@timb:
I’m from Brazil ! i don’t know english.here in Brazil there is no excellent forum like this one here.
@Tee Bryan Peneguy:
I’m from Brazil ! i don’t know english.here in Brazil there is no excellent forum like this one here.
Tee was quite perceptive in recognizing that English is not your 1st language. In retrospect, I think I have been too hard on you. Forgive me.
Re: your 2 questions of me, perhaps they are not exactly what you meant to ask, but I will try to answer.
“are you skeptical or agnostic?” I am almost completely certain that NOTHING SUPERNATRUAL EXISTS, thus I do not believe in God, and am an atheist. I have been wrong at times in my life (not usually, but at times) so when pressed to the wall, I will admit to being agnostic. I am often skeptical of the veracity of information in general, so I suppose I could be called a skeptic often times.
and “what does it take to not be a pseudo-skeptic or a pseudo-skepticist?” This question seems odd, so perhaps it lost something in translation, but to answer it straight up, I would say, When one has personal and intellectual integrity, they would be unlikely to falsely portray themselves as a skeptic, even if they had some other motivation to do so.
@TimB: I asked about this subject
Okay with that definition in mind, and the qualities of a “true skeptic” listed in that article as:
- Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
- No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
- Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognizing its incompleteness
- Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
- Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
- Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found\
Thank you for answering my question about English. I had a similar situation with another person in this forum.
Here is the problem, and I say this respectfully:
The issues we are discussing here are extraordinarily complex. Opinions differ about the precise definitions of terms like atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, etc, which can cause misunderstanding even among a group of native English speakers.
In addition, written forums can be difficult because sometimes nuance is lost. For example, the article I posted yesterday … it seemed like you thought the author was agreeing with you when he was saying the opposite. Actually, there could have been a misunderstanding even among native English speakers, because his meaning was somewhat anti-intuitive. So I came back and spent time trying to rephrase it all … and I had no idea from your responses whether you knew what I was saying or not.
Again, it is very clear how intelligent and knowledgable you are, and I’m glad you are excited about the forum.
But (@Timb and others can do as they wish), I really don’t want to get drawn into a discussion where I spend hours saying things that are difficult enough for people who speak the language, and may be virtually impossible for those who don’t.
I feel like I am deaf, and speaking American Sign Language in front of an audience … but there are blind people in the audience.
So I am bowing out of this, bidding you well, but with one last thing.
There are different kinds of atheists. I consider myself an Agnostic Athiest.
Have fun exploring!
I think Tee is correct that our attempts at communicating complex thoughts in the context of the forum, are unlikely to be very successful. But I don’t mind trying with someone who seems legitimately interested in giving it a shot.
for being a skepticism forum I ask
Why doesn’t science believe in life after death?
Why doesn’t science believe in the existence of spirits?
I asked these questions because religions are based on the afterlife!
for being a skepticism forum I ask Why doesn’t science believe in life after death? ... I asked these questions because religions are based on the afterlife!I can pop in and answer. Flacus, here definitions of 3 words. If you understand the definitions, you will be able to answer your own question.
…
The word for needing proof to believe that something is true is “skepticism.”
In science, objective tests can be done to find out whether something is true or false. You can do studies, measure temperatures, weigh items, and see chemical reactions.
However, you cannot prove things like religion using scientific methods.
Regarding the afterlife: Some scientists are studying this question. For example, they are studying “near death experiences.” Here is an article about that:
NDEs might arise from something more fundamental than religious or cultural expectations. Perhaps NDEs reflect changes in how the brain functions as we approach death...If NDEs are based in brain biology, perhaps the action of those drugs that causes NDE-like experiences can teach us something about the NDE state.
If you read this article carefully, it explains why it is difficult or impossible to actually prove there is life after death. At this point, most scientists believe the experiences these people have are happening inside their brains, and have nothing to do with the supernatural (gods).
This is a question for religion, not science.
⊱⋅ ──────────── ⋅⊰
Even though this is not quite correct English, here are some questions that would be similar to yours:
- Why does medicine look for ways to cure diseases?
- Why does education teach people how to read, write and do math?
- Why does law create rules and penalties in societies?
- Why does transportation move people from one place to another place?
Just re read Tee’s post.
I would reframe your questions thusly:
Why are “life after death” and “the existence of spirits” core beliefs in most religions?
Answer: Because that kind of BS brings in more believers.
@Tee Bryan Peneguy:
“However, you cannot prove things like religion using scientific methods.”
I think the scientific method can prove the existence of spirits.
Unusual phenomena occur with me, I believe they are empirical and personal evidence. maybe you will find it funny! in another skeptic forum I was mocked!
@TimB:
I have empirical and personal evidence that proves the existence of spirits. I believe you will find it funny! I was mocked in another skeptic forum.
Oh boy. Maybe my initial impression of you was correct after all.
It’s not so much funny as it is sad that you have probably mis-interpreted (as have so many others) subjective perceptions as being evidence of something supernatural.
If you can use proper, rigorous, scientific methods to study your hypothesis that spirits exist, then have at it. So far no one has come up with any such evidence.
They are not subjective perceptions. are objective! I will present evidence ok! do not forget the limitations of the scientific method. In a month I’ll be back here. see you later !
When I say that doubt ceases in skeptics in the presence of a rational explanation, it must be excepted from pseudo-skeptics, at least those who deny all power and every intelligent principle outside matter; most are obstinate in their opinion out of pride, and believe their self-esteem obliged to persist in it; and persist despite all contrary evidence, because they do not want to demean. With these people there is nothing to do; One need not even be carried away by the false appearances of sincerity of those who say, Make me see and I will believe. There are those who are more frank and say clearly: I would see and would not believe.
So you are going to present objective evidence of the existence of spirits, in one month from now? And in the same breath you suggest that the scientific method is too limited to account for it.
I am not optimistic, at all, about what you will present. But hey! It would be something if you could present objective reproducible evidence.
This is fantastic! I’m pretty excited.
Just so you know, a month from today is right before the Thanksgiving holiday … Americans are pretty busy around then. I didn’t want to forget, so I put it in my calendar on my phone
TimB:
I said the scientific method is limited based on this site
do you agree with this site?
@Tee Bryan Peneguy:
Invisible pink unicorn doesn’t exist!
I need time to present my personal empirical evidence of the existence of spirits or people who have passed away!