I'm a Pepper, He's a Pepper, We're a Pepper, Be a Pepper, Wouldn't you like to Be a Pepper, too?

Okay, jingles aside....what about a Skeptic? Wouldn't you like to be a Skeptic, too????

Case in point: We're all skeptical of someone else's claims/someone else's beliefs. The Mormon is skeptical of the Catholic's claims, the Catholic is skeptical of the Muslim's claims, the Atheist is skeptical of the claims of all three of the above, plus, any other claims held on the same sorts of "evidence".

Nearly always, this "evidence" falls into these three categories:

1. Divine revelation(revealed knowledge, usually via "holy writ"..e.g..the Bible, the Qu'ran)

2. Personal testimony(the personal experiences of the claimant, especially, the resultant "feelings")

3. The claimant's sincere, fervent belief that they are right(especially that they cannot be mistaken about 2)

Back to skepticism, namely, that of any belief held on the above-mentioned "evidence". If the Theist is going to come along and label me a "skeptic", then I guess they're going to have not mind looking misinformed at the very best. Not that it isn't perfectly within someone's right to look misinformed, mind you, but the person granting me full ownership of the sphere of thought known as "skepticism" really shouldn't wonder why we Atheists/rationalists find it extremely difficult to take them seriously. I mean, if my interlocutor cannot grasp the most basic of things - and this issue of what it means to be a "skeptic" is one of those things - then I essentially have two choices, which are walking away, or banging my head on a desk.

You cannot induce a "light bulb" moment in someone. You just can't. Many Atheist bloggers learn this the hard way, especially those Atheists who are former believers.    

Suffice it to say that consistency is very important. As for science, it is science's job to be consistently skeptical. Why? Because being skeptical weeds out error. If we, ourselves, don't apply skepticism comprehensively, across the board, etc., then we are leaving ourselves wide open to being duped, whether that be by the next guy's religion, the newest fad "money-maker" from the New Age camp, or the vacuum cleaner salesman at our front door.

And then of course, we can be duped by our own desires, emotions, and feelings, as well. If I, as a former believer, was duped by my feelings in the past, then I owe it to myself to make sure that I don't allow my feelings to dupe me again, especially considering that I wasted so many years being self-deceived, years that I'll never get back. 'Seems like that goes without saying, but for some incredibly irritating reason, some people don't "get" this.

When I catch myself wasting time I become irked and agitated. Guilty. Time is more precious to me now that I know it's limited. And please note that when I say "I know", it's in the colloquial, practical sense of the word...e.g..."I know gremlins don't hide my car keys". Now, do I have life's greatest questions all figured out? Lol! Good grief, no....of course I don't! Notwithstanding, if you were to ask me this....

 "Hey, Boomslang, do you have explanations for the things which your former Theistic beliefs at one time supplied?

...you will get a resounding, unapologetic "YES".

E.g...

"sin"-  imperfection inherent in being human

"heaven" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to overcome the observable fact that he dies just like every other living thing

"hell" -  imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to control the masses

"afterlife" - imaginary state of existence for those who cannot fathom nonexistence

"soul" - legendary hokus pokus for "personality"

"God" - self-projection/argument from ignorance

"devil" - deflecting responsibility/scare tactic

"evil" - sh*t happens. Sometimes we're responsible, other times we're not

"Thou shalt not kill" - duh?

That more or less covers it. I don't need to know for 100% certain if some other "God" besides the Christian one exists, or not, nor do I need to have an answer to that question any time before I expire. I also don't need to have an answer for whatever happens after my brain dies, albeit, the available evidence points to "nothing"---nothing happens. Furthermore, I know enough about myself to know that I'd never be able to "R.I.P." knowing that my loved ones are sad that I'm gone and/or that they're suffering in some way. But that's just me.

So, aside from the total lack of scientific evidence that I will exist in or on "clouds" and that I will have the wherewithal to take time out of my busy, perpetual existence to chat with the living, this whole notion of a "spirit world" that exists in a "metaphysical" realm - literally, beyond physical - is, in and of itself, also nonsensical and actually quite preposterous.

This brings me to back to applying skepticism evenly and comprehensively. Most if not all Theists are guilty of applying skepticism selectively, but yet, this is to be expected to a degree since we know that Theists compartmentalize their beliefs. But believe it or not there are a select few who are capable of ditching one set of worn-out, no longer applicable beliefs by applying a good dose of skepticism, while retaining equally unsubstantiated beliefs by omitting that very same skepticism. In these rare instances, I suppose that in some ways it makes sense if these people want to lurk in the shadows and not venture far out their respective internet microcosms. The problem is determining if someone is sincerely questioning, or merely feigning it to keep other possible reasons undisclosed. We have to be cautious.

Since time immemorial, people have believed all sorts of unfounded, ridiculous things. But it should be noted that not all of these ideas are rooted in the supernatural. For instance, people of color(sadly, even today referred to as "niggers") were once prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains. In this day and age we hopefully agree that such a prohibition is (and was) just plain ridiculous. But yet, at some point, someone evidently ridiculed that ridiculous notion, got firm in their stance, gave a crap less about calling out people's deeply held convictions, and things eventually changed.......for the better.           


Leaving a few thoughts...

If one is skeptical of my being "a skeptic", then they are, by definition, a skeptic, too.

If one is unwilling to tolerate my intolerance of certain beliefs, then by definition, they, themselves, are exuding intolerance.