Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism and skeptics kind of go hand in hand. Not always but I would say 75% of all atheists are skeptics. But then when you think about it, all atheists are skeptic of some form of religion, that would make them all skeptics.
And also...when you think about it....no matter what denomination we are or aren't....isn't EVERYONE "guilty" of scepticism in one way or another.
Did some research and the magazine was Skeptical Inquirer.
I had problems with them too when I read them for a time. I remember they had an article that really seemed to disapprove of the main ideas on the Big Bang theory in favor of notions that struck me as more fringe. It's like they were so uncomfortable with the notion of a "creation moment", even though this doesn't necessarily mean God, they wanted to invent something to dismiss it. I found this a tad suspect. I can't seem to find that article though, I admit that. It seems like they also criticized SETI in a way that struck me as a bit unfair.
Then they nearly put a fatwa against Robert J. Sawyer because he had Intelligent Design, in a science fiction novel he wrote, as valid. He didn't believe it, he told them that, he just wanted to do a novel/alternative-Universe to explore the idea. And they seemed to do other "don't even explore this in fiction" kind of things that I found a tad repressive.
Isaac Asimov had the literal existence of God or devils in a few stories. Writers are going to imagine scenarios they don't believe in sometimes. When I used to write I had characters who engaged in behavior I didn't believe in and I did a poem based on the Swedenborgian view of the afterlife. It doesn't mean anything about what I believe. At most it means I was curious about how those beliefs worked.
That being said SI has some good stuff too. They're kind of uneven.
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.
Hmmm... I don't typically read a lot of magazines but most of the skeptic organizations I am affiliated with or have spoken to have full support of stem-cell research and I've never even heard them badger about ancient lost civilizations (Atlantis excluded) as not existing.
There is a growing movement of people who have this little alien fetish and will stop at nothing to insist that aliens are responsible for every early invention and monument. A lot of the things they propose require them to debunk rather common items in order to squeeze their illogical claims into the fray. They often call themselves "skeptics" (as pretty much anyone could call oneself that) but it's pretty evident when an agenda is being pushed.
Edit: Just noticed you said it was Skeptical Inquirer magazine which, in my opinion, has always been fairly decent at approaching things in a broad-minded but skeptical manner. I will say that they have discussed fringe science matters from time to time and that their mentioning of it may seem like advocation of the same. I'd be interested to see what they had to say about stem cell research as Steven Novella, a contributing author of said magazine, has publicly voiced his opinion on the matter (in his podcast - The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe) as a favorable one. Are you sure it wasn't criticism of a single stem-cell study rather than the entirety of stem-cell research??
Atheism and skeptics kind of go hand in hand. Not always but I would say 75% of all atheists are skeptics. But then when you think about it, all atheists are skeptic of some form of religion, that would make them all skeptics.
Actually, in many cases, skepticism is what you exhibit and how you think when you are en-route to determining some of your life's final working decisions. This might include religion or not. As regards religion, however, you may start out non-skeptical, just a blindered believer due to the painstaking efforts of your educators and parents when you are young, unquestioning (aka: non-skeptical) and gullible to a fault.
Plus, most kids just love a good fairy tale, maybe even one with bits and pieces of fear-inducing disciplinary consequences. There's a reason that the Christian Church offers up all those Sunday School comic books, even today.
Then, as they mature and also start challenging their perhaps-overbearing parents, some people will spend the time necessary to review those beliefs, skeptically, questioning all the alternatives, positing them against the constant backdrop of reality and logic, and more importantly, seeing if the logical possibilities are capable of PREDICTION, one of the strongest cues to the truth. And, in many cases, they also begin applying their new post-high-school education in the sciences, engineering, and the philosophies of religion. The results are often predictable....
After that, many hominids will arrive at a pretty much stable intellectual position, banking on the intense effort they originally made to examine it all in great detail (usually when they are younger and unconcerned about final careers, the house mortgage, the Beemer's need for a rebuilt engine, their future (401)k retirement plans, etc. etc. Agghhhh.. The Horrors, the Horrors!!)
They have also often acquired a storehouse of useful technical information, a knowledge of the evidence and ideas that led them into their skepticism way back when... And as well, they have reviewed their religion and it's obvious failings and contradictions. As well, many of them continue their casual education throughout their adult lives, keeping up on the inexorable march of thoroughlytested and re-tested concepts via such sources as Scientific American, National Geographic and possibly the advanced peer-reviewed scientific journal publications that monitor and cover all the proceedings of science. Hard to deny such levels of professional fervor and world-wide review.
Note that, as well, the investigatory tools available to the scientist continues to grow in scope, accuracy and imagination. The levels of resolution increase by an order of 10X with each decade, so that an age determination of 5 million years, ± 150,000 years, is now, categorically, 4.65 million years, ± 15,000 yrs.
And yet... still, it's all denied vehemently, based on those now very-old limitation figures from very early studies done in the '50s. Now, to that I say: folks who want to argue these things should at least try to keep up, don't you think? I mean, unless they prefer to look like uneducated goat-herders....)
Others, so very very many of them, of course, have no intention of ever questioning any of that unreliable stuff, since they are ever-so-comfy in their long-held beliefs, and in the arrogant and clubby social structure that attends it. And so, they choose to stay with that paradigm no matter what comes along as evidence.
Which, frankly, is too danged bad for their personal intellectual advancement. Not to mention that of the general level of scientific understanding of our species within our current culture.
_______________________________________
(Late add note:" There was a story on the CBS National Evening News this very night about a global poll that placed American children at no. 30 in a world-wide list of about 32 nations in terms of their mastery of the sciences & math. Something to be so very proud of, huh?)
Last edited by rifleman; 09-26-2011 at 09:38 PM..
Reason: Removing obfuscation!
I was in the book store and I saw this magazine for skeptics. Its a magazine claiming to be for science and reason. Upon reading some of the articles, I quickly realized that this magazine is not based on science or reason. Some of it was accurate, most of it.... was so far from the truth that science would deny most of it's claims. It even misquoted quite a few people. I 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?
Anway, to answer your question, I doubt many serious scientists get "Skeptic" magazine. There are plenty of REAL scientific journals out there that don't waste paper debunking everything and anything, but focus on the real results of real research...
I don't know many that do their own studies. I know plenty that say question everything, but when the read say a skeptic magazine, article or book they don't question anything. They buy into what they read and don't do what they tell others to do.
I am well versed in these types of tactics. Skeptics and atheists alike try to discredit the author or posts and books. They do this because they can't do it to their work. You are now trying to discredit my with these tactics. Nice try. Keep trying.. what's next? Pointing out my grammatical errors...
No. It's very simple.
Your OP and following comments make no sense.
You keep changing the argument.
I see it a lot when people are losing an argument.
But, please, do continue.
I enjoy being entertained by this silliness.
Did some research and the magazine was Skeptical Inquirer.
Are you sure? Because upon reading that magazine for information on Stem Cell research (your example) I find nothing like you describe and in fact the magazine appears to be very much pro-stem cell research. It talks at length about methods to improve public acceptance of stem cell research, one of which is to educate them on the benefits and advantages of it.
That does not sound like calling it... how did you put it.... "Stem Cell research was bunk and that it was metaphysical junk".
I opened the current online issue for example and did find they have indeed got an article on Stem Cells. Titled "Religion on Politics on Science: The Rough Ride for Stem Cells Continues" and it talks about the importance of it also. Nothing in there about it being "bunk" or "junk". Which article did you read? It can not have been any of the ones I just did.
Without actual quotations or links or citations I am forced to conclude you did not actually read the contents of this magazine, or you looked at the words but read what you wanted to see rather than what was there.
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.
Well, you can attach the label "skeptic" on anything... even apples and magazines.
The denial of anything beyond our strictly sesnsory-based world is the fullest expression of atheism. Anything beyond pure physics and chemistry.
The misrepresentation of atheism as automatically in denial of anything other than the purely material is the fullest expression of theism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Skepticism is NOT a four-letter word!
