair to style...
Only becuse they actively rejected it.

Baldness is more like agnosticism.
Are you arguing just for the hell of it? I am an atheist because I actively rejected 'god.'

[BookThrasher]

I just hate to see analagies that could, with a few minor alterations, be made more precise.

Oh, I mean: all atheists are nazi skinheads. And stuff.

[There Is]

I just hate to see analagies that could, with a few minor alterations, be made more precise.

Oh, I mean: all atheists are nazi skinheads. And stuff.
Congratulations, you've just been raised to the credit level of douchebag, douchebag. :D

[BookThrasher]

Where was I before?

[There Is]

Where was I before?
imp

[Sternwallow]

Congratulations, you've just been raised to the credit level of douchebag, douchebag
Careful, we all know John Edward is the ultimate douche. He probably wouldn't welcome competition.

[calpurnpiso]

Skepticism is symptomatic of a healthy brain, where the neurological BSF ( bull shit Filters) become stronger. This happen with the experiences and information acquired during the life of this biological computer. When the brain is susceptible to a disease that erodes the immunity of the brain ( its BSF) to differentiate between fantasy and reality it will readily succumb to the overwhelming religious-psychosis of the country where the person is born. A person whose brain has a propensity for religious-psychosis infection could be define as mentally retarded, despite having University degrees.

When children beging talking slowly beginning to make sense of their environment the first words used are WHY?..HOW COME...WHY....and the'll repeat them ad nauseam. A healthy brain will slowly begin to dicern between irrational fairy tales (religious beliefs included) and tangible reality. Skepticism is thus the testing of LOGIC, forcing the brain to initiate inquiry. The Christ-psychosis infected brain in its LACK of inquriry and skepticism, due to the disease, has DAMAGED BSF!....The poison of absurd delusions flows like a torrent triggering serotonin and dopamine, inducing PLEASURE.

The fact is, how many of the Christ-psychotics posting in this forum BOTHER to investigate the historical FACTS I post ad nauseam? They rather IGNORE the truth, which will DENY their infected brains these pleasure causing neuro-transmiters. I'll INVESTIGATE any link anybody posts for I'm a lover of knowledge and information. The more the better. Those infected with religious psychosis have been provided by the illness horse-blinders. They see ONLY in one diretcion.

So, YES, skepticism is logical...not for the mentally ill though....:)

[benjaminbp18]

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?

Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?
Finally, such an excellent question in these forums. If a thought process is in strong accordance/basis with fact/reality, it is logical. By definition therefore, rejecting any idea that has virtually NO basis in fact is a reflection of your logic (assuming that your doing it for this reason).
Understand that you can disbelieve something, but that doesn't mean you believe the antithesis. I lack beleif in God, but this doesn't mean that I beleive there isn't one. I therefore, in my skepticism, am open to the possibility of a God existing in some form. However, I AM more inclined to readily reject or subordinate ideas in my "possibilities list" that are flagrant in their absurdity. This too is an indication of strong logic.

[BookThrasher]

Personally, There Is, I think jokes are far more impish than douchebaggy. Perhaps you missed teh sarcasm?

Or you hadn't noticed that I haven't told anyone on this forum "You're going to Hell, you nazi skinehead."

[There Is]

Personally, There Is, I think jokes are far more impish than douchebaggy. Perhaps you missed teh sarcasm?

Or you hadn't noticed that I haven't told anyone on this forum "You're going to Hell, you nazi skinehead."
Your link is also impish, but oddly not out of touch much of mainstream religious views. Still, understood. You just have to realize it's not always easy to distinguish between a person being impish, and seriously not joking.

But then again, how do you distinguish between sarcasm, and sarcastic insult? Only you know true personal intent behind your message. Getting others to understand this proper enough is a whole nother task altogether.

[BookThrasher]

Your link is also impish, but oddly not out of touch much of mainstream religious views.
You realize taht fundamentalism and mainstream are two different things, right?

And yes, text-based sarcasm is always a hurdle.

[calpurnpiso]

Personally, There Is, I think jokes are far more impish than douchebaggy. Perhaps you missed teh sarcasm?

Or you hadn't noticed that I haven't told anyone on this forum "You're going to Hell, you nazi skinehead."
lol...you don't have to tell anyone this......your Christianity induced distorted thinking simply implies it, or is it you have forgoten Christianity infected Hitler awesome piety?.........:)

[Iconoclastic1]

So I have to ask, because this has been a recent topic of debate over at the Skeptic's Society.

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?

Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?

Between choosing to label the idea of there being no God insane, or the idea that everything's possible despite all contradictions (even contradictions made logical) insane,

Which is more insane in your opinion?

Skeptical Atheist mindset vs. Everything's Possible mindset?

If you can give further detail on why, please do. ;)
Skepticism often gets a bad rap because the guys with nothing but speculation want a free ride without having to submit to rigor and verification. Speculation without verification, though, is the surest way to build a house of cards; that's now how we advance knowledge.

I think the late, great Carl Sagan said it best:

"Those explorations required skepticism and imagination both. Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere. Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. The cosmos is rich beyond measure - in elegant facts, in exquisite interrelationships, in the subtle machinery of awe."

[There Is]

Your link is also impish, but oddly not out of touch much of mainstream religious views.
You realize taht fundamentalism and mainstream are two different things, right?
You're the authority on this? I'll leave it with a response, "To you, maybe".

[BookThrasher]

It's not up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Unless you're gonna tell me that rectangles and squares are equivalent.

[There Is]

It's not up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Unless you're gonna tell me that rectangles and squares are equivalent.
Of course it's up for debate. So, which one's mainstream?

[BookThrasher]

Do you argue with the dictionary now?

The rectangle.

[There Is]

Do you argue with the dictionary now?

The rectangle.
I'd hardly call you the dictionary. Again, rectangle to you it is.

[BookThrasher]

Sheesh...and atheists call theists ignorant...

I realize that wikipedia article was a bit long, but just ctr+f for mainstream and you'll get a definition.

[There Is]

Sheesh...and atheists call theists ignorant...

I realize that wikipedia article was a bit long, but just ctr+f for mainstream and you'll get a definition.
And rightly so. Mainstream comes up in the context of still groups of Christianity. You have no clear definition here.

[BookThrasher]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Mainstream Christianity: Roman Catholic, Episcipalion, Bapist (Northern and Southern, not that I expect you to know the difference), Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methoidist, Eastern Orthodox...

Unifying factor: Doctrine of the Trinity, use of a standard Bible (although the R. Catholic version has a few extra books)

Non-mainstream: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians

Identifiers: Non-canonical (from the point of view of mainstream Christianity) texts, non-standard concept of God (for instance, a non-mainstream Christian might believe that Christ was a mere human)...

The fundamentalists generally come from non-denominational churches or Southern Baptist, which, to the shame of other mainstream churches, are still considered mainstream.

[There Is]

The fundamentalists generally come from non-denominational churches or Southern Baptist, which, to the shame of other mainstream churches, are still considered mainstream.
No, I'm being pretty clear about this. You've just contradicted yourself. But I never said that these things didn't make sense to you personally.

[manswicked]

I think a good amount skepticism is healthy cause it moves us to ask good questions. There is a line, however.
when you get too extreme and start asking why you are asking the question-- that becomes useless. Now you can't be sure of anything--- even why you are unsure.


R/
Ml;ksdjf;laksdjf;lkjasdl;kfl;sdjf

[BookThrasher]

No, I'm being pretty clear about this. You've just contradicted yourself.
Then perhaps I'm not.

Fundamentalists are a subset of mainstream religion. So just as it's an error to call a non-equilateral rectangle a square, it's an error to use "mainstream" when you mean "fundamentalist."

[There Is]

No, I'm being pretty clear about this. You've just contradicted yourself.
Then perhaps I'm not.

Fundamentalists are a subset of mainstream religion. So just as it's an error to call a non-equilateral rectangle a square, it's an error to use "mainstream" when you mean "fundamentalist."
But you clearly stated that fundamentalists were mainstream. A set is still a subset of itself. Tell me, the information on your website, about God hates fags, etc. Is that mainstream in your mind?

[calpurnpiso]

All religions beliefs, which are based on delusions accepted as reality, which start as ONE BASIC DOGMA (belief) WILL fragment themselves into many mini beliefs. There is NO EXCEPTION.

Christianity started with the cult of Divus Iulius and begun to fragment itself giving raise to MANY heresies which were eradicated and the ones that survived resulted what are now: Coptic, Greek orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopalian, the Anabaptists fragmented also into Amish, Southern baptist, Shakers, Quackers, Millerites, Adventists, Jeowah's Witness, Mormons, et al....

Exactly the same happened in Islam which fragmented into: Suni, Shiite, Wahhabbi, Salafiyah, etc etc....

So, fundamentalists in ANY religion are delusional and WRONG in believing only they posses the truth!

There is NO DELUSION that can remain IMMUTABLE and UNCHANGING. There are as many god and beliefs as the BRAIN can create!!...:)

[There Is]

All religions beliefs, which are based on delusions accepted as reality, which start as ONE BASIC DOGMA (belief) WILL fragment themselves into many mini beliefs. There is NO EXCEPTION.

Christianity started with the cult of Divus Iulius and begun to fragment itself giving raise to MANY heresies which were eradicated and the ones that survived resulted what are now: Coptic, Greek orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopalian, the Anabaptists fragmented also into Amish, Southern baptist, Shakers, Quackers, Millerites, Adventists, Jeowah's Witness, Mormons, et al....

Exactly the same happened in Islam which fragmented into: Suni, Shiite, Wahhabbi, Salafiyah, etc etc....

There is NO DELUSION that can remain IMMUTABLE and UNCHANGING. There are as many god and beliefs as the BRAIN can create!!...:)
No kidding cal. There are as many god and beliefs as the imagination from within the BRAIN can allow. ;)

[calpurnpiso]

Sheesh...and atheists call theists ignorant...

I realize that wikipedia article was a bit long, but just ctr+f for mainstream and you'll get a definition.
Well, theists are ignorant. Don't they base their "TRUTH" on FAITH?..and isn't faith ALWAYS inverselly proportional to knowledge and information?....IOW, the more the faith the MORE of the IGNORANCE?.

The problem with a faith infected brain is that they are unable to say "I DO NOT KNOW". when faced with questions of the divine, supernatural, meaning of life and how everything came into being. They rather say GOD DID IT..... and this only show mental retardation or a neurological anomaly...:)

[calpurnpiso]

People of faith are simply IGNORANT, mentally retarded or affected by an unknown neurological disorder that induces delusions to be ACCEPTED as if they were REAL and POSSIBLE affecting the performance of the brain! Thus....

religious folks are simply mentally ill...:)

[BookThrasher]

OMG DOUBL EPOST MODS!!!

anyway...

Tell me, the information on your website, about God hates fags, etc. Is that mainstream in your mind?
No, those are beliefs unique to the fundamentalist subset, just like having four equal sides is unique to teh square subset of rectangles.

Again, you wouldn't call being equilateral indicative of rectangles.

[There Is]

OMG DOUBL EPOST MODS!!!

anyway...

Tell me, the information on your website, about God hates fags, etc. Is that mainstream in your mind?
No, those are beliefs unique to the fundamentalist subset.
Yes, to mainstream Christianity. We've made that clear, but are those your personal views?

[BookThrasher]

Yes, to mainstream Christianity.
How witty. I guess that means nazi skinhead atheists are the general case after all. (I was hoping I woudlnt' have to resort to that.)

Anyway, my views are on the moderate-to-liberal side of mainstream Christianity. I'm not convinced that homosexuality is anything but non-Kosher, methods of babtism are arbitrary, no transubstantiation, the Bible was not taken by dictation, etc.

[There Is]

Yes, to mainstream Christianity.
How witty. I guess that means nazi skinhead atheists are the general case after all.
Yes, Nazis can be atheists as they're also a subset of Christianity. :rolleyes:

I never said Nazis were mainstream by any means, though I'm sure Christian Nazis would see their views as the only mainstream form of Christianity.

Still, what's up with all the Phelpsian "God Hates Fags" stuff?

[BookThrasher]

Yes, Nazis can be atheists as they're also a subset of Christianity.
Well, since we're no longer worried about committing logical fallacies:

Nazis hate Jews, who worship the same God as Christians. Therefore they hate God. Some atheists also hate God, therefore Nazis are not in fact Christians, but represent the most common atheist viewpoint.


Still, what's up with all the Phelpsian "God Hates Fags" stuff?
Jack Chick, mainly. He's a plague on the religion. The thing about that website that you may not have caught: "Eisegesis" is the act of bending scripture to make it agree with what you thought before you picked it up. The Book of Eisegesis is a parody of the things people "find" in the Bible.

There are only a few places in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned. One is in the Kosher laws (which Christ revoked). That one's perfectly logical--unprotected butt sex in a desert without indoor plumbing probably isn't the healthiest life decision.

The second major one is in one of the epistles, but "homosexuality" is an approximation of the Greek. It more likely refers to homosexual temple prostititutes. As you probably know, NAMBLA would have loved Ancient Greece. This just shows that Christianity seperated itself from sex rituals during its formative years.

However, your standard issue ignorant fool thinks that butt sex is gross. So obviously if he thinks it, God thinks it too, and homosexuals should be lynched, because only then will they see the true love of Christ.

Which I'm sure you agree is ridiculous.

[Philboid Studge]

Nazis hate Jews, who worship the same God as Christians. Therefore they hate God. Some atheists also hate God, therefore Nazis are not in fact Christians, but represent the most common atheist viewpoint.
I understand this riveting passage is all about logical-fallacies-be-damned, but still: Atheists hate God? Maybe, but we also love many other things that do not exist, such as logical theists in certain cases.

Also, time to thrash through Mein Kamf again, wherein the Creator's intentions regarding Jews are succinctly laid bare.

[There Is]

Yes, Nazis can be atheists as they're also a subset of Christianity.
Well, since we're no longer worried about committing logical fallacies:

Nazis hate Jews, who worship the same God as Christians. Therefore they hate God. Some atheists also hate God, therefore Nazis are not in fact Christians, but represent the most common atheist viewpoint.
You're right. You've evidently thrown logic out the window to replace it with faith. I've spoken to Christian Nazis before on other forums. From what I understand they see Jews as traitors to God, thus Jews hate God. From then on, it's the same specious argument you just gave for Nazis being atheist, except everyone's devil influenced in some way for not seeing the "truth". Perhaps then, for being so liberal with Christian views, then you too are devil influenced. :rolleyes:

It's good to know you carry no beef against homosexuals for the same loopy myth. Do you then support homosexual marriage?

[BookThrasher]

There Is, you'd make a wonderful stormtrooper.

Do you then support homosexual marriage?
That's a complex issue. Personally, I think the best thing to do is seperate marraige into its secular (legal) and religious (spiritual) components. That way, we can give gay couples visitation rights, tax breaks, and gold rings without violating seperation of church and state.

So basically, I'm all for gay civil unions. Gay marraige is for the heads of the church to decide.

[Sternwallow]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is separate marriage into its secular (legal) and religious (spiritual) components. That way, we can give gay couples visitation rights, tax breaks, and gold rings without violating separation of church and state.
So basically, I'm all for gay civil unions. Gay marriage is for the heads of the church to decide.
Are you comfortable with the logical extension of that separation idea? It would mean ripping out all of the laws and regulations that are religion based, like chaplains, national religious holidays, postal service closed on Sunday, marriage (as you said), church tax exemptions...
The individual religions would then make and enforce all such laws they wished, which could not violate the secular laws and would apply only to their members. A church that wanted to ban porno, let's say, could do so easily and none of its members could buy or sell porno. Easy as that and no one else is hurt or even inconvenienced.

Certain behaviors do need regulation and so there would have to be some new secular rules to take the place of some of the formerly religious ones. For instance the rules you mentioned about visitation rights and tax breaks and so-on would, under secular law, enable and regulate any combination of people, of any gender or none, from two to perhaps fifty or more, entering into a contract that provided for shared dwellings, resources, child custody, responsibility, inheritance etc.

An interesting side implication: there might be a civil contract between A and B and C simultaneously with a religious marriage of B and D in one religion and between A and C in another.
So, what do you think, BookThrasher? Make rational laws while letting the religicos have fun in their own sandbox where they can't harm others?

[Gnosital]

So I have to ask, because this has been a recent topic of debate over at the Skeptic's Society.

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?

Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?

Between choosing to label the idea of there being no God insane, or the idea that everything's possible despite all contradictions (even contradictions made logical) insane,

Which is more insane in your opinion?

Skeptical Atheist mindset vs. Everything's Possible mindset?

If you can give further detail on why, please do. ;)
It’s not a matter of dichotomy. A mindset can be both skeptical AND open minded. As for insanity, that is a relative concept, defined by cultural and relativistic interpretations of a given society. (e.g., the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?). In this culture, the popular use of the word "insanity" is non-specific and pejorative. A professional diagnosis would be more specific, such as "functional psychosis" or "mania" or "schizoid personality disorder". So not believing in another person's belief system without evidence that supports or refutes that belief system, does not meet any of the diagnostic criteria for any mental illness listed in DSM IV. However, there is a category of mental disorder called "shared psychotic disorder" http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/sharedpsychoticdis.htm
(I think Calpurnpiso might agree that this disorder fits well with his idea of christ-delusion psychosis). Anyhow, I know it would be possible to argue the philosophical side of this ad nauseum, but there is no established rationale in modern western psychology for labeling as "insane" a person who refuses to accept another person's belief system without proof.

I don't think this is necessarily at odds with keeping an open mind, either. Michael Shermer certainly epitomizes this mindset (plus he's smokin hot!). Science by its very nature is skeptical AND open-minded. Because we as humans can never be absolutely certain that our perception of reality is truly objective or absolute, and we cannot step outside of our own perception to test whether our brains are accurately perceiving reality, science must accept 2 assumptions: 1) the universe is orderly and governed by natural laws 2) the scientific method is a valid means of discerning those laws.

But we cannot be absolutely certain that the universe is governed by natural laws, it might be governed by a childish, vindictive, cruel, and capricious uber-being or a flying spaghetti monster. Also, it is possible that a more valid means of discerning the laws of the universe (or non-laws, as it were) is a seriously overedited and repeatedly revised 2000 year-old book based on the creation myths of a bunch of drug-crazed camel herders, or a little black 8 ball with a window that says "ask again later".

Science demands the strictest adherence to the method of pursuing evidence, the constant testing of all conclusions and rejection of any hypothesis that doesn't have adequate supporting evidence (skepticism). It also posits findings in terms of probabilities rather than "proof", and accepts that all knowledge may be overturned or adjusted should new information become available (open-mindedness).

(BTW, that open-mindedness is EXACTLY why science is NOT religion.)

So technically, it IS possible that there is a supreme uber-being that sits on a nebulae and waits for us all to die so he/she/it can condemn all the non-conformists to ever-loving torment, just as it is equally possible that we are all living in pods and our reality is being fed to us by an evil out-of-control supercomputer. Possible, but not very likely. I’m not willing to accept anyone else’s version of anything without some evidence that makes sense to me. I accept the possibility that I’m wrong, but I also am EXTREMELY confident that the theists aren’t right.

(Man, I'm glad this forum is back online! I was seriously jonesin)

[Choobus]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is separate marriage into its secular (legal) and religious (spiritual) components. That way, we can give gay couples visitation rights, tax breaks, and gold rings without violating separation of church and state.
So basically, I'm all for gay civil unions. Gay marriage is for the heads of the church to decide.
Are you comfortable with the logical extension of that separation idea? It would mean ripping out all of the laws and regulations that are religion based, like chaplains, national religious holidays, postal service closed on Sunday, marriage (as you said), church tax exemptions...
The individual religions would then make and enforce all such laws they wished, which could not violate the secular laws and would apply only to their members. A church that wanted to ban porno, let's say, could do so easily and none of its members could buy or sell porno. Easy as that and no one else is hurt or even inconvenienced.

Certain behaviors do need regulation and so there would have to be some new secular rules to take the place of some of the formerly religious ones. For instance the rules you mentioned about visitation rights and tax breaks and so-on would, under secular law, enable and regulate any combination of people, of any gender or none, from two to perhaps fifty or more, entering into a contract that provided for shared dwellings, resources, child custody, responsibility, inheritance etc.

An interesting side implication: there might be a civil contract between A and B and C simultaneously with a religious marriage of B and D in one religion and between A and C in another.
So, what do you think, BookThrasher? Make rational laws while letting the religicos have fun in their own sandbox where they can't harm others?
The obvious answer is that all religious themed laws or events etc must be done away with. If you allow this nonsense to permeate our culture then there is no way to avoid all of the logical inconsistancies that go with it. If, however, everything, like marriage, is based on a set of rules determined using reason and intended to be fair while allowing society to function this sort of crap should be greatly diminished. And if A wants to fuck BC & D deep in the asshole, then not only do I say go for it, I say I am E and I have a video camera, what's your addresds. Basically, anything that's got anything to do with Jesus is anachronisitc shit and should be ignored.

[calpurnpiso]

So I have to ask, because this has been a recent topic of debate over at the Skeptic's Society.

Is it logical to be labeled insane for not believing in another's imaginative entity without proof?

Or is it more logical to keep your mind open to any/every possibility, proven, unproven, despite how illogical it may seem?

Between choosing to label the idea of there being no God insane, or the idea that everything's possible despite all contradictions (even contradictions made logical) insane,

Which is more insane in your opinion?

Skeptical Atheist mindset vs. Everything's Possible mindset?

If you can give further detail on why, please do. ;)
It’s not a matter of dichotomy. A mindset can be both skeptical AND open minded. As for insanity, that is a relative concept, defined by cultural and relativistic interpretations of a given society. (e.g., the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?). In this culture, the popular use of the word "insanity" is non-specific and pejorative. A professional diagnosis would be more specific, such as "functional psychosis" or "mania" or "schizoid personality disorder". So not believing in another person's belief system without evidence that supports or refutes that belief system, does not meet any of the diagnostic criteria for any mental illness listed in DSM IV. However, there is a category of mental disorder called "shared psychotic disorder" http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/sharedpsychoticdis.htm
(I think Calpurnpiso might agree that this disorder fits well with his idea of christ-delusion psychosis). Anyhow, I know it would be possible to argue the philosophical side of this ad nauseum, but there is no established rationale in modern western psychology for labeling as "insane" a person who refuses to accept another person's belief system without proof.

I don't think this is necessarily at odds with keeping an open mind, either. Michael Shermer certainly epitomizes this mindset (plus he's smokin hot!). Science by its very nature is skeptical AND open-minded. Because we as humans can never be absolutely certain that our perception of reality is truly objective or absolute, and we cannot step outside of our own perception to test whether our brains are accurately perceiving reality, science must accept 2 assumptions: 1) the universe is orderly and governed by natural laws 2) the scientific method is a valid means of discerning those laws.

But we cannot be absolutely certain that the universe is governed by natural laws, it might be governed by a childish, vindictive, cruel, and capricious uber-being or a flying spaghetti monster. Also, it is possible that a more valid means of discerning the laws of the universe (or non-laws, as it were) is a seriously overedited and repeatedly revised 2000 year-old book based on the creation myths of a bunch of drug-crazed camel herders, or a little black 8 ball with a window that says "ask again later".

Science demands the strictest adherence to the method of pursuing evidence, the constant testing of all conclusions and rejection of any hypothesis that doesn't have adequate supporting evidence (skepticism). It also posits findings in terms of probabilities rather than "proof", and accepts that all knowledge may be overturned or adjusted should new information become available (open-mindedness).

(BTW, that open-mindedness is EXACTLY why science is NOT religion.)

So technically, it IS possible that there is a supreme uber-being that sits on a nebulae and waits for us all to die so he/she/it can condemn all the non-conformists to ever-loving torment, just as it is equally possible that we are all living in pods and our reality is being fed to us by an evil out-of-control supercomputer. Possible, but not very likely. I’m not willing to accept anyone else’s version of anything without some evidence that makes sense to me. I accept the possibility that I’m wrong, but I also am EXTREMELY confident that the theists aren’t right.

(Man, I'm glad this forum is back online! I was seriously jonesin)
I completelly agree, and thank you for the link on shared psychosis.
This is very accurate, of course the study of the brain is still in its infancy. The cause of the vast majority of neurological disorder remains unknown.Though progress is speeding up, and neurologists are slowly but surely ( since absolute evidence is required in science) becoming aware that deep religious beliefs (on the educated) , have many similarities to schizophrenia, temporal lobe epilepsy and other delusions causing neurological anomalies, though the EVIDENCE that the acceptance of religious delusions to be a tangible reality is a mental illness still elude us. It would be like watching a man stumble, slurr his words, smell like alcohol and we definitively saying he is drunk!!..Well, he could be drunk, but there is NO PROOF unless he submits to tests.

Those educated folks which accept the irrational idiotic, illogical, concepts of religious beliefs as a tangible reality are, IMHO, mentally ill...the problem rest in proving it, this is the reason we have those insane retards causing so much damage to the US and the world. Since their delusions are based on stablished religious delusions accepted as a truth, nobody seems to notice these folks are mentally ill, and have been creating havoc to societies since we evolved into homo sapiens and created societies! One must remember what they did to the Roman empire in the 4th Century, when they took control of it, initiating the Dark Ages!...and they want to go back, just like any good schizophrenic delusional educated retard would...in the name of their chosen invisible delusional friends...:)

[Gnosital]

I completelly agree, and thank you for the link on shared psychosis.
No, thank YOU for the carotta link! I've been sending that to all my rational friends. Frickin AWESOME!
...Those educated folks which accept the irrational idiotic, illogical, concepts of religious beliefs as a tangible reality are, IMHO, mentally ill...the problem rest in proving it, this is the reason we have those insane retards causing so much damage to the US and the world. Since their delusions are based on stablished religious delusions accepted as a truth, nobody seems to notice these folks are mentally ill, and have been creating havoc to societies since we evolved into homo sapiens and created societies! One must remember what they did to the Roman empire in the 4th Century, when they took control of it, initiating the Dark Ages!...and they want to go back, just like any good schizophrenic delusional educated retard would...in the name of their chosen invisible delusional friends...:)
The biggest barrier to extending neurobiological research into religious delusion is the serious backlash that would potentially destroy any scientist or research facility or university that dared speak the truth. They may be sharing a psychotic delusion, but the xians are well organized, well funded, and VICIOUS when their belief/power system is threatened.

[Choobus]

The scientologists are worse. If you fuck with them they set the lawyers on you, and if that doesn't work Tom Cruise will break into your house in themiddle of the night and fuck you in the ass. (unless you're female. He can't stand them, yukky yuk yuk. Boys is best says Cruise, wiping the semen from his chin).

[calpurnpiso]

I completelly agree, and thank you for the link on shared psychosis.
No, thank YOU for the carotta link! I've been sending that to all my rational friends. Frickin AWESOME!
...Those educated folks which accept the irrational idiotic, illogical, concepts of religious beliefs as a tangible reality are, IMHO, mentally ill...the problem rest in proving it, this is the reason we have those insane retards causing so much damage to the US and the world. Since their delusions are based on stablished religious delusions accepted as a truth, nobody seems to notice these folks are mentally ill, and have been creating havoc to societies since we evolved into homo sapiens and created societies! One must remember what they did to the Roman empire in the 4th Century, when they took control of it, initiating the Dark Ages!...and they want to go back, just like any good schizophrenic delusional educated retard would...in the name of their chosen invisible delusional friends...:)
The biggest barrier to extending neurobiological research into religious delusion is the serious backlash that would potentially destroy any scientist or research facility or university that dared speak the truth. They may be sharing a psychotic delusion, but the xians are well organized, well funded, and VICIOUS when their belief/power system is threatened.
Yes, after 1700 years of devious experience, Christians have turned lying, hypocresy, delusional arrogance, immorality, intolerance, manipulatory techniques on distorting history, deception, distortion of reality and blindness of the truth as Great Virtues!

I think neurologists are scare to tell the truth about this form of mental illness. The Christ-psychotics are after in control of the US and are 80% of the population. It is like living in a gigantic Asylum with the inmates in control. An asylum where being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is viewed as an abnormality! ..........Sanity?..what sanity?...:)

[Gnosital]

The scientologists are worse. If you fuck with them they set the lawyers on you, and if that doesn't work Tom Cruise will break into your house in themiddle of the night and fuck you in the ass. (unless you're female. He can't stand them, yukky yuk yuk. Boys is best says Cruise, wiping the semen from his chin).
Tom Cruise needs a psychiatrist. And meds.

[Gnosital]

I think neurologists are scare to tell the truth about this form of mental illness. The Christ-psychotics are after in control of the US and are 80% of the population. It is like living in a gigantic Asylum with the inmates in control. An asylum where being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is viewed as an abnormality! ..........Sanity?..what sanity?...:)
Sanity is here. (ahhhh... )
And maybe some remote places in Canada.
BTW,does anyone know which countries have the lowest percentage of theists in the populations?

[calpurnpiso]

I think neurologists are scare to tell the truth about this form of mental illness. The Christ-psychotics are after in control of the US and are 80% of the population. It is like living in a gigantic Asylum with the inmates in control. An asylum where being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is viewed as an abnormality! ..........Sanity?..what sanity?...:)
Sanity is here. (ahhhh... )
And maybe some remote places in Canada.
BTW,does anyone know which countries have the lowest percentage of theists in the populations?
Hmmm...that's a good question and worth investigating. I know New Zealand is very secular......but now you got the bu in me...and I'll have to check it out..:) Hey, have you seen the series ROME in HBO?..just curious.....

[Gnosital]

Hmmm...that's a good question and worth investigating. I know New Zealand is very secular......but now you got the bu in me...and I'll have to check it out..:) Hey, have you seen the series ROME in HBO?..just curious.....
I have not, but I thought it looked good. Sadly, my kids make me watch cartoons with them all the time. I don't think I've watched anything non-animated for about 6 years. (It ain't all bad, I haven't watched Fox News in that much time, either!)

I've done a few searches, but have not been able to find any info on population stats for atheism in other countries. I've also written to American Atheists, but haven't heard back yet. If you find anything, I'd very much appreciate the info. I need to plan where I'm emigrating to when my kids get out of school.