|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 2, 2021 6:00:07 GMT
Everyone needs to realize this and it isn't even remotely difficult to understand the difference.
There are certain atheists who seem to misunderstand the difference.
There is a also a big difference between skepticism and cynicism.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 3, 2021 1:54:29 GMT
I am an atheist and not at all skeptical....or cynical. In fact, I am an atheist because I am not skeptical...not skeptical that the natural world is the explanation for...everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 3, 2021 15:36:24 GMT
Never heard anyone saying atheism and skepticism were the same thing. Atheism is just skepticism about God. Skepticism is, well, being skeptical about everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 4, 2021 16:05:27 GMT
People don't know the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 4, 2021 17:40:07 GMT
People don't know the difference? Many people seem not to. They assume that if you are an atheist, then you must also be a skeptic. There are even atheists who will use this to try and show that if you are an atheist then you are automatically more logical than theists.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 14, 2021 4:45:51 GMT
Many people seem not to. They assume that if you are an atheist, then you must also be a skeptic. There are even atheists who will use this to try and show that if you are an atheist then you are automatically more logical than theists. People generally come to be an atheist via skepticism which is a part of te critical thinkingprocess. In our daily lives, we do not, or should not, accept anything, or person, at face value before deciding it, he, is valid or not. That’s considered using common sense. So, why is skepticism in discernment of one’s spiritual life, or politics, wrong if used to do it? "Generally" being the key word here. My point is that people shouldn't assume too much. I know atheists who believe in ghosts and reincarnation etc. That shows a lack of critical thinking. They are applying skepticism to the God thing, but not to other supernatural things.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 14, 2021 4:58:09 GMT
Skepticism is just feeling of unsurety about something, in this case God, or what it represents from a religious pov. I think it is a waste of time being both skeptical and atheist regarding God, because we know God will never be proven from the distorted religious mindset of superior being, and atheists don't appear to want to connect with much other than what is external about the universe. They are both wrongheaded states of being to be in regarding our beings. Skepticism is not believing something without evidence. Atheism is lacking a belief in God, not necessarily believing their is no God. Theist/Deist - Someone who believes a God exists Atheist - anyone who is not convinced that a God exists. There is a silly debate on whether a rock can be considered an atheist. A rock can not be considered an atheist imo. I am more towards being a gnostic atheist than an agnostic atheist btw. I am convinced that no God exists, but I of course don't know 100%. The only thing I am sure about is that I exist in some way, shape or form. That is the only thing I claim absolute certainty about. I am an atheist by definition. I don't go around declaring my atheism or telling everyone else what they should or shouldn't believe.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 14, 2021 6:57:44 GMT
I don't know what I'd call myself at the moment. I'm personally focused on whether our reality is real or not which takes me out of the normal Atheist/Materialist camp. It seems to me that infinity being what it is that there's always the possibility of something more powerful than the last thing and no ultimate god because you can't put a lid on it and there is no way to understand it all as one being. To me it sounds like one endless clump for lack of a better term. But I don't have a clue what the greatest existing being is that really exists in the real sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 14, 2021 9:15:09 GMT
I would argue that Biblical literalists are the ultimate skeptics.
Have you see the stuff that they are skeptical about? Geology, biology, astronomy, medicine, History...
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 14, 2021 15:04:49 GMT
atheism = lack of belief in God
skepticism= asking for proof of a claim
Now I would imagine most self described skeptics tend to be atheists (I would argue it's cognative dissonance to try to compartemntalize the two), not all atheists are necessarily skeptics though (Bill Maher is actually an anti-vaccer)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 14, 2021 15:45:03 GMT
I don't know what I'd call myself at the moment. I'm personally focused on whether our reality is real or not which takes me out of the normal Atheist/Materialist camp. It seems to me that infinity being what it is that there's always the possibility of something more powerful than the last thing and no ultimate god because you can't put a lid on it and there is no way to understand it all as one being. To me it sounds like one endless clump for lack of a better term. But I don't have a clue what the greatest existing being is that really exists in the real sense. Odd thing to focus on. The only access to "reality" we have is our senses and however our mind reconstructs data from our senses. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to worry about whether or no that's "real" as opposed to being able to accurately model it, since, at the end of the day, what most of us are trying to do is figure out how manipulate our sense-experience to our benefit. I also don't know why such a question takes you out of either the atheist or materialist camp. Atheism makes no claims about reality being real or not, and there can even be room in materialism for unreal versions of reality. EG, if everything we sense is a simulation, that doesn't mean that things we're sensing isn't material, it merely isn't what it seems to be; nor that whatever is beyond that simulation isn't also material. It's also OK to be essentially a Bayesian materialist where one says "all the evidence we have for anything existing is material, so I'm going to go with that until we have evidence for any non-material existing things," which is basically where I find myself. Non-material epistemologies are also innately violating Occam's Razor, and the only way to do that rationally is if they provided additional evidence for themselves, and they do not. I'd also add that there's always the possibility for anything that isn't logically or physically impossible, and we don't know the limits of the latter. Possibility isn't an issue for God; plausibility, or probability, very much is. Also, the problem with defining "greatest existing being" is that greatest is innately about subjective preferences. There is no objective standards for greatness without us first agreeing on what to categorize as great to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 14, 2021 23:02:23 GMT
and pointless, considering we seem to be permanently blocked from reaching anything beyond our own reality. It is fun to wonder about and make fictional stories about, but what else can be done with it? I’d say the blockage is then born of mind. Once one can control the mind, or the whirlwind of thought that clouds it, then that blockage will dissipate. That is a bunch of nonsense.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 15, 2021 1:53:52 GMT
I don't know what I'd call myself at the moment. I'm personally focused on whether our reality is real or not which takes me out of the normal Atheist/Materialist camp. It seems to me that infinity being what it is that there's always the possibility of something more powerful than the last thing and no ultimate god because you can't put a lid on it and there is no way to understand it all as one being. To me it sounds like one endless clump for lack of a better term. But I don't have a clue what the greatest existing being is that really exists in the real sense. Odd thing to focus on. The only access to "reality" we have is our senses and however our mind reconstructs data from our senses. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to worry about whether or no that's "real" as opposed to being able to accurately model it, since, at the end of the day, what most of us are trying to do is figure out how manipulate our sense-experience to our benefit. I also don't know why such a question takes you out of either the atheist or materialist camp. Atheism makes no claims about reality being real or not, and there can even be room in materialism for unreal versions of reality. EG, if everything we sense is a simulation, that doesn't mean that things we're sensing isn't material, it merely isn't what it seems to be; nor that whatever is beyond that simulation isn't also material. It's also OK to be essentially a Bayesian materialist where one says "all the evidence we have for anything existing is material, so I'm going to go with that until we have evidence for any non-material existing things," which is basically where I find myself. Non-material epistemologies are also innately violating Occam's Razor, and the only way to do that rationally is if they provided additional evidence for themselves, and they do not. I'd also add that there's always the possibility for anything that isn't logically or physically impossible, and we don't know the limits of the latter. Possibility isn't an issue for God; plausibility, or probability, very much is. Also, the problem with defining "greatest existing being" is that greatest is innately about subjective preferences. There is no objective standards for greatness without us first agreeing on what to categorize as great to begin with. I have had several likely Mandela Effects that have made me doubt the consistency of reality so whether reality is real or not is a big deal to me. |
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 15, 2021 2:19:57 GMT
I don't know what I'd call myself at the moment. I'm personally focused on whether our reality is real or not which takes me out of the normal Atheist/Materialist camp. It seems to me that infinity being what it is that there's always the possibility of something more powerful than the last thing and no ultimate god because you can't put a lid on it and there is no way to understand it all as one being. To me it sounds like one endless clump for lack of a better term. But I don't have a clue what the greatest existing being is that really exists in the real sense.To put a non-skeptical slant on it, why don't you see yourself as the greatest being that exists and that then extends to all and everything else. It is away from separate religious notion of God and is born into a more personal sense of empowerment that is both intimate and extrovert at the same time. Why not be boundless. I may be the smartest person that I can understand by the nature of not knowing what it's like to be smarter than I am, but I can't pretend to be as smart as somebody who has solved multiple Rubik's puzzles or a molecular biologist. I'll strive to be a better person but I can only go so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2021 4:58:17 GMT
Odd thing to focus on. The only access to "reality" we have is our senses and however our mind reconstructs data from our senses. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to worry about whether or no that's "real" as opposed to being able to accurately model it, since, at the end of the day, what most of us are trying to do is figure out how manipulate our sense-experience to our benefit. I also don't know why such a question takes you out of either the atheist or materialist camp. Atheism makes no claims about reality being real or not, and there can even be room in materialism for unreal versions of reality. EG, if everything we sense is a simulation, that doesn't mean that things we're sensing isn't material, it merely isn't what it seems to be; nor that whatever is beyond that simulation isn't also material. It's also OK to be essentially a Bayesian materialist where one says "all the evidence we have for anything existing is material, so I'm going to go with that until we have evidence for any non-material existing things," which is basically where I find myself. Non-material epistemologies are also innately violating Occam's Razor, and the only way to do that rationally is if they provided additional evidence for themselves, and they do not. I'd also add that there's always the possibility for anything that isn't logically or physically impossible, and we don't know the limits of the latter. Possibility isn't an issue for God; plausibility, or probability, very much is. Also, the problem with defining "greatest existing being" is that greatest is innately about subjective preferences. There is no objective standards for greatness without us first agreeing on what to categorize as great to begin with. I have had several likely Mandela Effects that have made me doubt the consistency of reality so whether reality is real or not is a big deal to me. Mandela Effects should make you doubt the reliability of memory, which we know is unreliable in myriad ways, rather than the consistency of reality.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 15, 2021 5:22:27 GMT
I have had several likely Mandela Effects that have made me doubt the consistency of reality so whether reality is real or not is a big deal to me. Mandela Effects should make you doubt the reliability of memory, which we know is unreliable in myriad ways, rather than the consistency of reality. I understand that memory can be fickle but these were very unusual compared to memory flakes I've had. I can't say that I know for sure of course. For the bigger one, I've tried to find out whether there's some other memory that I could have confused it with and I couldn't find any.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 15, 2021 15:59:01 GMT
Mandela Effects should make you doubt the reliability of memory, which we know is unreliable in myriad ways, rather than the consistency of reality. I understand that memory can be fickle but these were very unusual compared to memory flakes I've had. I can't say that I know for sure of course. For the bigger one, I've tried to find out whether there's some other memory that I could have confused it with and I couldn't find any. What are the examples? Most of the major, popular examples I know about are pretty easily explained through quirks of memory. One I fell victim to was "Loony Toons" being "Loony Tunes," but in retrospect that one's easily explained given that I also watched "Tiny Toons" growing up. Regardless, I'd say it's a much farther leap from "things aren't how I remember them, all of reality is unreal and inconsistent" as opposed to "things aren't how I remember them, my memory is unreliable."
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Jan 16, 2021 0:48:59 GMT
I understand that memory can be fickle but these were very unusual compared to memory flakes I've had. I can't say that I know for sure of course. For the bigger one, I've tried to find out whether there's some other memory that I could have confused it with and I couldn't find any. What are the examples? Most of the major, popular examples I know about are pretty easily explained through quirks of memory. One I fell victim to was "Loony Toons" being "Loony Tunes," but in retrospect that one's easily explained given that I also watched "Tiny Toons" growing up. Regardless, I'd say it's a much farther leap from "things aren't how I remember them, all of reality is unreal and inconsistent" as opposed to "things aren't how I remember them, my memory is unreliable." Here it is in an old thread: Possible Mandela Effect
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 16, 2021 14:47:27 GMT
What are the examples? Most of the major, popular examples I know about are pretty easily explained through quirks of memory. One I fell victim to was "Loony Toons" being "Loony Tunes," but in retrospect that one's easily explained given that I also watched "Tiny Toons" growing up. Regardless, I'd say it's a much farther leap from "things aren't how I remember them, all of reality is unreal and inconsistent" as opposed to "things aren't how I remember them, my memory is unreliable." Here it is in an old thread: Possible Mandela Effect Well, of all the possibilities you mentioned I think it seems obvious that 5 is less likely than 1-4, and 6 is the least likely. You even mention that you didn't sit and watch the whole thing and missed some of the plot, so it seems likely you just weren't paying close attention and maybe got the movie mixed up with another one (Fools Rush In?); your "corrupted memory" option. The music one is even simpler since it's very easy to misremember lyrics. "Shine" is a much more common adjective than "sparkle," but I've also heard that song many times and remember it being "sparkle" FWIW.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 16, 2021 21:45:15 GMT
I understand that memory can be fickle but these were very unusual compared to memory flakes I've had. I can't say that I know for sure of course. For the bigger one, I've tried to find out whether there's some other memory that I could have confused it with and I couldn't find any. What are the examples? Most of the major, popular examples I know about are pretty easily explained through quirks of memory. One I fell victim to was "Loony Toons" being "Loony Tunes," but in retrospect that one's easily explained given that I also watched "Tiny Toons" growing up. Regardless, I'd say it's a much farther leap from "things aren't how I remember them, all of reality is unreal and inconsistent" as opposed to "things aren't how I remember them, my memory is unreliable." The Mandela effect IS very easy to explain. Memory is notoriously unreliable and then wrong information enters the public consciousness. I remember when I first heard about the Mandela effect and the examples. I wasn't all that surprised and didn't even need to look up the possible cause for the misremembering, it seemed quite obvious to me. Anyone who suggests conspiracy theories or alternate universes has taken a walk off the map and they are too ridiculous to even talk to. I'll break down one right now. Monopoly Guy and the non-existent monocle. People's memory is combining Mr. Peanut and the Monopoly Guy. Both have canes and Top hats, but only one of them has a monocle. Add a scene from a very famous movie and that just fuels the memory. It also has to do with "how close is anyone paying attention to what the Monopoly Guy looks like in the first place?"
|
|
