skeptic magazines (America, atheism, agnostic, Christian)

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

please give some examples and details.

Not sure what the magazine was titled, but it was claiming that Stem Cell research was bunk and that it was metaphysical junk. It claims that ancient lost civilizations that we have physical proof of are frauds. It was hysterical. It caused me to look into more skeptic stuff online. Many of the "studies" the skeptics claim to have done are just studies that they stole from other people, slapped their label on it and claimed it was their study.

The best part is that most of their "studies" produced inconclusive results. Therefore, they say that their studies proved this and that. An inconclusive study or test cannot produce results other than that the means in which you tested the subject was not accurate or would not work. That is like me using a scale to measure the wind and claiming that it produced inconclusive results, therefore the wind does not exist.

To study something and to disprove it, you must exhaust all possible studies and tests. Since that is not possible, you cannot prove something false if all of your tests are inconclusive.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Yes and no.

We leave it to the theists to lazily pick up one source, read it, and accept what it says as true.

The skeptic has no such easy out road ahead of him however. The skeptic reads all the sources. A number of magazines. Peer review. The original source documents and papers of the people making the claims one is applying the skepticism to.

The skeptic does this while systematically focusing on points of agreement and of contention between the parties, comparing them, and individually exploring further source materials in order to see which party is "right" in each instance.

And after this long, systematic and time consuming process the skeptic comes out with a position of agreement or disagreement on the issue in question. A position that the skeptic must retain and open mind on and be willing to repeat the entire process above from start to finish all over again... should new data become available that was not available on the previous iteration of the process.

It involves work, time, effort, intelligence, self correction, the willingness to do it all again in the light of new evidence and much much more and it most certainly involves basing ones opinion on as many sources as possible.... not picking up a single magazine and taking that magazines word for it just because they decided to put the word Skepticism on the front cover. I repeat, granting a sole and single source authority on any matter is an error we leave to our theistic counter parts.

However I must add a voice to those pointing out that you conveniently leave out any mention of the magazine title or source in your diatribe.

If someone does what you stated above, then I might give them some credit. The magazine title eludes me as I was just browsing the magazines at the book store. The magazine I read was full of claims that had no proof of these claims. It was a skeptic magazine that I think most real skeptics would be skeptical of.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Why not do some research since you seem hellbent on assuming this is what atheists even know exists or support.

If it took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda, you're probably talking about religion.

What is the atheist agenda?
I simply don't believe in a god, or any gods.
That's it. Period. Past that issue, no two atheists are alike.

I apologize, I did not mean to say all atheists or skeptics. It was late and I was tired from a long day. Plus I think I have a cold or something...stupid weather change.

I am not hellbent on assuming anything about atheists. I am merely curious to know more about why people don't believe in things spiritual. I have had many spiritual experiences and I just don't see how people can give up on something so great after only trying a few things or because some religious nut left a bad taste in their mouth. Not saying this is the case with all atheists and skeptics, just many that I have talked to.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

If the OP is talking about "Skeptic" magazine, that's EXACTLY the type of magazine I read.

Most of the topics have little to do with religion, but that is a topic that comes up often.

No, I don't believe that it was Skeptic magazine. I have read skeptic magazine and they seem to know what they are doing for the most part.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I apologize, I did not mean to say all atheists or skeptics. It was late and I was tired from a long day. Plus I think I have a cold or something...stupid weather change.

I am not hellbent on assuming anything about atheists. I am merely curious to know more about why people don't believe in things spiritual. I have had many spiritual experiences and I just don't see how people can give up on something so great after only trying a few things or because some religious nut left a bad taste in their mouth. Not saying this is the case with all atheists and skeptics, just many that I have talked to.

I think the general view is that there are two options to choose from:

A) Is the spiritual event real
B) Is it a figment of our imagination or a psychological mis-step.

Most atheist probably assume the later is more likely.

We know that psychology and sociology can create powerful influences on us to believe that which is not real. For an example that might resonate with you, there are some Christian churches in which everyone there believes the holy spirit moves them to speak in tounges. Yet the next church over doesn't.

Now either those folks really are captured by some holy spirit to speak in tounges, or there is some mass psychology that is convincing everyone to interpret normal events as spiritual.

Atheist would assume the later, and would likely assume it happens more often then people think. But if you can figure out why all the people at that church believe they truely are speaking in tounges, then you'll understand the process by which most atheist assume other spiritual experiences are occuring.

[rogead]

While I proudly consider myself a skeptic, I would admit that some skeptics cross over into the realm of cynicism from time to time. When that happens, they often become as irrational as believers.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I was in the book store and I saw this magazine for skeptics. Its a magazine claiming to be for science and reason.

It took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda.

Are all skeptics magazines like this? Is this the garbage Atheists and people who claim to be skeptics read?

"...the garbage Atheists and people who claim to be skeptics read", all in the same phrase? How quaintly narrow-headed, but also instructive to us about you.

How's about if I were to say, categorically, "Everyone who even reads the bible is an arrogant idiot?"

Some great come-back commentary from chielgirl...

Originally Posted by chielgirl

√ Why not do some research since you seem hellbent on assuming this is what atheists even know exists or support.

√ If it took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda, you're probably talking about religion.

√√What is the atheist agenda?

I simply don't believe in a god, or any gods.

That's it. Period. Past that issue, no two atheists are alike.

So true, and yet by comparison it's actually not too much of a logical stretch to make a reasonable claim that many Christians ARE somewhat more alike in their common beliefs, the fact they have all learned to sing off pretty much the same song-sheet, with the dame tired responses to our evidence for Evolution, etc.

They certainly do not apparently know how to be skeptical at all. Water ("Poofff!!!") into wine, a flat earth, co-existing dinosaurs, the Universe, full and completed, in just 6 days, and so on.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

The best part is that most of their "studies" produced inconclusive results. Therefore, they say that their studies proved this and that. An inconclusive study or test cannot produce results other than that the means in which you tested the subject was not accurate or would not work. That is like me using a scale to measure the wind and claiming that it produced inconclusive results, therefore the wind does not exist.

To study something and to disprove it, you must exhaust all possible studies and tests. Since that is not possible, you cannot prove something false if all of your tests are inconclusive.

But perhaps what the intent of your magazine was is simply to show that previously so-called conclusive studies or conclusions had not been subjected to even a cursory skeptical review. And therefore your magazine's purpose is to show up those types of inconsistencies that skeptical thought does cast some light on.

If we take that approach, with an open mind, we come to entirely different conclusions on much so-called reliable work ,especially by the non-technical;, those who only wishfully hope, dreamily looking skywards for divine intervention or answers.

Because, OP, the more salient point here may be this one:

† A naturally skeptical person, one who tends to doubt the improbable, or the wildly-claimed or more outrageous claims, will often apply some known standards to their thinking.

† A naturally non-skeptical person, typified by the devoutly fundamentalist literalist religious types (who after all, just plain believe their bible "purely on faith alone!"), is not prone to ever want to question the story of their wondrous beginnings in a 6-day Genesis (), how they got to "be", their position of hominid superiority in this world of "lesser beasties", and of their glorious and eternal afterlife.

† Us garbage-reading atheists, on the other hand, have pretty much learned by now to question much of what the bible-faithful, and other wildly mis-directed evangelicals (The Westboro Baptists for instance... Hey... they're your brothers in Christ, not mine!).

So, being a natural skeptic, even if your quoted magazine's not a good example of the best of the breed, is hardly a bad thing to aspire to, now is it? Assuming, of course, that one wants at least a glimpse of the truth and the reality. By my experiences here on C-D though, the last thing any ardent Christian believers here want to see is that!

We've recently proven right here, by asking a few simple questions of some of the more vigorous hostile and combative Christian "debaters" here [and I use that term very loosely now..], that they have absolutely no intention of ever allowing themselves to be logically cornered! Which of course is so easily done if we get down to brass tacks in a discussion of any one of their fervent fairy-tales.

Ohh.. some late-add apologetics....

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I am not hellbent on assuming anything about atheists. I am merely curious to know more about why people don't believe in things spiritual. I have had many spiritual experiences and I just don't see how people can give up on something so great after only trying a few things or because some religious nut left a bad taste in their mouth. Not saying this is the case with all atheists and skeptics, just many that I have talked to.

Well, simply and politely put, r'e'd; it's because we atheists, many of us being past Christians, have resolved those spiritual experiences, those unique and wondrous moments, the ones that seem to reach into our very souls to provide an answer or two that seem to resonate with whatever you might have been feeling or even better" struggling with.

But until then these might be feelings that you could perhaps not easily put into simple, logical order or words. And so, it's easier and more productive to claim it was/is an outside force of vast intellectual ability, a Father-Figure entity taking your spiritual hand, or some mutuality with others while in prayer, for example, that best addresses your innermost feelings.

Unfortunately, the more skeptical (dare I possibly say scientifically educated?) amongst us then look to see, define or quantify those feelings which, of course, no-one can easily do. But then, when we are also successful in quantifying them., or of explaining some phenomenon through some recently-evolved new-age physics equation or particle or exposé (likje DNA genome mapping for instance...), then that one is no longer an "inexplicable".

Put together enough of those, and you may have no further need for an Inexplicable File (you know, like TV's The X Files! aka:"he Truth Is Out There!")

Good explanation so far? I also have also personally had, and still do, those sorts of deep feelings, emotions and enjoyment, but I am happy to accept that, for now at least, the inner detailed explanations will come later, and will become part of some greater universal truth-and-law set.

I am, just so you know, more than capable of enjoying a huge spritual moment watching a glorious sunset, with my elderly cat tucked onto my lap, without thanking some antique Wooden God for it all.

Why.... it can even bring a heartfelt tear to my otherwise heathen, garbage-reading and soul-less atheistic eyes....

Peace and Love! Oh yeah, and here's to being forever skeptical.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Not sure what the magazine was titled, but it was claiming that Stem Cell research was bunk and that it was metaphysical junk. It claims that ancient lost civilizations that we have physical proof of are frauds. It was hysterical. It caused me to look into more skeptic stuff online. Many of the "studies" the skeptics claim to have done are just studies that they stole from other people, slapped their label on it and claimed it was their study.

The best part is that most of their "studies" produced inconclusive results. Therefore, they say that their studies proved this and that. An inconclusive study or test cannot produce results other than that the means in which you tested the subject was not accurate or would not work. That is like me using a scale to measure the wind and claiming that it produced inconclusive results, therefore the wind does not exist.

To study something and to disprove it, you must exhaust all possible studies and tests. Since that is not possible, you cannot prove something false if all of your tests are inconclusive.

How could you come in here and try to discuss this without doing the research to make sure you know WHICH magazine? You just threw out all your credibility with that one. Nobody can either refute or support any of your statements until you identify your source magazine.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

If someone does what you stated above, then I might give them some credit. The magazine title eludes me as I was just browsing the magazines at the book store. The magazine I read was full of claims that had no proof of these claims. It was a skeptic magazine that I think most real skeptics would be skeptical of.

Well I am skeptical of even the magazines existence given your claims to have read the articles deeply enough to remember their content, yet can not even recall the title.

That said however, people like to make money. I would not be surprised to find people sticking any old claim on the cover of a magazine if they thought a certain subset of the public would pay for it.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

How could you come in here and try to discuss this without doing the research to make sure you know WHICH magazine? You just threw out all your credibility with that one. Nobody can either refute or support any of your statements until you identify your source magazine.

Did some research and the magazine was Skeptical Inquirer.