Which side is "skeptics" comes down to Occams razor usually. Skeptics could include people who are against; crationism, biorythms, graphology, astrology, phrenology,palm reading, New age,ESP, UFOs, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, 911 truthers, moon hoaxers, bible codes, Virgin Mary grilled cheese, other Virgin Mary products, take your pick
You can be so skeptical that you end up pushing everyone away from you. There is no need to question someone as to whether or not their claim is perfect when they say they got home at 9:30 (Unless it's in a murder trial or something). In normal conversation, it's simply a waste of time to make people exactly prove statements that don't really need to be exact. You can get to where you literally do not believe anything or anyone (Including yourself). This is what I call "uselessly skeptical".
Note that I knew someone like this. It got to the point where I could not say ANYTHING because each little detail of my statement was picked apart before I could get anywhere. This person was obsessed with "being a skeptic" and seemed to be trying to live up to some idealized skeptical life where you question everything. They questioned ridiculously minor things that were simply irrelevant. I could not speak to them without them implying I was wrong about every single little detail.
I have always disliked the word "skeptic" as far as a belief system descriptor. Being a "skeptic" says NOTHING of your reasoning skills or beliefs (Or lack thereof), as KingHeathen points out.
A "skeptic" can be someone who is blindly skeptical to absolutely everything, regardless of the evidence for or likelihood of the claim. That type of person will question every single thing you say, which makes conversation with them ridiculous. "So, can you actually prove you bought that sandwich at 9?"
Sam harris makes an excellent argument for why they've got the right idea, although he reckons we don't need a word at all. Not sure how that would work.
As for it being possible to be a 'skeptical' both ways, this is true, however, being a 'skeptic' is generally defined as being someone who refuses to adopt beliefs on insufficient evidence. Sticking to this definition should probably weed out anyone about to accidentally join the wrong camp. :P
*And while Athiesm may be an introduction into skepticism, as it was with me, it by no way implies a 'skeptic', as Athiesm means specifically that you do not believe in any God. I have a friend who is an Atheist but believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, illuminati, fake moon landing, 2012, and all sorts of crazy ideas.
Not to mention, you can have people turn to Atheism through means other than reasoning.
I could understand the argument against this, but I've generally considered people who are 'skeptical' of things like evolution as being deniers. Most 'skeptics' question even conventionalism, which includes evolution. Skepticism is the application of consistent criteria when examining claims.
Well yes, but then we have to get into the discussion of what constitutes as 'evidence', and it's a slippery slope from there to to justtifications used by pseudo-science apologizers or proponents.
I just don't think atheism is the correct term for 'skeptic'. Atheism pertains to one area of life. TheAmazingAtheist did a very good video on this subject recently.
1587, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.)
Brian Leiter has called post-structuralism the modern equivalent of "skepticism"—I think this is accurate, and using the word as synonymous w/atheism is silly.
I suppose skeptic does sometimes have secondary meaning that is something like denier,or opponent, as in climate skeptic or moon landing skeptic; however most of the time, especially in rationalist/skeptical/scientific circles it refers to basing your world veiw on reason and evidence, so you can't call your self a skeptic in the primary sense just because you have rejected some idea or other. cont.
I can't really see anything wrong with this label, if it is used correctly, and we do need to call this world veiw something, because skepticism definately isn't the same as atheism. I suppose you could argue that rationalism would be better, but as far as I can seen they both do the same job about equally well. cont
And I think there is a rather consistent definition of Skepticism, which is no less consistent than individual definitions of atheism.
Sam Harris did a very good talk on why it does not make sense to call one's self an atheist. I feel that being a Skeptic, and applying your method of coming to logical conclusions to other fields other than religion, is a far more rational association than calling one's self an atheist.
I do not think that the Skeptic movement has named themselves as such, to be more enticing to other degrees of religiosity. I don't think a group of atheists were sitting around saying "how can we be more popular?"
I think that it was a grup that realized that being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are rational in any sense. My take on it, is that the Skeptical movement is an entirely different group, more of a partner to, than an spin off of, atheism.
I wasn't referring to the "Skeptic movement"...I was referring to people putting together Meet Up groups but not using the label "atheist" when that is what they actually meant.
You don't have to be an atheist to be a skeptic though there is definitely a predisposition. However as claims get less falsifiable, skeptics are less concerned with them.
The skeptical community as a whole is a rationalist one,but a "true" skeptic must be prepared to change their viewpoint based on evidence or else they're just a denier.
For more information, have a listen to the Skeptic's Guide to the universe podcast. Just note this isn't just an arbitrary label, it's an organized group
I have to disagree with this video as a whole. Skeptics need not identify themselves as what they are skeptical of. Skepticism - in terms of the self-chosen identifier by the Skeptic movement - is a general philosophy regarding what one believes, and how they come to that belief.
As deefsound said, you can't just disagree with something, and call yourself a skeptic. Part of being a skeptic, is being on the side of the evidence, in all matters and fields of interest.
You aren't disagreeing with this video. My point was about using the term to encompass more than just atheism because you want to include agnostics, deists, people of wavering faith, etc...and to expand the topics of conversation to include things outside of religion. The problem I suggest is that your definition of what skepticism is will differ from someone else's and work in contrast to what you wish to accomplish (sometimes) if you are trying to put together a group of non-believers.
Anyone who can read your question, and naturally comes up with the counter question "Should the term apply at all"
I'm not really convinced that investing self-identity in the fact you have some sort of doubt is an ideal course of action.
In another sense anybody 1 standard deviation in quantity below from the socially accepted answer to an issue. Libertarians are the skeptics of politics, and anorexics the skeptics of eating.
I consider myself a skeptic and with that label I accept certain 'rules'. The most important of those is I adopt a skeptical position to things which have poor or no evidence for them.
This is not the case for those you list such as being skeptical of evolution or global warming. These are more akin to denial as the evidence points away from the truth these positions take.
So, while skeptic is readily use by deniers, it is not in fact skeptical at all.
well,in my personal experience in being strictly a commentator for everyones videos,the only problem i have is that ESPECIALLY with theists is that they dont argue,they resort to aspects of reality to defend religion with their belief that god is responsible,ie:gravity,air,electricity,emotion,etc.with this bullshit way of "thinking",the discussion goes nowhere,but i wouldnt call it skepticism,i would call it just plain fuckin stubborn because of the influence of faith.
Skepticism certainly does have a lot of historical baggage and can be used to mean a lot of things. Obviously you understand that it's modern usage (among most of those who label themselves as skeptics) and yet it is a term very easily misunderstood. I think the skeptical movement which included people like James Randi is growing even today and that the term skeptic will be communicated well enough to avoid such misunderstandings and it is a question of education and exposure.
I never actually considered skepticism to be synonymous with atheism. Throughout most of my life the people I've known who considered themselves 'skeptics" were also theists. The belief in God was just something they never considered with the same skepticism they applied to things like ghosts or alien visitations, or the guy from some African country who will give you 10 million dollars if you help him to get access to the assets his government froze. :p
skeptic is one of those words that can be applied to any group by those with opposing views...like assholes,idiots,morons etc.
when i think of skeptics i tend to think of paranormal stuff more than religion of evolution...maybe instead of just saying skeptic, we should specify...paranormal skeptic, religion skeptic and so on...thought provoking as always, Kingheathen.
Good point stonedcommander. I've had 9/11 truthers tell me I should apply the same skepticism I have regarding God to the government. So from their perspective they are the skeptics, and those of us who have examined their claims, and found them without merit are the sheep who are going along with the crowd.
I agree with your point...we are "skeptial" of what is bullshit. If the statement was "the world is flat", you wouldn't call those who don't believe it "skeptics"
I don't like the term "skeptic" myself, but that's only because of the stigma that I don't believe in things... You are incorrect with your assertion that creationists are "skeptics" of evolution. They deny evolution. There is a difference. Look to Skeptic magazine for the correct definition of "skeptic". They deny evolution and believe creationism because they are not thinking critically; being skeptical.
A Skeptic is a solitary thing just as Atheism is. An Atheist is, by definition, a Skeptic. But, a theist can also be a skeptic of their chosen shibboleth. The idea is to point out to Theists (and Atheists) the fact that reason, which is the heart of skepticism, is key in this universe. Belief, or disbelief, without reason is unjustified.
I always equated skepticism with being someone who generally demands a higher burden of evidentiary proof. So at least in my view (which I agree is entirely subjective), a young earth creationist wouldn't necessarily be a skeptic. This is, of course, once again depending upon my general assumption that the young earth creationist has accepted their view without any proof (which I do not consider all too unreasonable).
good video KH. I my mind, being skeptic is a scientific mind-set, where atheist does not have to be. As a scientist, you should be skeptical of everything, that's in the job description. Including well founded theories such as evolution and atomic theory. Creationists skeptical of evolution is not skeptical of creationism, they are therefore selectively skeptical.
Scientists are not only sceptical of the sc. "intelligent design", they are sceptical of evolution too. Good scientists are sceptical of everything.
The fact that nobody has been able to falsify evolution makes it a good scientific theory. And in the same way the fact that "ID" hasn't got a leg to stand on makes it useless.
But scepticism never exits the arena. It's always there, as it should be.
To me scepticism just means a scientific way of processing information.
There seems to me to be a difference between people who call themselves skeptics while believing in some unproven position, and people who are skeptical about everything (an extreme form of agnosticism).
When you say there are some people who are, for example, 9/11 truthers calling themselves skeptics, I'd say this is an example of discarding or favoring information in favor of a certain held world view.
The second kind of skepticism is doubt that any knowledge is ultimately possible.
To me, anyone can be skeptical, but to be a skeptic is much different. A skeptic requires evidence as a way of life, not just on those things they don't want to believe. James Randi is the epitome of a skeptic.
Why define yourself as something you aren't instead of something you are? Not my fault if some in our society have turned skepticism into a dirty word. Should we give up on the word scientist just because Kent Hovind claims to be one?
The term I dislike is "free thinker," even though I actually helped to set up a "free thought" society once. I just think the term is pompous, but I still generally agree with the goals of "free thinkers." I'm just not much of a joiner. I'm more of a hanger on - a dingle berry in the community of non belief.
Skepticism is a broader term than atheism. It's not just broader in the context of religious convictions.
Also, there is a skepticism as a mechanism of denial and there is philosophical skepticism. Of course everyone is skeptical of what they don't believe, but philosophical skepticism attempts to apply skepticism methodically as a tool.
Skepticsm and atheism is not synonymous. Skepticism is a tool, like the scientific method. The people who you're talking about (ie 9/11 truthers) are not skeptics, but cynics.
The point of the skeptic community is to urge people to think. To evaluate the evidence. I think TJ covered this quite nicely in his vid along with the importance of it.
Most skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.
I have a video coming soon. It's rendering now. Should be up by the morning.
KingHeathen, one more point... When you sign off your videos by saying "don't take my word for it, think for yourself", you are encouraging skepticism. And isn't that the more important value that you want people to embrace? You can be an atheist and still accept all sorts of weird claims: conspiracy theories, homeopathy, alien abductions, etc. Also, atheists should be just as skeptical of atheism as they are of religion.
I agree, King. The onset of being confronted with an idea may make one skeptical, but there needs to be a time when one makes an informed decision about the issue one way or another.
Someone who doesn't do the mental work is either lazy or apathetic.
Someone who remains skeptical is in the same boat as those who consider themselves "undecided" voters.
Get off the fence and make a decision one way or the other.
In the case of religion, I just want it to be an informed decision.
Why would "making an informed decision" end ones skepticism? A scientist is trained to be skeptical about all theories, but that doesn't prevent him from accepting many of them. In fact, that is the very strength of science: scientists gain more confidence in a theory because of they approach it with skepticism.
problem with skepticism is that it can be limitless. and most skeptics are selective skeptics. like skeptic magazine...skeptic of certain things, but not others. always be wary of people who self proclaim themselves skeptics because the idea of being the critical thinking, most objective is the most monopolistic idea to promote to people about oneself or a group with such a label
The terms "skeptic" and "atheist" serve different fields. Atheism really just addresses belief (that we really have none) while skepticism addresses evaluating claims. They're not mutually exclusive per se, but they are related, and usually when someone is one of them they usually are both (or end up that way).
I think you're confusing the everyday use of the word "skeptic" or skeptical" as someone who rejects a certain claim. However, in the sense being discussed (proto-philosophical?), a skeptic is simply someone who refuses to accept a claim without good reasons - usually defined as rational arguments and/or physical evidence. In this sense, creatards are NOT skeptics, and neigther are most conspiracy theorists.
Is it possible that we're mixing up the word "skeptic" with the label or philosophy "skeptic"?
The way I've understood it, and perhaps I'm mistaken, is that the word implies what you're talking about here, but the label or philosophy is that of someone who is skeptical UNTIL they get evidence about something. Conclusive evidence. I don't think you can call someone who is still skeptical of something a "skeptic" if their reasons for being skeptical are widely debunked.
If a person wasn't skeptical, they wouldn't doubt anything, so if anyone doubts anything they are being skeptical. Having doubt and lacking a belief is not nearly the same thing. Since having is not lacking, and lacking not having you can throw any relation to the two out the window, because you haven't said what they are, just what they aren't. If you were skeptical towards the belief in a god you wouldn't be an atheist, you would only be unsure in that belief and not believe it was wrong.
Skepticism isn't a conclusion; it is a method. It states that one should require evidence and weigh it before accepting that a claim is true. Skepticism isn't denialism, which simply refuses to accept something as true regardless of the amount of the evidence for or against. I am an atheist because of my skepticism, not the reverse. Creationism isn't "skeptical" of evolution. It denies evolution because it conflicts with religious belief.
To illustrate the point, as an evolutionist, I am skeptical of evolution. Being skeptical of something does not mean rejecting it as untrue. It means requiring that there be evidence. An informed creationist cannot be skeptical of creationism, because the evidence doesn't support his view.
@RationalRat: Good. I'd also add that one might try to argue that just as no amount of evidence for evolution could convince a creationist, the same applies to convincing a skeptic of creationism. This is true, but not because of dogmatic adherence to a belief. A skeptic is unlikely to accept a premise inconsistent with evolutionary theory as evidence which necessarily points towards creationism. A creationist however could not as easily reject scientific evidence as being simply invalid.
Agree with the King here - skeptic seems like an ill-defined term, and is comparable with free-thinker that montrealpsycho brought up. A lot of the woo believers will say they are free-thinkers, because they remain open to certain possibilities, but then they don't let go of them when the evidence says otherwise. And god(s) remain the elephant in the room if you're talking about evidence but want to include the religious. It's a toughie.
Yes, there are a number of people that don't understand what skepticism means, but I don't think that the solution is to abandon skepticism. It means educating them about what is really involved in a skeptical approach. If they aren't open to changing their view when the evidence doesn't support them, then they are being skeptical. That being said, being skeptical isn't an all or nothing proposition. Religious people can often be skeptical about other issues and atheists can also be dogmatic.
So if i understand you correctly you think that someone that is a YEC would want to join a skeptic group because they are skeptical of evolution? My experience has not been that is not the case, but it may be different where you live. A skeptic in my view is someone that does not believe without evidence and even then is willing to change their mind in light of new evidence. This would exclude most of the fundamentally religious.
I rather use the term "free thinker" instead of "skeptic" for the reason you expose in your video. There are things I am skeptical about, other stuff I'm not, though I tend to use logic and reason, with peer reviews and credible sources, in my own critical thinking.
I just tell everyone that Im absolutely non-religious. Call me what you like & I really dont care. Maybe its easier to categorize everyone as a Super-naturalist or Naturalist; Maybe just believer or non-believer. Doesnt it really all just boil down to those of us with reality based worldviews & those who are out of touch with reality?
Skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, Deists, Secular, Progressive, Humanist, etc., etc., etc.,. Stereotyping - everyone wants to label someone else or have their own label. All these labels are ridiculously confusing.
I agree. Whatever one believes in, if they don't try to enforce these beliefs onto me or onto others, then I don't give a damn. That said, it's a shame that religious beliefs are not only viewed as "beliefs" by those who believe but as "knowledge", for this pseudo knowledge tends to continuously be enforced onto others as if it was a truth. Religions seek political power to spread itself, it always have, the writing of the Bible, and other religious books is purely political and has always been.
Oh I like that one: "... schools try to BRAINWASH kids into secularism ..." as if kids were not a priori secular before being indoctrinated into religious beliefs. All these fundies with shit in their eyes are seeing the world upside down.
skepticism is someone who follows the evidence where ever it leads, not someone who questions everything, and skeptics refer to them as such rather than atheists because god is one of those things with not a lot of evidence one way or that other, but many people who are skeptics are also atheists.
I didn't say that it was logically sound to turn around an believe in god. And the definition of atheism changes from person to person in the same way that skepticism does, some, like Penn Jillette say that it means believing that there is no god, while others like yourself say it means not believing.
Main skeptical organizations avoid the issue altogether by avoiding the issue of god because of the lack of evidence, instead focusing on testable claims.
-"We let people in that we don't want in."-Could you at some point do a video on what you think the requirements should be? I think that would be interesting.
Your right on buddy. The trend I see is a tone down. I hope they are not doing it just to make it "more acceptable" to the public because some hard core atheists ruined the name of atheism to some extent. I think the rule people will always be people applies also. LOL good to see you on again.
> some hard core atheists ruined the name of atheism to some extent.
"Atheism" means so many different things to different people that it must defined whenever it is used. The term was so charged by religion that only hard core atheist would apply it to themselves to make their position clear.
I didnt quite understand what you were saying. Are you saying that you want to exclude skeptics from your group or club of atheists? I really didnt get what you were saying in your video.
I agree with you KH. Skepticism is too broad, and frankly an empty philosophy. I don't base what I believe on skepticism. I am skeptical of new ideas, but if evidence is shown, my skepticism goes away. The whole god thing goes way beyond them simply not showing me the evidence yet.
I don't think the demand for evidence is an empty philosophy. Skepticism is a broad term that covers many topics but not in a way that describes one's positions in terms of what they are not, such as atheism or agnoticism.
Just because you're skeptic doesn't mean you can't believe the wrong things, it's just easier to convince them that they're wrong. I used to believe the 911 truthers but then i saw some debunks of it and now I don't. On the other hand someone who is not skeptic will attach emotional value to their beliefs which hinders the search for the truth. So I think that all true skeptics should be welcome regardless of their beliefs.
"The thing is, a lot of the opinions the truthers put out, makes SENSE.."
That's pretty much a necessity for something to be a conspiracy theory. Otherwise it dies immediately. This is because conspiracy theories don't have the same luxury of religious beliefs i.e. you don't get born into them.
Atheism just means you don't believe in god. Skepticism means you want evidence to believe in things. I know atheists that believe in astrology, fate, karma, holistic medicine etc.
A skeptic should be someone who requires evidence before accepting a belief. One who is skeptical but doesn't care about evidence is really just ignorant. One who is skeptical despite of evidence is really just using their own brand of faith.
A sceptic is on neither side to begin with evolution is supported by valid reason and evidence. but creation hasn't been justified so i can't imagine a real sceptic being on that side. If they havent seen the evidence for evolution then they shouldn't be on that side either.
I agree with stuckvanilla, the skeptic is one who adopts a particular approach to any subject. But I can see how it could be a little difficult to apply within a religious context where an unquestioning faith is often a requirement.
Instead of "skeptic", "freethinker" should be used to include agnostics and deists along with the atheists. No religious person would use the term "freethinker" (although, in theory, anyone with his or her own crazy idea could be considered someone who is freely thinking...although that is not what the word has come to mean).
The word skeptic means you use a consistent approach to every claim - you require evidence or logical argument to accept a claim. It may sound strange, but skepticism the ultimate open-mindedness, because every claim presented to you has a fair chance against you. All claims are evaluated by the same, consistent skeptical standards.
For example, I completely accept evolution as fact, and I acknowledge creationism as one giant falsehood, *but* I am skeptical of both evolution and creationism.
A skeptic is just a person who will make people defend their point of view. A skeptic believes the one who makes the best case for a claim. "Based on the available evidence claim X seems to make the most sense." A creationist is not a skeptic, because in order to be a skeptic you must be skeptical of your own position as well as those you consider your opponents. It's not enough to be skeptical of something you have to be skeptical of everything, and that includes evolution by the way.
I had more of a problem with the word "skeptic" for the very concerns you have when I first starting getting involved in the movement. As time has progressed, and I've learned that the skeptic movement is right in line with what I would consider reasonable and rational scientific thinking I've been less concerned. However, your concern reminded me that this is still an issue, even though I had forgotten much about it. What really bothers me most is the reluctance to use the term atheist.
I like the word sceptic. It essentially means that you don't take anything on faith and your goal is to be consistent with how much evidence you demand before believing anything. Does the religious or 9/11 truthers honor that concept? That is up for discussion. But, scepticism is nevertheless a means to arrive at what is true, which isn't included in the concept of atheism.
Many atheists are individuals that broke away from their tribe and so sometimes tribalism is hard to return to. It was Hitchens that said getting atheists together is like hearding cats. I think he's right about that.
Skeptic is a fine word. I prefer it to atheist. To me, atheist includes the idea of God, I don't like that. I don't believe in any Gods, nor lack the belief in any, just like i don't lack the belief in furry bunnies that live on saturn.
to me skeptic removes this absurd idea of God all together, while atheist is still tied down to this thing people call god.
i'm too tired to explain further, it's almost 5am.
Having meetings and groups for "atheists" is counterproductive. Atheism is fundamentally a lack of belief and there are some unintended consequences happening. More in this Sam Harris speech if you're interested:
(continued from previous comment). Take your example of a Truther. Are they skeptical of the generally accepted story of what happened? Of course. Are they engaging in reasoned inquery to get to their position, IE, basing their claims on proof and reason instead of insinuation and conjecture? Nope.
Two different connotations from the same root word.
I think you're doing the same thing creationists do when they say Evolution is "just a theory". Being skeptical of an idea does not make one a skeptic. IE one could be skeptical out of contrariness or idiocy. IE, not engaging in reason. The concept of skeptic, as put forth by JREF and the like, is of one who engages in reason when approaching concepts, all concepts, and only goes on to believe those that have been proven. (continued...)
I have no problem with labeling myself Sceptic as long as it means "not willing to believe claims without sufficient evidence". My atheism follows from my scepticism, as does my disbelief of e.g. homeopathy.
Actually I was thinkin about this as I did stuff about, and I came up with this creationist, and several other people who believe in stuff with no logic, ARE logical with other stuff. As well as the fact that it is BASED on PERSONAL beliefs, therefor they ARENT skeptical, but bias. Theres a difference between skepticism, and personal biasness, specially when you don apply the same logic as you would other cases!
KH, I DEMAND a reply back,lol. They are spinning what skepticism is. They can be the most obtuse, and myopic person alive, and call them selves open mined because they question YOU who actually is open minded, doesnt mean they are in fact applying the word accurately. So KH, I disagree, because it seems you find them calling them skeptics as valid based on the exact definition, but i wouldnt call em it at all cause its simply biasness and personal beliefs.
LOL, and yes it does. I just dont consider personal beliefs as skepticism. I was mainly talking about creationist. Because the vast majority [wouldn't say ALL] are not skeptical, but bias because it contradicts perceived notions. Therefor it isnt skepticism at all. Anyway, nice point and thanks for the laugh.
But I want to note on 9/11 and conspiracy theorist. They generally do not trust the media and government, I dont either. BUT when you look into the evidence, and it contradicts and youd accept the evidence if it was in another area, proves it isnt skepticism. I think to be skeptical and not bias, you should apply the same exact logic to everything else. Even what I just wrote I am skeptical of. Maybe I am wrong, I dont know...
Just for fun : Let me give an example. Iv debated 9/11 conspiracy. Even face to face, and I always bring up peer review. Now if I was to debate infront of them a medical fraud [magnet therapy, Kevin Trudeau] and used the same exact points, explain why peer review makes science reliable, they would say YA YOU OWNED THAT NUT JOB! Yet when it comes to them, they respond EXACTLY like the nut job they just declared I owned.
Scepticism applied to religion naturally results in atheism. While fundamentalists, creationists, theists, etc are sceptical of other beliefs, but they fail to be sceptical enough of their own beliefs - this is where the problem is. A honest sceptic will apply the method the everything in their lives regardless of the consequences. The truth matters, which is also one of the reasons I was saddened to hear TAM asked people to "lay off" the religious issue. Cowards.
I think the term "freethinker" is best. A freethinker can be atheist, agnostic, deist, and maybe even Christian (as long as they think critically and can hold an intelligent conversation, and aren't dogmatic bible thumpers).
Well, I think proper skepticism is the reluctance to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. Not those who reject evidence for no particular reason.
So a true skeptic would be a lot more likely to (at least tentatively) accept evolution that fundamentalism because there is a lot more evidence for evolution than a young earth.
"Skeptic" is like the word "theory." It's been misused a lot in regular conversation but it still has a proper meaning.
The term "skeptic" carries certain connotations that make it an unfavorable term to some. It can be a synonym with conspiracy theorist. What it should mean is someone who doesn't immediately believe what they are told but forms opinions on claims only after looking at the evidence supporting and/or refuting those claims. Instead I think most people think of someone who just doesn't believe anything they're told at all and is generally a bit nutty.
"Skeptic" isn't a better term than atheist it really is a rocky road filled with potholes I AM a skeptic I don't take anything at face value as such, "conspiracy theorist" is a label I get given so which is better? if all conspiracies are to be followed to the root you find they lead to the same place bankers/fed now I am atheist, acapitolist, and amediaist atheist is a scary term in name only
I disagree, but also agree. I see your point. I hear people all the time call them selves skeptics, in the documentary Flock of Dodos [You commented on it a wayyyy while back] I tend to watch it on and off, anyway. One of the main creationist calls his creationist friends skeptics, and agnostic. The skeptic community defines skepticism as factual truth rather then personal beliefs. Factual as in scientific, and logic. Creationist is nothin but flawed logic and personal beliefs.
Skepticism started with the greek philosophers as the idea that you should doubt common knowledge and knowledge accepted by others. Partially because of this, the greeks were some of the least religious in history, despite their pantheon of Gods. They basically just used their "religion" for festivals as a way to have some fun. They really just didn't care about it too much.
I agree and you did say something. I had one problem, "People we don't want in"...are we an elite group or a special club now? Madalyn Murray O'Hair can kiss my strong poly atheist ass.
What I mean is: If you are trying to form a group to allow others that are normally seen as the outcasts because or being a minority...you don't want people of the majority showing up and drowning you out. If I'm putting together a group of atheists, I don't need a group of preachers showing up every week. If I'm creating a debate group, having both sides is a good thing.
Great points and yes it much more clear. Also, I apologize if you thought I was insulting you. I gather you didn't but I wanted to make that was clear after seeing my comment again.
I suppose "skeptic" could be antonymous to "believer". When someone says they are a believer or refers to someone as a believer, we pretty much know what they are a believer of. Some sort of Theistic belief. Sort of the same when someone refers to themselves or someone else as a skeptic. We get what they mean, it's not often confused what someone means when they say they are a skeptic.
KH - would not a 'genuine' skeptic be one who relies on facts alone, and doubts that which is weak on or lacking altogether of fact/s? And if so, does that not, by that definition, rule out the socalled religious skeptics? IE, turns their claim of being a skeptic into yet another misconception or outright delusion?
I think the term Skeptic is needed to distinguish peoples beliefs. I really do see a distinction between being a skeptic and being an atheist, I know alot of people who are atheists but believe in unproven shit like psychic powers, ghosts and ridiculous alternative medicine claims.
I consider a broad term of the contemporary skeptic as someone who does not accept facts without evidence and questions peoples beliefs that are not founded on evidence.
I hear what you're saying, but I think you're conflating skepticism and denial. Creationists aren't skeptical of evolution. A skeptic wants to understand truth, creationist just wants to believe their dogma. They're not skeptics, they're denialists.
A skeptic in my opinion is someone who values truth over personal belief and questions propositions that are made without good evidence. A good skeptic will even continue to question things long accepted as true so that understanding does not turn into dogma. This is the fundamental, if you'll pardon the pun, misunderstanding that creationists have of skeptics.
I am an atheist BECAUSE I am a skeptic. So I think the label Skeptic's Group if fair since it is a broader title allowing for more than just atheists. Atheism is a subset of skepticism.
Of course if someone is using the term skeptic as a softer replacement for atheist, then I would agree that is a little weak-sauce, to use the parlance of our times.
I disagree. It may be that to you, atheism came as a consequence of general skepticism, and therefore is a subset of a general skeptical outlook, but that is not ubiquitous.
Atheism being simply a lack of belief, it doesn't require a skeptical outlook.
Strictly speaking you are correct, atheism does not require a skepticism, but I'm sure you appreciate the difference between connotative and denotative language. I did not mean to imply that my definition of atheism as a subset of skepticism was strict or ubiquitous. More that it has been my experience that atheism usually comes as a result of a lack of evidence. And the lack of evidence tends to only affect the beliefs of skeptical mind people.
don't forget the skeptics that believe we never went to the moon lol..sorry couldn't resist to put that in.
johndebbra 9 months ago
Which side is "skeptics" comes down to Occams razor usually. Skeptics could include people who are against; crationism, biorythms, graphology, astrology, phrenology,palm reading, New age,ESP, UFOs, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, 911 truthers, moon hoaxers, bible codes, Virgin Mary grilled cheese, other Virgin Mary products, take your pick
arachnophile01 1 year ago
You can be so skeptical that you end up pushing everyone away from you. There is no need to question someone as to whether or not their claim is perfect when they say they got home at 9:30 (Unless it's in a murder trial or something). In normal conversation, it's simply a waste of time to make people exactly prove statements that don't really need to be exact. You can get to where you literally do not believe anything or anyone (Including yourself). This is what I call "uselessly skeptical".
mindsmirror 1 year ago
Note that I knew someone like this. It got to the point where I could not say ANYTHING because each little detail of my statement was picked apart before I could get anywhere. This person was obsessed with "being a skeptic" and seemed to be trying to live up to some idealized skeptical life where you question everything. They questioned ridiculously minor things that were simply irrelevant. I could not speak to them without them implying I was wrong about every single little detail.
mindsmirror 1 year ago
I have always disliked the word "skeptic" as far as a belief system descriptor. Being a "skeptic" says NOTHING of your reasoning skills or beliefs (Or lack thereof), as KingHeathen points out.
A "skeptic" can be someone who is blindly skeptical to absolutely everything, regardless of the evidence for or likelihood of the claim. That type of person will question every single thing you say, which makes conversation with them ridiculous. "So, can you actually prove you bought that sandwich at 9?"
mindsmirror 1 year ago
geez, get a dictionary man...
iwirebr 2 years ago
Sam harris makes an excellent argument for why they've got the right idea, although he reckons we don't need a word at all. Not sure how that would work.
As for it being possible to be a 'skeptical' both ways, this is true, however, being a 'skeptic' is generally defined as being someone who refuses to adopt beliefs on insufficient evidence. Sticking to this definition should probably weed out anyone about to accidentally join the wrong camp. :P
Singebuggercat 2 years ago
damn typo.
Singebuggercat 2 years ago
*And while Athiesm may be an introduction into skepticism, as it was with me, it by no way implies a 'skeptic', as Athiesm means specifically that you do not believe in any God. I have a friend who is an Atheist but believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, illuminati, fake moon landing, 2012, and all sorts of crazy ideas.
Not to mention, you can have people turn to Atheism through means other than reasoning.
Merjey 2 years ago
exactly, it's possible to turn atheist for the wrong reasons;thus, not all atheist are necessarily skeptic.
takerhbkfan 2 years ago
@takerhbkfan
The type of atheist that looks up at the sky, says "Fuck you god.... there.. I prooved there is no god"...
Irritates me.
thefakeyeti 1 year ago
I could understand the argument against this, but I've generally considered people who are 'skeptical' of things like evolution as being deniers. Most 'skeptics' question even conventionalism, which includes evolution. Skepticism is the application of consistent criteria when examining claims.
And while atheism is
Merjey 2 years ago
Sure, but don't you think that Christians call us "deniers" as well?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Well yes, but then we have to get into the discussion of what constitutes as 'evidence', and it's a slippery slope from there to to justtifications used by pseudo-science apologizers or proponents.
I just don't think atheism is the correct term for 'skeptic'. Atheism pertains to one area of life. TheAmazingAtheist did a very good video on this subject recently.
Merjey 2 years ago
skeptic: (Online Etymological Dictionary)
1587, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.)
Brian Leiter has called post-structuralism the modern equivalent of "skepticism"—I think this is accurate, and using the word as synonymous w/atheism is silly.
apolloxias 2 years ago
I suppose skeptic does sometimes have secondary meaning that is something like denier,or opponent, as in climate skeptic or moon landing skeptic; however most of the time, especially in rationalist/skeptical/scientific circles it refers to basing your world veiw on reason and evidence, so you can't call your self a skeptic in the primary sense just because you have rejected some idea or other. cont.
Aletheophile 2 years ago
I can't really see anything wrong with this label, if it is used correctly, and we do need to call this world veiw something, because skepticism definately isn't the same as atheism. I suppose you could argue that rationalism would be better, but as far as I can seen they both do the same job about equally well. cont
Aletheophile 2 years ago
Though I do agree that is is silly to use skepticism as a euphamism atheism.
Aletheophile 2 years ago
And I think there is a rather consistent definition of Skepticism, which is no less consistent than individual definitions of atheism.
Sam Harris did a very good talk on why it does not make sense to call one's self an atheist. I feel that being a Skeptic, and applying your method of coming to logical conclusions to other fields other than religion, is a far more rational association than calling one's self an atheist.
bonnell123 2 years ago
I do not think that the Skeptic movement has named themselves as such, to be more enticing to other degrees of religiosity. I don't think a group of atheists were sitting around saying "how can we be more popular?"
I think that it was a grup that realized that being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are rational in any sense. My take on it, is that the Skeptical movement is an entirely different group, more of a partner to, than an spin off of, atheism.
bonnell123 2 years ago
I wasn't referring to the "Skeptic movement"...I was referring to people putting together Meet Up groups but not using the label "atheist" when that is what they actually meant.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
@KingHeathen what if they also questioned homeopathy at these meet-ups
arachnophile01 1 year ago
@arachnophile01 I'd say it is warranted as homeopathy has severe issues with its claims.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
You don't have to be an atheist to be a skeptic though there is definitely a predisposition. However as claims get less falsifiable, skeptics are less concerned with them.
The skeptical community as a whole is a rationalist one,but a "true" skeptic must be prepared to change their viewpoint based on evidence or else they're just a denier.
For more information, have a listen to the Skeptic's Guide to the universe podcast. Just note this isn't just an arbitrary label, it's an organized group
Ankhareon 2 years ago
I have to disagree with this video as a whole. Skeptics need not identify themselves as what they are skeptical of. Skepticism - in terms of the self-chosen identifier by the Skeptic movement - is a general philosophy regarding what one believes, and how they come to that belief.
As deefsound said, you can't just disagree with something, and call yourself a skeptic. Part of being a skeptic, is being on the side of the evidence, in all matters and fields of interest.
bonnell123 2 years ago
You aren't disagreeing with this video. My point was about using the term to encompass more than just atheism because you want to include agnostics, deists, people of wavering faith, etc...and to expand the topics of conversation to include things outside of religion. The problem I suggest is that your definition of what skepticism is will differ from someone else's and work in contrast to what you wish to accomplish (sometimes) if you are trying to put together a group of non-believers.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Skeptic is a general term.
You have to specify the type of Skeptic on any given endeavor:
Bible Skeptic; 2012 Skeptic; Skeptic of Religion; Skeptic of the News; Skeptic of 911; Skeptic of YouTube bias.
KanadaDry 2 years ago
Anyone who can read your question, and naturally comes up with the counter question "Should the term apply at all"
I'm not really convinced that investing self-identity in the fact you have some sort of doubt is an ideal course of action.
In another sense anybody 1 standard deviation in quantity below from the socially accepted answer to an issue. Libertarians are the skeptics of politics, and anorexics the skeptics of eating.
WorBlux 2 years ago
I don't agree with your premise here KH.
I consider myself a skeptic and with that label I accept certain 'rules'. The most important of those is I adopt a skeptical position to things which have poor or no evidence for them.
This is not the case for those you list such as being skeptical of evolution or global warming. These are more akin to denial as the evidence points away from the truth these positions take.
So, while skeptic is readily use by deniers, it is not in fact skeptical at all.
deefsound 2 years ago
yep king heathen is right. dude is pretty smart i gotta say. (grabbin the holy water lol)
slappysquirrel321 2 years ago
Skeptics are skeptical of everything that is not common sense and not shown to be strong scientific theory
+ skeptics cannot be skeptical of common sense propositions.
Skepsis is finely tuned common sense.
ogbash 2 years ago
well,in my personal experience in being strictly a commentator for everyones videos,the only problem i have is that ESPECIALLY with theists is that they dont argue,they resort to aspects of reality to defend religion with their belief that god is responsible,ie:gravity,air,electricity,emotion,etc.with this bullshit way of "thinking",the discussion goes nowhere,but i wouldnt call it skepticism,i would call it just plain fuckin stubborn because of the influence of faith.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
I thought we already had blanket terms.
Humanist.
Freethinker.
Do we need more?
vanessavoj 2 years ago
"Rational skeptics"
People that use rational thought and scientific evidence to make decisions.
TheRedneckAtheist 2 years ago
Skeptic = Dubious.
DW01 2 years ago
Skepticism certainly does have a lot of historical baggage and can be used to mean a lot of things. Obviously you understand that it's modern usage (among most of those who label themselves as skeptics) and yet it is a term very easily misunderstood. I think the skeptical movement which included people like James Randi is growing even today and that the term skeptic will be communicated well enough to avoid such misunderstandings and it is a question of education and exposure.
mrwhite692000 2 years ago
To be "skeptical" may sometimes mean to require evidence or to need to "see it to believe it".
WhiteDragon103 2 years ago
But couldn't someoen we "skeptical" of their own senses?
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
With the possibility of halucinations aside, the need for evidence should take over at that point, I guess.
WhiteDragon103 2 years ago
@thefakeyeti yes. after my last experience with psilocybin...definitely skeptical of my own senses that night.
clutterfish 2 years ago
Or aka Agnosticism. Like me.
DW01 2 years ago
I never actually considered skepticism to be synonymous with atheism. Throughout most of my life the people I've known who considered themselves 'skeptics" were also theists. The belief in God was just something they never considered with the same skepticism they applied to things like ghosts or alien visitations, or the guy from some African country who will give you 10 million dollars if you help him to get access to the assets his government froze. :p
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
skeptic is one of those words that can be applied to any group by those with opposing views...like assholes,idiots,morons etc.
when i think of skeptics i tend to think of paranormal stuff more than religion of evolution...maybe instead of just saying skeptic, we should specify...paranormal skeptic, religion skeptic and so on...thought provoking as always, Kingheathen.
stonedcommander 2 years ago
i meant religion "or" evolution...oops
stonedcommander 2 years ago
Good point stonedcommander. I've had 9/11 truthers tell me I should apply the same skepticism I have regarding God to the government. So from their perspective they are the skeptics, and those of us who have examined their claims, and found them without merit are the sheep who are going along with the crowd.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I agree with your point...we are "skeptial" of what is bullshit. If the statement was "the world is flat", you wouldn't call those who don't believe it "skeptics"
Ruby1978 2 years ago
Perhaps 'rational skeptic' would be a better replacement for skeptic on its own.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
I don't like the term "skeptic" myself, but that's only because of the stigma that I don't believe in things... You are incorrect with your assertion that creationists are "skeptics" of evolution. They deny evolution. There is a difference. Look to Skeptic magazine for the correct definition of "skeptic". They deny evolution and believe creationism because they are not thinking critically; being skeptical.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
A Skeptic is a solitary thing just as Atheism is. An Atheist is, by definition, a Skeptic. But, a theist can also be a skeptic of their chosen shibboleth. The idea is to point out to Theists (and Atheists) the fact that reason, which is the heart of skepticism, is key in this universe. Belief, or disbelief, without reason is unjustified.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I always equated skepticism with being someone who generally demands a higher burden of evidentiary proof. So at least in my view (which I agree is entirely subjective), a young earth creationist wouldn't necessarily be a skeptic. This is, of course, once again depending upon my general assumption that the young earth creationist has accepted their view without any proof (which I do not consider all too unreasonable).
lectricklightbulb 2 years ago
good video KH. I my mind, being skeptic is a scientific mind-set, where atheist does not have to be. As a scientist, you should be skeptical of everything, that's in the job description. Including well founded theories such as evolution and atomic theory. Creationists skeptical of evolution is not skeptical of creationism, they are therefore selectively skeptical.
TheLittleDonkey 2 years ago
Another good one. Keep it up.
Derrshmoz 2 years ago
Scientists are not only sceptical of the sc. "intelligent design", they are sceptical of evolution too. Good scientists are sceptical of everything.
The fact that nobody has been able to falsify evolution makes it a good scientific theory. And in the same way the fact that "ID" hasn't got a leg to stand on makes it useless.
But scepticism never exits the arena. It's always there, as it should be.
To me scepticism just means a scientific way of processing information.
slipcurve 2 years ago
There seems to me to be a difference between people who call themselves skeptics while believing in some unproven position, and people who are skeptical about everything (an extreme form of agnosticism).
When you say there are some people who are, for example, 9/11 truthers calling themselves skeptics, I'd say this is an example of discarding or favoring information in favor of a certain held world view.
The second kind of skepticism is doubt that any knowledge is ultimately possible.
kanzanagain 2 years ago
To me, anyone can be skeptical, but to be a skeptic is much different. A skeptic requires evidence as a way of life, not just on those things they don't want to believe. James Randi is the epitome of a skeptic.
Why define yourself as something you aren't instead of something you are? Not my fault if some in our society have turned skepticism into a dirty word. Should we give up on the word scientist just because Kent Hovind claims to be one?
HoleDweller 2 years ago
omg look at 4:40-4:41.....
I saw a GHOST!
sextusloverlord 2 years ago
That was a car driving by.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
All hail King Heathen.
sextusloverlord 2 years ago
The term I dislike is "free thinker," even though I actually helped to set up a "free thought" society once. I just think the term is pompous, but I still generally agree with the goals of "free thinkers." I'm just not much of a joiner. I'm more of a hanger on - a dingle berry in the community of non belief.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Skepticism is a broader term than atheism. It's not just broader in the context of religious convictions.
Also, there is a skepticism as a mechanism of denial and there is philosophical skepticism. Of course everyone is skeptical of what they don't believe, but philosophical skepticism attempts to apply skepticism methodically as a tool.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Skepticsm and atheism is not synonymous. Skepticism is a tool, like the scientific method. The people who you're talking about (ie 9/11 truthers) are not skeptics, but cynics.
The point of the skeptic community is to urge people to think. To evaluate the evidence. I think TJ covered this quite nicely in his vid along with the importance of it.
Most skeptics are atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics.
I have a video coming soon. It's rendering now. Should be up by the morning.
healthyaddict 2 years ago
This has also prompted a video response from me, mine is rendering right now.
Northernskeptic 2 years ago
KingHeathen, one more point... When you sign off your videos by saying "don't take my word for it, think for yourself", you are encouraging skepticism. And isn't that the more important value that you want people to embrace? You can be an atheist and still accept all sorts of weird claims: conspiracy theories, homeopathy, alien abductions, etc. Also, atheists should be just as skeptical of atheism as they are of religion.
RationalRat 2 years ago
Agree with this video.
Nonoyawns 2 years ago
I agree, King. The onset of being confronted with an idea may make one skeptical, but there needs to be a time when one makes an informed decision about the issue one way or another.
Someone who doesn't do the mental work is either lazy or apathetic.
Someone who remains skeptical is in the same boat as those who consider themselves "undecided" voters.
Get off the fence and make a decision one way or the other.
In the case of religion, I just want it to be an informed decision.
FinallyFreeFromFaith 2 years ago
Why would "making an informed decision" end ones skepticism? A scientist is trained to be skeptical about all theories, but that doesn't prevent him from accepting many of them. In fact, that is the very strength of science: scientists gain more confidence in a theory because of they approach it with skepticism.
RationalRat 2 years ago
problem with skepticism is that it can be limitless. and most skeptics are selective skeptics. like skeptic magazine...skeptic of certain things, but not others. always be wary of people who self proclaim themselves skeptics because the idea of being the critical thinking, most objective is the most monopolistic idea to promote to people about oneself or a group with such a label
Thrashaero 2 years ago
The terms "skeptic" and "atheist" serve different fields. Atheism really just addresses belief (that we really have none) while skepticism addresses evaluating claims. They're not mutually exclusive per se, but they are related, and usually when someone is one of them they usually are both (or end up that way).
InfidelAvenger 2 years ago
Agreed.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I think you're confusing the everyday use of the word "skeptic" or skeptical" as someone who rejects a certain claim. However, in the sense being discussed (proto-philosophical?), a skeptic is simply someone who refuses to accept a claim without good reasons - usually defined as rational arguments and/or physical evidence. In this sense, creatards are NOT skeptics, and neigther are most conspiracy theorists.
DeusMortemEst 2 years ago
Is it possible that we're mixing up the word "skeptic" with the label or philosophy "skeptic"?
The way I've understood it, and perhaps I'm mistaken, is that the word implies what you're talking about here, but the label or philosophy is that of someone who is skeptical UNTIL they get evidence about something. Conclusive evidence. I don't think you can call someone who is still skeptical of something a "skeptic" if their reasons for being skeptical are widely debunked.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
In other words, you cannot be skeptical of a belief you lack.
notbill9465 2 years ago
If a person wasn't skeptical, they wouldn't doubt anything, so if anyone doubts anything they are being skeptical. Having doubt and lacking a belief is not nearly the same thing. Since having is not lacking, and lacking not having you can throw any relation to the two out the window, because you haven't said what they are, just what they aren't. If you were skeptical towards the belief in a god you wouldn't be an atheist, you would only be unsure in that belief and not believe it was wrong.
notbill9465 2 years ago
Very interesting.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Skeptical hippo ftw!
SuperDoomandgloom 2 years ago
Skepticism isn't a conclusion; it is a method. It states that one should require evidence and weigh it before accepting that a claim is true. Skepticism isn't denialism, which simply refuses to accept something as true regardless of the amount of the evidence for or against. I am an atheist because of my skepticism, not the reverse. Creationism isn't "skeptical" of evolution. It denies evolution because it conflicts with religious belief.
RationalRat 2 years ago
To illustrate the point, as an evolutionist, I am skeptical of evolution. Being skeptical of something does not mean rejecting it as untrue. It means requiring that there be evidence. An informed creationist cannot be skeptical of creationism, because the evidence doesn't support his view.
RationalRat 2 years ago
@RationalRat: Good. I'd also add that one might try to argue that just as no amount of evidence for evolution could convince a creationist, the same applies to convincing a skeptic of creationism. This is true, but not because of dogmatic adherence to a belief. A skeptic is unlikely to accept a premise inconsistent with evolutionary theory as evidence which necessarily points towards creationism. A creationist however could not as easily reject scientific evidence as being simply invalid.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
I prefer the term Secular Humanist, meaning, that I get my ethical standards from human experience and not from religious documents.
But I am an atheist too.
qanazir 2 years ago
Agree with the King here - skeptic seems like an ill-defined term, and is comparable with free-thinker that montrealpsycho brought up. A lot of the woo believers will say they are free-thinkers, because they remain open to certain possibilities, but then they don't let go of them when the evidence says otherwise. And god(s) remain the elephant in the room if you're talking about evidence but want to include the religious. It's a toughie.
stevebritgimp 2 years ago
Yes, there are a number of people that don't understand what skepticism means, but I don't think that the solution is to abandon skepticism. It means educating them about what is really involved in a skeptical approach. If they aren't open to changing their view when the evidence doesn't support them, then they are being skeptical. That being said, being skeptical isn't an all or nothing proposition. Religious people can often be skeptical about other issues and atheists can also be dogmatic.
RationalRat 2 years ago
That should say: If they aren't open to changing their view when the evidence doesn't support them, then they are not being skeptical.
RationalRat 2 years ago
4:49
ah... i see what you mean now,..
ZerqTM 2 years ago
2:53 or it could just referto people who leave there bullshit detector on high at all times...
ZerqTM 2 years ago
Being "inclusive" means diluting your message.
eagleeye1975 2 years ago
So if i understand you correctly you think that someone that is a YEC would want to join a skeptic group because they are skeptical of evolution? My experience has not been that is not the case, but it may be different where you live. A skeptic in my view is someone that does not believe without evidence and even then is willing to change their mind in light of new evidence. This would exclude most of the fundamentally religious.
4McClain 2 years ago
Don't take my word for it. Even though I'm totally right :D
Brandt761 2 years ago
I rather use the term "free thinker" instead of "skeptic" for the reason you expose in your video. There are things I am skeptical about, other stuff I'm not, though I tend to use logic and reason, with peer reviews and credible sources, in my own critical thinking.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
OMG did you guys see the ghost on his left @ 4:39 !
Spooky...
newexperiment 2 years ago
thats the reflection off his glass's lol
smoke123455 2 years ago
I just tell everyone that Im absolutely non-religious. Call me what you like & I really dont care. Maybe its easier to categorize everyone as a Super-naturalist or Naturalist; Maybe just believer or non-believer. Doesnt it really all just boil down to those of us with reality based worldviews & those who are out of touch with reality?
doubtingED 2 years ago
Skeptic, Atheist, Agnostic, Deists, Secular, Progressive, Humanist, etc., etc., etc.,. Stereotyping - everyone wants to label someone else or have their own label. All these labels are ridiculously confusing.
doubtingED 2 years ago
I guess I don't care what someone believes in as far as spirituality..
What I care about, is what they believe in politically..
Theres christians I get along with just peachy because they agree with church state seperation.. gay rights, anti censorship etc etc..
HOWEVER they help pump up the evangelicals by giving them a number to look at..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
I agree. Whatever one believes in, if they don't try to enforce these beliefs onto me or onto others, then I don't give a damn. That said, it's a shame that religious beliefs are not only viewed as "beliefs" by those who believe but as "knowledge", for this pseudo knowledge tends to continuously be enforced onto others as if it was a truth. Religions seek political power to spread itself, it always have, the writing of the Bible, and other religious books is purely political and has always been.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
Oh yea, schools try to BRAINWASH kids into secularism,and believing in EVOLUTION..
But when the evangelicals bring little timmy to church, that is simply elightening them unto the holy path of god's rightiousness!
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Oh I like that one: "... schools try to BRAINWASH kids into secularism ..." as if kids were not a priori secular before being indoctrinated into religious beliefs. All these fundies with shit in their eyes are seeing the world upside down.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
thats what lead me to the path of atheism in the first place : )
sonofjaybirdswind 2 years ago
about 2:25
skepticism is someone who follows the evidence where ever it leads, not someone who questions everything, and skeptics refer to them as such rather than atheists because god is one of those things with not a lot of evidence one way or that other, but many people who are skeptics are also atheists.
southie1292 2 years ago
"skepticism is someone who follows the evidence where ever it leads" "god is one of those things with not a lot of evidence one way or that other"
So it is logically sound to turn around and believe in god?
Atheism simply means lacking belief in god...
if the evidence doesn't sway one way or the other for hte existence of something, it only seems logical to me to sway towards not believing in it.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
I didn't say that it was logically sound to turn around an believe in god. And the definition of atheism changes from person to person in the same way that skepticism does, some, like Penn Jillette say that it means believing that there is no god, while others like yourself say it means not believing.
Main skeptical organizations avoid the issue altogether by avoiding the issue of god because of the lack of evidence, instead focusing on testable claims.
southie1292 2 years ago
", some, like Penn Jillette say that it means believing that there is no god, while others like yourself say it means not believing."
Theres a difference between a gnostic-atheist (one who holds the ACTIVE belief there is no god)
And a agnostic-atheist, one who lacks belief in god
Penn Jillete, I doubt ever defined atheism as "One who believes there is no god", Now he probably said that about HIMSELF.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
-"We let people in that we don't want in."-Could you at some point do a video on what you think the requirements should be? I think that would be interesting.
ReligionThink 2 years ago
Your right on buddy. The trend I see is a tone down. I hope they are not doing it just to make it "more acceptable" to the public because some hard core atheists ruined the name of atheism to some extent. I think the rule people will always be people applies also. LOL good to see you on again.
ReligionThink 2 years ago
> some hard core atheists ruined the name of atheism to some extent.
"Atheism" means so many different things to different people that it must defined whenever it is used. The term was so charged by religion that only hard core atheist would apply it to themselves to make their position clear.
8WholeThing 2 years ago
A december 21, 2012 ad went great with this video xD
rationalargument 2 years ago
Personally, I'm so skeptical I can hardly believe it.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
Labels are often pretty much worthless. I actually never call myself a skeptic at all. But I think the term "freethinker" is even worse
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
I didnt quite understand what you were saying. Are you saying that you want to exclude skeptics from your group or club of atheists? I really didnt get what you were saying in your video.
MarkLucasTube 2 years ago
He is saying that MANY people can label themselves as skeptics, and not be what THEY consider to be "true" skeptics...
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
I fell in the skeptic tank.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
The old problem of labels....
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
I agree with you KH. Skepticism is too broad, and frankly an empty philosophy. I don't base what I believe on skepticism. I am skeptical of new ideas, but if evidence is shown, my skepticism goes away. The whole god thing goes way beyond them simply not showing me the evidence yet.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
I don't think the demand for evidence is an empty philosophy. Skepticism is a broad term that covers many topics but not in a way that describes one's positions in terms of what they are not, such as atheism or agnoticism.
8WholeThing 2 years ago
Just because you're skeptic doesn't mean you can't believe the wrong things, it's just easier to convince them that they're wrong. I used to believe the 911 truthers but then i saw some debunks of it and now I don't. On the other hand someone who is not skeptic will attach emotional value to their beliefs which hinders the search for the truth. So I think that all true skeptics should be welcome regardless of their beliefs.
mtanti87 2 years ago
I like how you put that.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
The thing is, a lot of the opinions the truthers put out, makes SENSE..
Yes, the government did have something to gain from 911..
HOWEVER, when you get down to the logical prooves, it is lacking..
Example- The pentagon. They wondered why is it that there was only 1 hole in the building when there is two wings?
Acting as if the laws of physics are cartoony..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
"The thing is, a lot of the opinions the truthers put out, makes SENSE.."
That's pretty much a necessity for something to be a conspiracy theory. Otherwise it dies immediately. This is because conspiracy theories don't have the same luxury of religious beliefs i.e. you don't get born into them.
mtanti87 2 years ago
logical PROOFS* dang typos.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Atheism just means you don't believe in god. Skepticism means you want evidence to believe in things. I know atheists that believe in astrology, fate, karma, holistic medicine etc.
cavejourney 2 years ago
A skeptic should be someone who requires evidence before accepting a belief. One who is skeptical but doesn't care about evidence is really just ignorant. One who is skeptical despite of evidence is really just using their own brand of faith.
AlphonsusPeck 2 years ago
A sceptic is on neither side to begin with evolution is supported by valid reason and evidence. but creation hasn't been justified so i can't imagine a real sceptic being on that side. If they havent seen the evidence for evolution then they shouldn't be on that side either.
rarrmonkey 2 years ago
The nature of scepticism/education leads to atheism but doesn't necessarily include it.
FractalHelix777 2 years ago
Man, how big is that stein??!
I agree with stuckvanilla, the skeptic is one who adopts a particular approach to any subject. But I can see how it could be a little difficult to apply within a religious context where an unquestioning faith is often a requirement.
OriMeissa 2 years ago
Instead of "skeptic", "freethinker" should be used to include agnostics and deists along with the atheists. No religious person would use the term "freethinker" (although, in theory, anyone with his or her own crazy idea could be considered someone who is freely thinking...although that is not what the word has come to mean).
Rationalific 2 years ago
The word skeptic means you use a consistent approach to every claim - you require evidence or logical argument to accept a claim. It may sound strange, but skepticism the ultimate open-mindedness, because every claim presented to you has a fair chance against you. All claims are evaluated by the same, consistent skeptical standards.
For example, I completely accept evolution as fact, and I acknowledge creationism as one giant falsehood, *but* I am skeptical of both evolution and creationism.
stuckvanilla 2 years ago
A skeptic is just a person who will make people defend their point of view. A skeptic believes the one who makes the best case for a claim. "Based on the available evidence claim X seems to make the most sense." A creationist is not a skeptic, because in order to be a skeptic you must be skeptical of your own position as well as those you consider your opponents. It's not enough to be skeptical of something you have to be skeptical of everything, and that includes evolution by the way.
Fangs1978 2 years ago
I had more of a problem with the word "skeptic" for the very concerns you have when I first starting getting involved in the movement. As time has progressed, and I've learned that the skeptic movement is right in line with what I would consider reasonable and rational scientific thinking I've been less concerned. However, your concern reminded me that this is still an issue, even though I had forgotten much about it. What really bothers me most is the reluctance to use the term atheist.
freedom0f5peech 2 years ago
a skeptic is someone who requires evidence for claims before they accept them. skeptic=/=denier.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
I like the word sceptic. It essentially means that you don't take anything on faith and your goal is to be consistent with how much evidence you demand before believing anything. Does the religious or 9/11 truthers honor that concept? That is up for discussion. But, scepticism is nevertheless a means to arrive at what is true, which isn't included in the concept of atheism.
Censeo 2 years ago
Many atheists are individuals that broke away from their tribe and so sometimes tribalism is hard to return to. It was Hitchens that said getting atheists together is like hearding cats. I think he's right about that.
RyRyVids 2 years ago
Skeptic is a fine word. I prefer it to atheist. To me, atheist includes the idea of God, I don't like that. I don't believe in any Gods, nor lack the belief in any, just like i don't lack the belief in furry bunnies that live on saturn.
to me skeptic removes this absurd idea of God all together, while atheist is still tied down to this thing people call god.
i'm too tired to explain further, it's almost 5am.
but i like the word skeptic , that's what i am.
Darw1n1st 2 years ago
Having meetings and groups for "atheists" is counterproductive. Atheism is fundamentally a lack of belief and there are some unintended consequences happening. More in this Sam Harris speech if you're interested:
watch?v=3KG5s_-Khvg
(skip to 9:50)
ezmorningrebel 2 years ago
(continued from previous comment). Take your example of a Truther. Are they skeptical of the generally accepted story of what happened? Of course. Are they engaging in reasoned inquery to get to their position, IE, basing their claims on proof and reason instead of insinuation and conjecture? Nope.
Two different connotations from the same root word.
greyed 2 years ago
I think you're doing the same thing creationists do when they say Evolution is "just a theory". Being skeptical of an idea does not make one a skeptic. IE one could be skeptical out of contrariness or idiocy. IE, not engaging in reason. The concept of skeptic, as put forth by JREF and the like, is of one who engages in reason when approaching concepts, all concepts, and only goes on to believe those that have been proven. (continued...)
greyed 2 years ago
I have no problem with labeling myself Sceptic as long as it means "not willing to believe claims without sufficient evidence". My atheism follows from my scepticism, as does my disbelief of e.g. homeopathy.
Cygnus65 2 years ago
yeah, that is how i'd call it as well.
alexkaapa 2 years ago
King I see that you've got a lot of misconceptions about skepticism. I will post a video response to this soon.
Northernskeptic 2 years ago
How about... instead of "Skeptics"... we form a group called "Bullshit Detectors?" :P
DavidRandallCurtis 2 years ago
I agree. I hate the term 'skeptics'. It is so ambiguous.
rafaravioli 2 years ago
Actually I was thinkin about this as I did stuff about, and I came up with this creationist, and several other people who believe in stuff with no logic, ARE logical with other stuff. As well as the fact that it is BASED on PERSONAL beliefs, therefor they ARENT skeptical, but bias. Theres a difference between skepticism, and personal biasness, specially when you don apply the same logic as you would other cases!
jay666KJ 2 years ago
KH, I DEMAND a reply back,lol. They are spinning what skepticism is. They can be the most obtuse, and myopic person alive, and call them selves open mined because they question YOU who actually is open minded, doesnt mean they are in fact applying the word accurately. So KH, I disagree, because it seems you find them calling them skeptics as valid based on the exact definition, but i wouldnt call em it at all cause its simply biasness and personal beliefs.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I REFUSE to reply back.
; )
KingHeathen 2 years ago
LOL, and yes it does. I just dont consider personal beliefs as skepticism. I was mainly talking about creationist. Because the vast majority [wouldn't say ALL] are not skeptical, but bias because it contradicts perceived notions. Therefor it isnt skepticism at all. Anyway, nice point and thanks for the laugh.
Also thanks for clearing it up a bit.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
But I want to note on 9/11 and conspiracy theorist. They generally do not trust the media and government, I dont either. BUT when you look into the evidence, and it contradicts and youd accept the evidence if it was in another area, proves it isnt skepticism. I think to be skeptical and not bias, you should apply the same exact logic to everything else. Even what I just wrote I am skeptical of. Maybe I am wrong, I dont know...
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Just for fun : Let me give an example. Iv debated 9/11 conspiracy. Even face to face, and I always bring up peer review. Now if I was to debate infront of them a medical fraud [magnet therapy, Kevin Trudeau] and used the same exact points, explain why peer review makes science reliable, they would say YA YOU OWNED THAT NUT JOB! Yet when it comes to them, they respond EXACTLY like the nut job they just declared I owned.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
Scepticism applied to religion naturally results in atheism. While fundamentalists, creationists, theists, etc are sceptical of other beliefs, but they fail to be sceptical enough of their own beliefs - this is where the problem is. A honest sceptic will apply the method the everything in their lives regardless of the consequences. The truth matters, which is also one of the reasons I was saddened to hear TAM asked people to "lay off" the religious issue. Cowards.
askegg 2 years ago
Exactly my point
askegg, only it isnt skepticism, it is simply biasness and personal beliefs. Not skepticism.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I think the term "freethinker" is best. A freethinker can be atheist, agnostic, deist, and maybe even Christian (as long as they think critically and can hold an intelligent conversation, and aren't dogmatic bible thumpers).
Ryansarcade9 2 years ago
But again, a 9/11 Truther may consider himself a "freethinker" because he's not buying into what the media is telling him.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Well, I think proper skepticism is the reluctance to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. Not those who reject evidence for no particular reason.
So a true skeptic would be a lot more likely to (at least tentatively) accept evolution that fundamentalism because there is a lot more evidence for evolution than a young earth.
"Skeptic" is like the word "theory." It's been misused a lot in regular conversation but it still has a proper meaning.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
The term "skeptic" carries certain connotations that make it an unfavorable term to some. It can be a synonym with conspiracy theorist. What it should mean is someone who doesn't immediately believe what they are told but forms opinions on claims only after looking at the evidence supporting and/or refuting those claims. Instead I think most people think of someone who just doesn't believe anything they're told at all and is generally a bit nutty.
Maybe we should invent a new word?
GuppyPal 2 years ago
I like skepticism better than atheism because it applies to so much more.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
Shadizar666 2 years ago
I disagree, but also agree. I see your point. I hear people all the time call them selves skeptics, in the documentary Flock of Dodos [You commented on it a wayyyy while back] I tend to watch it on and off, anyway. One of the main creationist calls his creationist friends skeptics, and agnostic. The skeptic community defines skepticism as factual truth rather then personal beliefs. Factual as in scientific, and logic. Creationist is nothin but flawed logic and personal beliefs.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
So yes, I see your point. Skeptism can be given to ANYONE, even people who are "skeptical" of asantaism.
jay666KJ 2 years ago
I have been guilty of this. I say in my vids " I am a skeptic" when I should say " I am an Atheist"
TheUnmaskedMagician 2 years ago
How about the term "rationals"?
bluelite7x 2 years ago
Skepticism started with the greek philosophers as the idea that you should doubt common knowledge and knowledge accepted by others. Partially because of this, the greeks were some of the least religious in history, despite their pantheon of Gods. They basically just used their "religion" for festivals as a way to have some fun. They really just didn't care about it too much.
pokekid716 2 years ago
I agree and you did say something. I had one problem, "People we don't want in"...are we an elite group or a special club now? Madalyn Murray O'Hair can kiss my strong poly atheist ass.
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
What I mean is: If you are trying to form a group to allow others that are normally seen as the outcasts because or being a minority...you don't want people of the majority showing up and drowning you out. If I'm putting together a group of atheists, I don't need a group of preachers showing up every week. If I'm creating a debate group, having both sides is a good thing.
I hope that clears it up.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Great points and yes it much more clear. Also, I apologize if you thought I was insulting you. I gather you didn't but I wanted to make that was clear after seeing my comment again.
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
I suppose "skeptic" could be antonymous to "believer". When someone says they are a believer or refers to someone as a believer, we pretty much know what they are a believer of. Some sort of Theistic belief. Sort of the same when someone refers to themselves or someone else as a skeptic. We get what they mean, it's not often confused what someone means when they say they are a skeptic.
Dusty341 2 years ago
that looks like a cool shirt
rudyblackbird 2 years ago
KH - would not a 'genuine' skeptic be one who relies on facts alone, and doubts that which is weak on or lacking altogether of fact/s? And if so, does that not, by that definition, rule out the socalled religious skeptics? IE, turns their claim of being a skeptic into yet another misconception or outright delusion?
rkcoon 2 years ago
I think the term Skeptic is needed to distinguish peoples beliefs. I really do see a distinction between being a skeptic and being an atheist, I know alot of people who are atheists but believe in unproven shit like psychic powers, ghosts and ridiculous alternative medicine claims.
I consider a broad term of the contemporary skeptic as someone who does not accept facts without evidence and questions peoples beliefs that are not founded on evidence.
GGLpresidente 2 years ago
I'm skeptical of this video.
HeroesofApostasy 2 years ago
Oh, yeah?
Prove it!
BohemianBlasphemy 2 years ago
I'd love to hear what he thought. Did he think aliens created us or something?
amberview30 2 years ago
I hear what you're saying, but I think you're conflating skepticism and denial. Creationists aren't skeptical of evolution. A skeptic wants to understand truth, creationist just wants to believe their dogma. They're not skeptics, they're denialists.
Textra1 2 years ago
A skeptic in my opinion is someone who values truth over personal belief and questions propositions that are made without good evidence. A good skeptic will even continue to question things long accepted as true so that understanding does not turn into dogma. This is the fundamental, if you'll pardon the pun, misunderstanding that creationists have of skeptics.
Textra1 2 years ago
I am an atheist BECAUSE I am a skeptic. So I think the label Skeptic's Group if fair since it is a broader title allowing for more than just atheists. Atheism is a subset of skepticism.
Of course if someone is using the term skeptic as a softer replacement for atheist, then I would agree that is a little weak-sauce, to use the parlance of our times.
Textra1 2 years ago
I disagree. It may be that to you, atheism came as a consequence of general skepticism, and therefore is a subset of a general skeptical outlook, but that is not ubiquitous.
Atheism being simply a lack of belief, it doesn't require a skeptical outlook.
Cafeeine 2 years ago
Strictly speaking you are correct, atheism does not require a skepticism, but I'm sure you appreciate the difference between connotative and denotative language. I did not mean to imply that my definition of atheism as a subset of skepticism was strict or ubiquitous. More that it has been my experience that atheism usually comes as a result of a lack of evidence. And the lack of evidence tends to only affect the beliefs of skeptical mind people.
Textra1 2 years ago