quote:

---

I'm new to this board, so bear with me if this topic was discussed recently. I checked through the forums and I didn't see it.

My question is: What does it mean to you to be a skeptic? Here's the dictionary definition, so we're all on the same footing:

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Now, the reason I bring this up at all is that it has become painfully obvious to me that many people on this site, and really everywhere, are not what I would consider skeptics, but instead staunch defenders of the status quo (capitalism, U.S. imperialism, etc.) Many of these people prefer to be skeptical about criticisms of the status quo (attacking Chomsky or other dissenters, for example, and usually in a baseless, ad hominem fashion), which is a very narrow way to be skeptical, in my opinion. It is much better to focus on the "generally accepted conclusions," such as the falshood that NAFTA is about free trade, than it is to engage in petty, specious commentary on the lifestyle of a particular critic of NAFTA. To be truly skeptical in a productive way is to question the common, core beliefs on a particular subject - whther political or religious - rather than on those who would question those beliefs.

Your thoughts?

---

quote:

---

To me, skepticism means that everything is a tentative conclusion. In real life, that can be taken too far. Gravity is gravity whether I "believe" in it or not and falling twenty stories is usually a permanent conclusion, and not a tentative one. For most real life activities, it's probably pretty safe to say for instance that Jehovah never existed, and the next time you go out in the woods, you won't find a unicorn nuzzling your neck.

So, I'm often puzzled why freethinkers and skeptics say you can be a freethinker and a skeptic and believe in gods,. There is no good evidence for such things, so why "believe?"

In fairness to those who "believe" in the status quo, I have to say that a skeptic also at least remembers the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" because frankly, it just takes up too much time to explore every idea that doesn't fit into a specific box.

Someone said that a Libertarian (I assume Libertarian Party, not the classical Anarchism/Libertarian) is the only really logical choice. However, these choices are based on certain assumptions which may or may not be true. The idea of "private property" is an assumption. The idea of "corporations" to some, seem like a natural spring that came out of God's own hands. They are a creation of society based on certain assumptions. Those assumptions may or may not be well-tested assumptions.

quote:

---

I'm new to this board, so bear with me if this topic was discussed recently. I checked through the forums and I didn't see it.

My question is: What does it mean to you to be a skeptic? Here's the dictionary definition, so we're all on the same footing:

skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Now, the reason I bring this up at all is that it has become painfully obvious to me that many people on this site, and really everywhere, are not what I would consider skeptics, but instead staunch defenders of the status quo (capitalism, U.S. imperialism, etc.) Many of these people prefer to be skeptical about criticisms of the status quo (attacking Chomsky or other dissenters, for example, and usually in a baseless, ad hominem fashion), which is a very narrow way to be skeptical, in my opinion. It is much better to focus on the "generally accepted conclusions," such as the falshood that NAFTA is about free trade, than it is to engage in petty, specious commentary on the lifestyle of a particular critic of NAFTA. To be truly skeptical in a productive way is to question the common, core beliefs on a particular subject - whther political or religious - rather than on those who would question those beliefs.

Your thoughts?

---

Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens

---

quote:

---

As far as NAFTA, you may be right, but if you look at god-beliefs as a core belief, and think that possibly other beliefs surround those core beliefs, for instance, like ideas of good and bad, and punishment and reward, then you know that people can reject the idea of gods, yet accept many of the surrounding beliefs. It may be (or may not be) that those surrounding beliefs may exist until the last theist dies. Those surrounding beliefs may be the only thing that supports things like NAFTA.

---

quote:

---

I'm afraid you lost me there. True, someone who believes in god might be more apt to believe in other myths, but that's a very tenuous connection, wouldn't you say? For me, personally, I try to steer my skepticism to those discussions which I feel are most relevant to our daily lives. Believe in god or don't believe, what difference does it make? You can't prove it either way. This is a lot different than believing in morality, though. People who don't believe in morality do affect our daily lives.

It's a pesonal choice for me - and I'm not saying I've never stooped to debating the existence of god. But there's so many things we can prove or disprove, where there is actual evidence, where the practical implications are real and often horrible, that with a limited amount of time it's almost irresponsible to be debating something which has little impact on our lives.

---

quote:

---

Believe in god or don't believe, what difference does it make?

---

quote:

---

Someone said that a Libertarian (I assume Libertarian Party, not the classical Anarchism/Libertarian) is the only really logical choice.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Someone said that a Libertarian (I assume Libertarian Party, not the classical Anarchism/Libertarian) is the only really logical choice.

---

Well, no, not at all. What I said was that in general Libertarianism is the most rational and reasonable ideal. That's very different than saying it is the only logical choice, period.

tsk tsk. It's very important not to misquote and change someone's meaning.

------------

Sum Ergo Cogito

---

quote:

---

If, by skepticism, you mean that each of us should reach the same conclusion independently, then I'll have a hit of whatever it is you're smoking.

---

quote:

---

Gandalf, you do realize

---

quote:

---

Questioning her skepticism is nothing but a red herring.

---

quote:

---

Gandalf, you do realize you seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you that the U.S. is an imperialist nation (define imperialism, and then defend your assertion that the U.S. fits this definition), and that capitalism is evil isn't being skeptical.

PhDreamer has a very valid point, that you should answer before we discuss any further.

quote:

---

If, by skepticism, you mean that each of us should reach the same conclusion independently, then I'll have a hit of whatever it is you're smoking.

---

If I thought you were actually interested in "skepticism", I'd point you here (click on "Manifesto" in the left-hand column).

As it stands, however, I think you are being a bit dishonest. You see people here who don't agree with your leftist ideologies, so instead of actually weighing in, you claim we are not being "skeptics". Kind of underhanded, don't you think?

------------

Sum Ergo Cogito

---