I've drawn a tentative conclusion that the WTBTS is a destructive cult.....but since I'm scientific minded...and I mean truly scientific, they might be the true religion afterall.
Gumby
Do Skeptics Draw Conclusions?
by Blueblades 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
logansrun
czar,
No, evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a hypothesis. And, yes, it can be shown to be wrong. It has yet to be shown wrong, however.
B.
-
frankiespeakin
I think when we use the term skeptic it has reference to a limited amount of things and is never intended to be absolute as in being skeptic of everything.
A person may state he is a skeptic with reguard to the subject at hand but it doesn't mean he is skeptical of everything. When it comes to religion and miracles a person who says he is skeptical about such things does not imply that he is skeptical about whether or not cars really exist.
-
belbab
Yes, the skeptic has drawn the conclusion that he is a skeptic. A true skeptic would be skeptical about his conclusion that he is a skeptic.
belbab
-
Midget-Sasquatch
This person is a bible skeptic, although this person has drawn his own conclusions about the bible.
That point deserved repeating.
A balanced skepticism is the most practical approach in separating fact from fiction. The extreme form of it leaves you with nothing to build on so you'll have no useful paradigm.
-
tyydyy
Just for the record I consider myself a skeptic. That doesn't mean the I don't have any beliefs. It is possible that I can be skeptical of something of that is absolutely true but when someone is skeptical and questions a generally accepted "truth", he'll do research and experiments that will confirm or disprove that "truth". That's a good thing. So, yes, a skeptic does come to a conclusion when they are personally satisfied with the facts.
TimB
-
Panda
Michael Shermer of Skeptics magazine is a skeptic. I'd say skeptics (now also known as Brights) "believe" in what the natural world teaches humankind. For example, when the periodic table of elements was first getting mapped out the scientists involved left a few empty spaces where it was obvious through scientific proof that there were elements which would fill in those spaces (because of the conditions those elements had...like how many e-orbits, shapes of those orbits, atomic weight and state {solid, gas etc} of the resulting pure molecules.) So we can say these are verifiable.
Skeptics are not skeptical about what is verifiable and if some new scientific measurement comes along and changes something skeptics don't feel compelled to hold onto old ideas.
Example, Darwins family (grandfather) believed the "races" were separate because of natural selection. This was also applied to rich and poor people. Basically the poor and black didn't have a chance to evolve into their betters. Of course we (and C.Darwin too) know better now. So now it is verifiable that we living beings on earth are all related the proof is in the DNA (how Zen).
So I would have to say that a skeptic is a person willing to test the veracity of statements.
-
peacefulpete
Panda, your last sentence nails it well. A Skeptic is not a cynic (doubter) or hater of religion or anything else, rather a proper definition of Skeptic is someone willing to test his own beliefs and someone insistent upon use of ratial thought in explaining the world. While everyone, when asked, will say they do this, in reality we do not and often get angry when this is pointed out.
-
frenchbabyface
... ...