Someone has challenged me to discuss something skeptical. This certainly seems like an interesting issue, one that I haven't entirely resolved myself. When I was a newly minted anti-deist I was very sure that deists were idiots. Since then, however, I have met some deists who are sane enough to realize that there is a physical reality, and who appear, at least, to accept the understandings and workings of science, and I have tenatively concluded that there is a brand of deism, wherein the deity is not at all in evidence, that is compatable with skepticism of matters like ghosts, talking to the dead, and all of that stuff.skeeve wrote:
(folks, the quoting inside this is all messed up, please don't take it as meaningful. Ken said something here, in response to someone else, and I'm third in line.. Only my comments are identified, and please don't attribute other positions to anyone in particular, as I'm unsure myself of who's who.)
thaiboxerken wrote:I don't agree, since the nature of the belief in a deist god is unfalsifiable. The belief in a god seems purely emotional to me, a need to believe that some sentient life had to start the universe, with no rational reason as to why.They can be skeptics provided they are willing to consider evidence against their beliefs rationally.Frankly, I think most people have some bias or belief in something despite evidenceThis is true, but I don't think faith is a bias, but a simply believing in something that is not evident at all.skeeve wrote: I agree that a faith in a god is believing in something that is not evident at all, and that it is unfalsifiable, but does that mean that a belief in a god means one can not be a skeptic? I'm not as sure of that, but the skeptic would have to accept all of the physical evidence. I'm not sure what kind of deity this would leave room for.
But if one can imagine such a thing, at least it's not against the actual physical evidences.
If I've gotten the quote headers above right, my position is contained there. It is nothing like fully expressed, nor is it complete, as I personally haven't completed it.
I've fixed the quoting, I think, I keep confusing the tags with the tag names. I guess this isn't Algol 67.