SCEPCOP Forum

I'm not making anything up... hate to burst your bubble.

I agree with you Canis that it unfair to tarr atheists with the same
brush as being pseudoskeptics. At the same time I agree with Winston's
statement that these are general characteristics of the pseudoskeptics, not
an absolute statement that all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

However, at the risk of sounding controversial, and this point is mirrored
in our debate in the "God!" thread as well, even an atheist is a pseudoskeptic
when it comes to the issues of god. They have not critically formulated this
judgement, but rather have elected to believe it. I find like with any pseudoskeptic,
when atheists are subjected to critical scrutiny, none of their arguments prove valid.
Now a common rejoinder to this argument is that the proof of the non-existence of something
is impossible. There is no way for you to prove that Santa Claus does not live in the North
pole. However, it is not your burden of proof to disprove Santa Claus does not exist, it is the
burden of proof of those who claim he exists. The same is not true of god however, because
there is plenty of evidence he exists, but an ontological god not a religious god. An atheist does
not consider this evidence, and therefore he is by definition a pseudoskeptic, who simply believes
in his non-existence. Therefore all atheists are pseudoskeptics.

Now, this is unfair if we consider some paranormal investigators may be atheists. Here we can say
that they are true skeptics when it comes to the paranormal, but guilty of pseudoskepticism when it
comes to god. This does not mean that I reject their research in the paranormal, as long as their inquiry
is genuinely skeptical, it is acceptable. However, when it comes to their judgements on god, one must
reject them because it is not true skepticism.

Nobody is absolutely either a skeptic, pseudoskeptic or believer. We are all guilty of being pseudoskeptical
to some things and belieiving in others. The term skeptic, pseudoskeptic and believer is therefore not being
used in the absolutest sense, but it is used in the colliqual sense to designate general characteristics.

Regarding Winston's treatise.

I have read over it several times now and have found nothing
that is logically invalid. He shows using proper logical reasoning
why certain arguments are most assuredly fallacies. However,
if one is going to dispute any of his refutations of these common
pseudoskeptical fallacies, they will have to demonstrate it. Not
simply state it.

My tip to skeptics read through Winston's treatise again and again,
because in all likeliness, you are most using many of these
fallacies. So next time you use it, you will be aware this time what
fallacy it is, and can make a better argument. It will make you a better
skeptic. You need to learn what the "believers" arguments are, and what
reasons they give, if you want to refute them. If you fail to engage our
points, you are not willing to discuss and this shows how tenuous your
position is to any objective person.

Dear Canis,

The ontological god is the concept of god in philosophy, as designated by the intrinsic attributes,
a absolute being that is eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect and which is the supreme cause
of creation. This god is a rational concept that is introduced in order to explain certain things, such as
creation by the unmoved mover(Aristotle) or beigness as the ultimate being in which all beings share(Aquinas)
or the actual existence of a perfect being because of the sheer fact that one can conceive of it(St Aslem, Descartes)
This is a god that is concluded on the thrust of logical arguments.

The religious god is a concept of god in a particular religion, which is personified usually as a deity, with a name,
form and a mythology(He created the world in 7 days). To illustrate Eastern concepts of god like Brahman, Tao and Dharma
are examples of ontological god, whereas Abrahamic concept of god like Yaweah, Jesus, Allah are examples of religious god.

I hope that clarifies the difference.

The reason that disbelief in a religious god is valid, because it is not based
on rational evidence. How does one know the name of god, and that he created
the world in 7 days, and he is Jesus's father? This is all based on just the testimony
given in the bible, written by human authors. One can only accept this testimony based
on faith alone and not reason.

On the other hand, disbelief in an ontological god is not valid, because it is based on
rational evidence. There can be no creation without a creator, something is required
to bring creation into manifestation from the original nothingness, otherwise we would have
an infinite regress that creation would never be possible, because there would be no first
cause.

The second argument is the existence of such states of being such as love, joy and happiness
must have an origin somewhere, just as the world does. However, as love, joy and happiness
are not actual physical objects their origin can only be sought in a another substance, which is
non physical. Life. As life is not reducile to any physical thing, life has its own existence.

The third argument is that nothing actually has any being in the world, for everything is a temporal,
it manifests, exists for a while, and then ceases to be. There is nothing in the world that is not like this,
even what we regard to be ourselves, is a ceaseless changing process of sensations and thoughts. Then
what is it that is actually the "self" that is observing this world? If there is no observer, then no world
is possible. Therefore we are borrowing being from another self or observer. God.

The fourth argument follows neatly from the third, and that is that life and intelligence actually precedes us,
there is already a vital principle that is predisposed to unfolding life in nature. It is predisposed to actualising
higher and higher states of life, and this continues in the form of the human who is always seeking something
more than what they have. In other words the universe from the very start knew what it wanted, and the human
being experiences ignorance, sorrow and the feeling of limitation, because its actual being is of the nature of
knowledge, joy and freedom. Finally, life does indeed precede us, because before we are conscious of the world
and of ourselves the condition of life must be first present. Our view of seeing ourselves as separate actors in
the world is logically invalid, because we are ultimately the same universe. We are not outside the universe, but
in it. The idea of the universe being made up a multiplicity of things is our own creation, owing to how our senses
perceive it by dividing it up into 5 perceptual categories.