Beliefs and Skepticism

Drowning Man said:

...No one has said a word against the poem, itself. People have disputed your contrived moral based on the poem.

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

I have, it's a stupid poem. A blind person would feel the whole elephant.

Click to expand...

See what I mean about the lack of poetic sensibility, DM?

Angel said:

First, the God you persist in calling "my" God is everybody's God -- including the atheist's God.
Second, another unattributed quotation.
Third, You misread my amended version of the poem. I'm saying the blind men see better than the Internet Skeptic.

Click to expand...

And you are wrong (as usual) Your beliefs are not facts and all your attempts to prove them have been nothing more but convoluted statements of your beliefs not proofs at all

Angel said:

Beliefs and Skepticism

Click to expand...

How will we begin to feel God?

Internet Skepticism is intellectual mediocrity driven by knavery. Let's sit back and watch it self-destruct.

Angel said:

I think at this point an inference to the literarily challenged nature of Internet Skepticism may be in order, with a tutorial to follow.
I'll ponder this at the gym.

Click to expand...

You cannot talk about the nature of what an internet skeptic is without defining the parameters. Now your position is nothing but fluffed up "same old same old".

Angel said:

First, the God you persist in calling "my" God is everybody's God -- including the atheist's God.
Second, another unattributed quotation.
Third, You misread my amended version of the poem. I'm saying the blind men see better than the Internet Skeptic.

Click to expand...

There is no atheist god, that is kinda the whole thing with atheism.

Peter King said:

There is no atheist god, that is kinda the whole thing with atheism.

Click to expand...

Correction: there is no atheist belief in God.
Belief in God is one thing; the existence of God, another.

Angel said:

Correction: there is no atheist belief in God.
Belief in God is one thing; the existence of God, another.

Click to expand...

No, gods do not exist, no magic people exist. I do not belief or disbelief in gods, they are no gods.

Peter King said:

No, gods do not exist, no magic people exist. I do not belief or disbelief in gods, they are no gods.

Click to expand...

Are you pretending incomprehension or is the incomprehension evident in your post real?
There is no atheist belief in God.
Belief in God is one thing; the existence of God, another.

Angel said:

Beliefs and Skepticism

Belief - acceptance of an idea as true; the idea so accepted
Skepticism - doubt about the truth of an idea; the doubt itself

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Tread on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Just so a Seventh stumbles in,
A skeptic, I presume,
And overreaches from behind
In atheistic gloom
Denying what the blind can see
The Elephant in the room

The theme of the classic poem in the new light of the amended verse is that while the skeptic doubts the conclusions of the blind men as to the nature of the beast,
the skeptic misses the very existence of the beast he knows intimately.

Comments?
Questions?
Doubts?
Denials?​

Blind Men and the Elephant
John Godfrey Saxe - Poems by the Famous Poet - All Poetry
NB Last stanza composed by Angel Trismegistus.

Click to expand...

Wow...just wow.

Posted below are links to a respected philosophical website giving the various iterations of True Skepticism down the ages right up to the present:
Ancient Skepticism
Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Medieval Skepticism
Medieval Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Skepticism
https://plato.stanf

Traditionally skepticism is a serious philosophical position calling for the suspension of judgment, of belief and disbelief both.
In the modern era this has taken on the character of questioning the possibility of all knowledge.
I don't see the Internet Skeptic anywhere in that survey of historical skepticism.

Internet Skepticism is exclusively an ad hoc skepticism, focused entirely and misguidedly on religious belief.
Internet Skepticism is all about the 3Ds -- Denial, Dismissal, Disparagement.

Internet Skepticism is not skepticism.
Internet Skepticism is close-minded catchphrase-driven contrarianism with a marked tendency to blowhardism and browbeating.

Peter King said:

You cannot talk about the nature of what an internet skeptic is without defining the parameters. Now your position is nothing but fluffed up "same old same old".

Click to expand...

Angel said:

What is "Internet Skepticism?

Posted below are links to a respected philosophical website giving the various iterations of True Skepticism down the ages right up to the present:
Ancient Skepticism
Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Medieval Skepticism
Medieval Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Skepticism
https://plato.stanf

Traditionally skepticism is a serious philosophical position calling for the suspension of judgment, of belief and disbelief both.
In the modern era this has taken on the character of questioning the possibility of all knowledge.
I don't see the Internet Skeptic anywhere in that survey of historical skepticism.

Internet Skepticism is exclusively an ad hoc skepticism, focused entirely and misguidedly on religious belief.
Internet Skepticism is all about the 3Ds -- Denial, Dismissal, Disparagement.

Internet Skepticism is not skepticism.
Internet Skepticism is close-minded catchphrase-driven contrarianism with a marked tendency to blowhardism and browbeating.

Click to expand...

Now you say Internet skepticism is not skepticism? Then why the hell post 3 links to skepticism? If that is not what internet skepticism is why on earth would I waste my team reading things that do not matter according to yourself?

And what you give is not a definition of internet skepticism, you name a few behaviors and things you claim is internet skepticism. What you give is people disagreeing on a subject while on a forum (for example). And blowhardism and browbeating is not solely (if at all) related to internet skepticism but internet asshole-ism or bully syndrome/an internet troll.

Sorry, but I do not think this is very clear and how is it linked to atheism not being real according to "the internet skeptic"?

I think an internet skeptic stands skeptical in life when it comes to issues like religion or quack medical advice. This does not need to be done by dismissal/disparagement, but it does have to do with denial. One does not have to be dismissive or disparaging while being skeptical. But disagreement can end up in dismissal and disparaging but that is also dependent on how the other side discusses his or her side. If he/she behaves like an a-hole most discussions will go south but that is not down to skepticism but to lack of willingness to appropriately and friendly discuss things with the other party.

But thanks for giving somewhat of a definition but I think it is not accurate, most of what you lump into skepticism has little or nothing to do with being a skeptic.

Peter King said:

Now you say Internet skepticism is not skepticism? Then why the hell post 3 links to skepticism? If that is not what internet skepticism is why on earth would I waste my team reading things that do not matter according to yourself?...

Click to expand...

The links to philosophical skepticism are given precisely to support the point that Internet Skepticism is not skepticism. They do matter.

Angel said:

The links to philosophical skepticism are given precisely to support the point that Internet Skepticism is not skepticism. They do matter.

Click to expand...

They do not because you state he was not a skeptic, I disagree with you on that. An actual skeptic, internet or otherwise can disagree without acting like a dick. Your so called definition of internet skeptic is too wide and includes things that have nothing to do with skepticism.

Peter King said:

They do not because you state he was not a skeptic, I disagree with you on that. An actual skeptic, internet or otherwise can disagree without acting like a dick. Your so called definition of internet skeptic is too wide and includes things that have nothing to do with skepticism.

Click to expand...

The links to philosophical skepticism are given precisely to support the point that Internet Skepticism is not skepticism. They do matter.
If I wish to claim that someone is not a Luddite, I post links to what a Luddite is, to show that the someone in question is not one.
Please stop this silliness, Mr King.

Angel said:

What is "Internet Skepticism?

Posted below are links to a respected philosophical website giving the various iterations of True Skepticism down the ages right up to the present:
Ancient Skepticism
Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Medieval Skepticism
Medieval Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Skepticism
https://plato.stanf

Traditionally skepticism is a serious philosophical position calling for the suspension of judgment, of belief and disbelief both.
In the modern era this has taken on the character of questioning the possibility of all knowledge.
I don't see the Internet Skeptic anywhere in that survey of historical skepticism.

Internet Skepticism is exclusively an ad hoc skepticism, focused entirely and misguidedly on religious belief.
Internet Skepticism is all about the 3Ds -- Denial, Dismissal, Disparagement.

Internet Skepticism is not skepticism.
Internet Skepticism is close-minded catchphrase-driven contrarianism with a marked tendency to blowhardism and browbeating.

Click to expand...

The fact you are linking pages from the Stanford philosophical encyclopedia doesn't in any way prove that atheists do not exist. Why didn't you post this link?
Nonbelievers have existed for 2000+ years. Socrates was accused of being an atheist.

Are you aware of the Epicurian paradox?

od, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling, or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?

Click to expand...

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Or this quote by Senaca,

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

The links to philosophical skepticism are given precisely to support the point that Internet Skepticism is not skepticism. They do matter.
If I wish to claim that someone is not a Luddite, I post links to what a Luddite is, to show that the someone in question is not one.
Please stop this silliness, Mr King.

Click to expand...

You still have no postive emprically testable proof that your god or anything ot god actually exists.

Angel said:

Correction: there is no atheist belief in God.
Belief in God is one thing; the existence of God, another.

Click to expand...

If God doesn't exist then why would anyone believe in it?

believing in god when you can't prove that it exists doesn't make it exist. It just makes you a fool.

Trying to claim that atheists don't exist and therefore that is proof of god's existence is assinine.

Lisa said:

The fact you are linking pages from the Stanford philosophical encyclopedia doesn't in any way prove that atheists do not exist. Why didn't you post this link?
Nonbelievers have existed for 2000+ years. Socrates was accused of being an atheist.

Are you aware of the Epicurian paradox?


Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Or this quote by Senaca,

Click to expand...

You're confused, Lisa, conflating two different themes from two different threads.

Lisa said:

You still have no postive emprically testable proof that your god or anything ot god actually exists.

Click to expand...

"Testable"? You're in the wrong classroom, Lisa. Science class is in another building on the other side of the campus.

Lisa said:

If God doesn't exist then why would anyone believe in it?

believing in god when you can't prove that it exists doesn't make it exist. It just makes you a fool.

Trying to claim that atheists don't exist and therefore that is proof of god's existence is assinine.

Click to expand...

You're confused, Lisa. You've got me and my thread wrong.

Angel said:

"Testable"? You're in the wrong classroom, Lisa. Science class is in another building on the other side of the campus.

Click to expand...

Logic is testable. Any claim must be falsifiable.

Angel said:

You're confused, Lisa, conflating two different themes from two different threads.

Click to expand...

You want to reject logic but that cannot happen. Any claim that you make must be testable. It isn't true because you believe it to be.

Lisa said:

Logic is testable. Any claim must be falsifiable.

Click to expand...

Lisa said:

You want to reject logic but that cannot happen. Any claim that you make must be testable. It isn't true because you believe it to be.

Click to expand...

I think you might be in the wrong forum, Lisa. Your posts are disoriented.

Is your claim testable? Your claim that "any claim that you make must be testable" -- is that claim testable? How so?

Angel said:

I think you might be in the wrong forum, Lisa. Your posts are disoriented.

Is your claim testable? Your claim that "any claim that you make must be testable" -- is that claim testable? How so?

Click to expand...

Do you somehow think that any bizarre claim that you can concoct is true because you believe it to be true?

This is a basic concept of logic, that you appear to think that your claims are immune to. You should stick to writing poetry if you don't want your religious claims to be tested.

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components:

The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible.
The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist.

In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience.. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive.

Click to expand...