Generally speaking, atheists and skeptics are labelled into two different groups:
1. Some atheists are not skeptics. This group does not believe a god or gods exist, but may believe in ghosts, UFOs Bigfoot, acupuncture, 911 conspiracies and other issues which are not supported by science.
2. Some skeptics are not atheists. This group only believes in claims supported by scientific conciseness and evidence but also believes in either a deity or some unknowable ‘higher power’.
An evidencialist is a skeptic and an atheist. This definition covers ALL supernatural and unproven claims which are not supported by pier-reviewed articles and a generous dose of scientific evidence. If you are an evidencialist you do not believe a god exists and you do not believe in any claim not supported by a consensus of the those in any specific scientific field.
By calling yourself an evidencialist, you avoid the ‘A’ word. And no matter how much I promote ‘coming out’, sometimes it’s appropriate to just say you are an evidencialist so you can bypass talking directly about religion or conspiracy theories. It usually promotes the inquiry of others without categorizing you in a box or specific belief.
Of course, starting a business in these sectors is by no means a guarantee of success; nor can we be certain that these sectors will take off as forecasts and anecdotal evidence suggests. To succeed as a start-up, no matter what your specialism, you need the right business model, pricing, positioning, product or service, and a lot of hard work to stand a chance of success – and it’s crucial to thoroughly assess the viability of your idea before you take the plunge. ‘
My very own internet page
<http://www.caramoantourpackage.com
The reality is that 9/11 conspiracy theories are extremely well supported by science.
It is the ‘official’ version of the events that is unable to withstand logical inquiry.
Oh and one more, is there an absolute moral law? Reading “what’s wrong with religion” #3 it’s states
“Religious-based abstinence programs actually cause MORE pregnancies and MORE abortions than sex-education programs. This is simply immoral. there is not one pier-reviewed study which supports abstinence programs.”
I am wondering what do you base your morals on, especially in regards to this topic described here? What are you saying is immoral?
If there is no absolute? Are you absolutely sure? And if you say relativity than what’s good for them doesn’t have to be good for you as your own prescriptive philosophy.
Please clarify my confusion. I look forward to your response.
Mike
I had a question regarding the evidencialist philosophy, atheist = knowing there is not a god. And skeptics = on the fence and can debate both sides without a conclusion, when it comes to topics like how the world began, where do you stand and why? Given that No one absolutely knows how, then how do you know? There must be faith that fills the gap, thus evidencialism becoming your religion. I am quite interested in your philosophy and await your reply. Thank you in advance.
Mike