Open-minded Skepticism

I don't know how I could have gotten the idea you were, mike. Within the span of five minutes, you replied to two posts of mine, neither of which were addressed to you, employing the logical fallacies of tu quoque in one (Message 181) and non sequitur in the other (Message 27), and making no apparent attempt to engage with what I was saying in either. But facts also have contexts, and we interpret them according to what we already believe. It's not like we're data processors which perform operations on input. The way we relate to information, knowledge, and interpretations can vary widely depending on our personal and cultural backgrounds. It's human nature to prefer the evidence that supports what we believe and de-emphasize or dismiss the evidence that contradicts what we believe. That's what I meant in my post: we can say we'll follow the evidence wherever it leads, but in reality we're the ones doing the leading.

Perhaps your physical body. But everything you ever have done continues to send ripples throughout the universe. The memory of your existance still exist. Yes your physical self. But not the part of you than can not die, the memory of you. Perhaps. But I choose to believe our existence is more than than the sum of it's parts. It does have meaning that our concious brains choose to give it, for better or for worse. imo.
Skepticism is a good thing? Nah, we all base most of our decisions on belief rather than hard evidence, otherwise nothing would get done. Many believe the sources of our facts based on the confidence we have in those sources. It is there that confirmation bias can rear it's ugly head.Edited by 1.61803, : spellingEdited by 1.61803, : change "confidence to confirmation"

I replied to "pop science" (your inference that it's false) with "pop bible".
I disputed that belief can alter the facts or the evidence of facts ... a premise you subscribe to and seem to believe and I don't.I guess you can consider my uncivil, since I did respond to you without agreeing with you ... but I don't understand how I didn't "engage" you? I countered your statements ... that's part of a debate, no?

Sorry, but no. Your ripples die out as soon as your brain does. Yes, your memory lingers in those who choose to remember you, but if no one does, then you don't ripple. Exactly my point. Everyone likes to believe they'll "live on". But it's just not true. Granted, you might leave a memory, but those only last until they no longer are important to the "rememberer". You ceased to exist long before that. It is blind belief that causes "nothing would get done". Skepticism drives the search for truth. Belief does not require truth, or action, it just "is". And it causes stagnation.

I don't believe pop science is false, and neither do I believe belief can alter facts. What I was saying about pop science is that it's no substitute for the hard data that support theories we affirm such as the Big Bang or the evolution of species; it's just the best we can manage as amateurs. What I was saying about facts, as I've already made a futile attempt to clarify, is that they don't exist outside a context and we arrange and interpret them according to our personal and cultural backgrounds. It's clear you had no idea what I meant by either statement, but instead of asking me to elucidate you posted snide responses to them anyway. Since I've explained myself, you could try to engage with what I've said going forward. If you're interested in civil dialogue, that is.

Perhaps this is just semantics, but there's a reason those people are called "deniers," not skeptics. I had thought that part of the definition of "skeptic" is the idea that the skeptic is looking for evidence and will rationally weigh and consider evidence offered.

You have evidence of this? Or is this arm chair speculation based on your own naval gazing expertise? I can refute your above statement by saying a brain dead person can still be physically alive for decades. And that is not even part of my argument. I can also refute your above statement by saying the finger nail, hair and toenail matrix continues production post mortum.( further ripples) So again your wrong. But the sailent point of my comments was that our human interactions in life "live on after our physical death. Your personal nihilistic take on your own life is not the end all- (pun intended) of what many others choose to believe. Well if by "live on" you mean your physical body I agree, most reasonable folks do. Once your physical body is dead then yes your phyical body is dead. Duh, kind of redundant. If you grant that YOU left a memory then who is to judge what is or is not important enough to remember. All people and memories are not created equal and some are more memorable than others. Skeptics do not have to do anything but be skeptical. That is the epitomy of inaction. I challenge you to try to get though your day fact checking every interaction you encounter. Lets just see how much you get done.

To True Believers - e.g. the folks over at Evolution Fairy Tale - "skeptic" apparently refers to people who accept evidence over the Bible.

Since all brain activity is electro-chemical, once it stops, death. Once the body dies, there is no way to continue the thoughts that made the person. That person ceases to exist. Actually, no they don't. It's been an accepted fact for some time, the skin recedes, the nails and hair don't grow. No, I was referring to the fantasy of a "soul" that will know heaven or hell. True ... memories will live on. Books keep some memories around longer. But memories aren't "Souls" and the individual is not alive just because memories are. That argument could be said of anybody. But being skeptical means you question the validity of something. Sure, you could stop at that, but most don't. If only to prove your skepticism, most will research and discover the truth.
By your argument, the "faithful" have no need to research ... they believe and that's enough for them.

Does their memorie cease to exist? Do their children cease to exist? Does their life work cease to exist? If you define your person as your physical body then yes you cease to exist. I was simply offering another point of view that our lives are more than the sum of its physical parts. That we are the ones that give meaning to our lives. Ok Ill concede this point . But you did say once brain death the body dies. And I have shown that the physical body can be kept alive post brain death so the person is still physically alive despite being brain dead so your still wrong. Where in the conversation did I mention either of those things? Again I never said the individual stayed physically alive just because his/her memories did. And again I never spoke of the soul at all. And believing means you accept something not based on evidence.
My point was that people operate in daily life based on beliefs rather than non belief. It is impossible to check the sources of all information. You believe the things you read and hear based on the confidence you have in those sources and their sources.
If you do not believe anything then how can you function?
Believing something is not the same thing as blind faith no more than skepticims is the same thing as denying everything. There is room in the universe for both skepticism and belief.

Hi, Mike--my turn to welcome you and admire your fish. I was on South Cape Cod Beach last week watching surfcasters throw 2 and 3-foot bluefish back...Their freezers were full, they said. The bastards. What you believe can change your body. Those changes can impact you and the world around you dramatically. Surely you don't mean that literally: we are regularly treated here to the misinterpretation of factual evidence.I agree with MrHambre that facts are socially/culturally determined.Whose perceptual apparatus and mindset should be used to determine which "facts" are cast in concrete? Sadly, we lack an heroic "Objective Man" and have to settle for a consensus arrived at by best methods and efforts, all of them falling short of the Glory of Fact.

LOL Maybe I am confusing issues that aren't so confusing. I was talking about my perceptions and conclusions that there is no "soul" that lives on after a person dies. There is no heaven or hell, and even if there was, there's no electro-chemical way for a person to know where they ended up because the brain activity has ceased. I am cool with this. Memories of you can live on long after you are gone.Thank you for the welcome, Omnivorous. I stand by what I say, this time. Factual evidence can only be misinterpreted by those who refuse to accept it. Refusal to accept a fact does not change that fact.

Well I believe there will be a life after death, maybe even a heaven or hell, and that the evidence shows that Evolution is a fact and so far the Theory of Evolution is the only one that can explain what is seen. Does that help?

Even scientists of great integrity can disagree about the interpretation of apparent facts.For your EvC bestiary:I'm a strong atheist who experiences what religious folk would consider mystical transports. I figure, meh, temporal lobe bonus. I could be wrong.And an evilutionist, of course.What makes a fact a fact, Mike?

You're like my Wife. I've told her god's 6 days took about 12 billion of our years. We're somewhere in the middle of the 7th day and he's still resting. (which explains his lack of interaction) She likes that explanation. Fact requires physical proof of existence. Fact requires observable cause and effect.Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.