›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

KoholintKoholint
edited October 2011 in Everything Else
I read this essay thing and immediately thought of this forum, so I'm curious how you all feel about it. I found that it pretty accurately described why skepticism and internet atheism aren't things I want to define myself by anymore.
«13

Comments

  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Who is this guy and why should I listen to him?
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    Who is this guy and why should I listen to him?
    Stephen Bond was born in Ireland in 1978, at the height of the disco craze, and moved to Belgium in 2001, the year the world changed forever.
    So.. no clue.
  • AmpAmp
    Some sort of shadow monster who lives in Belgium. If this is his qualification then does the fact I'm from England give me a right to talk on matters of Monarchy and government?
  • MattMatt
    That was a pretty torturous read. The guy lists a million and a half reasons why he's not happy with skepticism, but never proposes his alternative. He says he's no longer a skeptic, but he doesn't say these things are pushing him to become a believer.

    He seems to have a problem with the whole culture of skeptics who treat skepticism as a full time religion. You can still live a life where you believe in science and logic without participating in all of that stuff.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    The guy disses Randall Monroe for liking nerdy girls. I really see no reason to change because of what this guys says.
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    That was a pretty torturous read. The guy lists a million and a half reasons why he's not happy with skepticism, but never proposes his alternative. He says he's no longer a skeptic, but he doesn't say these things are pushing him to become a believer.

    He seems to have a problem with the whole culture of skeptics who treat skepticism as a full time religion. You can still live a life where you believe in science and logic without participating in all of that stuff.
    So he's advocating being a normal goddamn person who critically analyzes things and rationally discusses them?
  • AprecheApreche
    Some things are hurting this community more now...

    There were 8 people. Everyone was GAGA!
  • RochelleRochelle
    edited October 2011
    I guess we're just skeptical of this essay. =P

    I'm fine and couldn't care less mostly if people try to brand me on the internet as a skeptic or atheist.
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    It's a vaguely interesting article. The take away for me is simply to not be a dick about things, so.. I'm fine with it. I don't feel like I really care if people brand me as whatever they'd like.
  • RochelleRochelle
    edited October 2011
    Basically he should have just posted "Wheaton's Law" and be done with it?
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • gomidoggomidog
    edited October 2011
    Meh article. I mean, I can kind of see where he is coming from on some points. Sometimes skeptics (and liberals and smart people in general) can get a little smug over their own feelings of mental superiority, which is kind of obnoxious. I mean, it's not like I haven't ever scoffed and ragged on about crazy woo people being stupid, but sometimes that seems to comprise the majority of the talk that goes on in this subculture. I kind of ignore the club culture, and just follow the path of being a nice, rational person the best I can. Plus, I think that Randall Munroe portrays women really well, in that he doesn't go to pains to point out their gender. If they come across like representations of himself, isn't that kind of good? I never noticed that he differentiated between male and female roles in his comics, and the stick figure with the ponytail was just likely scientist/programmer/smart person as the one without.
    Some things are hurting this community more now...

    There were 8 people. Everyone was GAGA!
    LOL!!!
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • KoholintKoholint
    Basically he should have just posted "Wheaton's Law" and be done with it?
    No, because his essay goes into a lot greater detail about the privilege and intellectual elitism, and to an extent the mysogyny, islamophobia, and neoliberalism that seems to run rampant in the skeptics movement today. It's a really well thought out essay, I wouldn't dismiss it as fast as some of you are. Considering many (most?) of you decided to reject religion and be atheists, I'd think you'd be a little more open to critically examining some of the things you support.
  • gomidoggomidog
    If I am an atheist, it means I don't support one thing: organized religion. It doesn't mean I support anything else.
  • MrRobotoMrRoboto
    No, because his essay goes into a lot greater detail about the privilege and intellectual elitism, and to an extent the mysogyny, islamophobia, and neoliberalism that seems to run rampant in the skeptics movement today. It's a really well thought out essay, I wouldn't dismiss it as fast as some of you are. Considering many (most?) of you decided to reject religion and be atheists, I'd think you'd be a little more open to critically examining some of the things you support.
    But none of those things define a skeptic, it's correlation at it's worst. I can be a skeptic and call myself that without having to also be any of those things.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    image
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    I critically examine my own beliefs quite a bit, discussing them with people who understand both what I believe and the subject matter at hand. I generally don't label myself as a "skeptic" or "atheist" to show that I belong to a specific belief group, but simply because the words fit my belief the most succinctly and successfully.

    Skeptic - meaning that I am loathe to agree with something until I've had a chance to think about it
    Atheist - meaning that I don't subscribe to any sort of higher power

    I might read the article more carefully later, once I have some time, but I'm not sure that I really need to read it fully to understand that people can be dicks on the internet
  • KoholintKoholint
    image
    image
    My hobby: laughing at people I consider inferior to me.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited October 2011
    No, because his essay goes into a lot greater detail about the privilege and intellectual elitism, and to an extent the mysogyny, islamophobia, and neoliberalism that seems to run rampant in the skeptics movement today. It's a really well thought out essay, I wouldn't dismiss it as fast as some of you are. Considering many (most?) of you decided to reject religion and be atheists, I'd think you'd be a little more open to critically examining some of the things you support.
    I don't think Neoliberialism means what you think it means.

    EDIT: I really can't get through this thing, I find it rife with inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations. If this is what people think of atheists no wonder we're more distrusted in America than Muslims.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • KoholintKoholint
    edited October 2011
    I don't think Neoliberialism means what you think it means.
    Skeptics, in insisting on the primacy of scientific knowledge, deny the value of non-scientific metaphors in future scientific advance. As far as they are concerned, western liberal democracies have made all the political, social, cultural and economic advances they need to. Western thought is already so free that anyone who tries can perceive reality direct and unmediated, with no obscuring metaphors in the way. To the trained western eye, the truth simply reveals itself, in as much detail as our scientific understanding allows. It's difficult to imagine a more absolute statement of confidence in liberal democracy.
    But I do know what neoliberalism is, thanks.
    Post edited by Koholint on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    But Neoliberialism is an economic policy/stance/opinion...
  • KoholintKoholint
    Might I direct you to the sections titled "Skepticism is Neoliberalism" and "Science always has a political dimension."
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    "Skepticism is Neoliberalism"
    I started to read that and stopped because it made no god damn sense, BECAUSE THAT"S NOT WHAT NEOLIBERIALISM IS!!!!

    Fuck dude, are you trolling us? You won, I'm mad.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The major problem with the article is that there's no one "skeptical" set of beliefs. Skepticism is an approach to analyzing information, NOT a philosophy. As such, the skeptic "community" varies wildly.

    I ran into this with my local atheist group - the only thing uniting us is common disinterest. So, the people I encounter are all over the place.

    So, making generalizations about ALL skeptics and atheists is an especially error-prone process.
  • SquadronROESquadronROE
    Posted By: The EssaySkeptics, in insisting on the primacy of scientific knowledge, deny the value of non-scientific metaphors in future scientific advance. As far as they are concerned, western liberal democracies have made all the political, social, cultural and economic advances they need to. Western thought is already so free that anyone who tries can perceive reality direct and unmediated, with no obscuring metaphors in the way. To the trained western eye, the truth simply reveals itself, in as much detail as our scientific understanding allows. It's difficult to imagine a more absolute statement of confidence in liberal democracy.
    I've read it several times and still have no idea what he's talking about.
  • MattMatt
    Might I direct you to the sections titled "Skepticism is Neoliberalism" and "Science always has a political dimension."
    This is the part of the essay that frustrates me the most. He cherry picks a few areas of science that may be influenced a bit too much by politics and says he is rejecting skepticism based on that, but again, what is his alternative? Is he rejecting all of science because some parts are flawed? This guy is seriously bitching just to hear his own voice.
  • NuriNuri
    Skepticism is an approach to analyzing information, NOT a philosophy.
    Like Science? That doesn't stop people from thinking Science has an agenda. Why should it stop them from thinking the same thing about Skepticism?
  • AndrewAndrew
    Skepticism: "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence." Conclusion: Skeptics are Neo-liberal islamaphobes who tout their intellectual superiority due to elitist attitudes.
  • CremlianCremlian
    image
    Holy shit! I gotta use that against my 9/11 friend sometime :-p
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I've read it several times and still have no idea what he's talking about.
    So confused, I have no idea.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    That doesn't stop people from thinking Science has an agenda.
    Right, and when I hit the section that said "Science always has a political dimension," I wrote the author off as a mouth-breathing troglodyte.

    Scientists have political dimensions precisely because science does not. Science says, "Here are the facts." Scientists say, "Based on these facts, we should do X."

    These are very very different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.