Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation? [Archive]

The Atheist

18th November 2009, 05:20 PM

It doesn't get a free pass. Randi attacks religious scams too. Peter Popoff for example. The JREF attacks religion when it makes testable claims or demands special benefits.

The vast majority of religion doesn't make testable claims in any form. It's kind of the whole point of religion.

Dowsing is harmless?

Yep.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Just so you know, What's the Harm does list some harm done by dowsing (http://whatstheharm.net/dowsing.html), but the actual harms seem to be due to homeopathy, while a couple are irrelevant and one or two may have cost someone a small amount of money. I'd happily call that harmless.

Lot less harmful than drinking water.

Because many of the posters here are not atheists? I get the feeling that many of the active Foundation members aren't either.

I have no idea what foundation members are, but theists are few and far between on the forum, although there are a fair number of deists.

Wasn't the JREF founded to debunk paranormal claims? Unless religions makes specific, testable claims, there's nothing the JREF can do.

Why it was founded isn't all that relevant in light of the current position, which is: (taken direct from JREF (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html))

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.

Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

The bolded bits seem to include religion from where I read them. (bolding mine)

First because it's not Randi's beef.
His beef has always been with stage magicians who claim "real" paranormal ability.

I don't see that mentioned in the statement above.

Second because it's American and America isn't ready for that yet.

There are no atheist organisations in USA?

Third, because it's American and JREF isn't ready for that yet. If JREF continues beyond the passing of Randi and the foundation generation, then I expect it will become more obviously atheist, or the majority of the members, associates and hangers-on will drift into humanist or more obviously non / anti religious groups.

Is this a prediction? If so, maybe you should put it in the MDC forum.

Religion has two functions; one is the propagation of nonsense, the other a sort of social substrate. To dump one is to lose the other. We should keep what's worth keeping. It is not inconceivable that the sort of social networks now growing around organizations like JREF via the 'Net may be the future core of a replacement for that substrate.

This makes no sense to me, sorry.

JREF attacks dowsing, cryptozoology and lots of things which promote social groupings. Are you saying that religion should get a free pass because some parts of it are good? or that those other forms of stupid shouldn't be attacked because of their social value?

I think it's more a practical decision than anything else.

Religion is the 700-pound gorilla in the room. If the JREF made religious claims a top priority, then the prevalence of religious claims would mean the JREF spent most of its time dealing with them instead of other issues.

I don't see this is being right in any way.

First off, I don't imagine many [if any] religious claims would really be made, because failure might constitute a reason for people not to believe any more.

Secondly, have a look at what percentage of JREF's time and expenses are taken up by MDC claimants - very, very little, under the new rules. Religious claims would still need to meet those criteria, which would stop almost all attempted claims.

Which might be fine, but there's umpteen other atheist/humanist/secularist organizations out there filling that role. I'm not sure how much value the JREF would add to those efforts. It's not like the organization has any special expertise in dealing with (most) religious claims, whereas Randi's background at least gives it a leg up in dealing with many other claimants.

This seems to be saying it's too hard.

That may be fair comment, but then the mission statement above could be changed to reflect that.

The Atheist

18th November 2009, 05:22 PM

Dunstan

18th November 2009, 06:00 PM

I don't see this is being right in any way.

First off, I don't imagine many [if any] religious claims would really be made, because failure might constitute a reason for people not to believe any more.

Secondly, have a look at what percentage of JREF's time and expenses are taken up by MDC claimants - very, very little, under the new rules. Religious claims would still need to meet those criteria, which would stop almost all attempted claims.

When I used the word "claim" in my post, it was in the generic sense; I wasn't limiting it to the MDC. Substitute "issues" if you like.

Unfortunately, I can't really get into a detailed discussion of how the JREF's time and resources are spent because I don't really have good information on the subject -- which is and has been the topic of other threads.

But I do think that once you start getting significantly into religious issues, it will dominate the agenda. Woos already try to do this: I remember the CNN feature on Sylvia Browne in which her spokeswoman couldn't stop pointing out that Randi and RSL were ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS, I TELL YOU!!!!!

This seems to be saying it's too hard.

No, I meant just what I said -- that it's not a good use of JREF resources because there is little it can do that the many larger atheist organizations can't. Might as well focus one's efforts on where you can do the most good.

That may be fair comment, but then the mission statement above could be changed to reflect that.

I suppose so, but that seems awfully nitpicky to me. If a restaurant has a mission statement of "providing good food to our customers," I'm not going to complain that they don't serve sushi, and damn it, sushi is good food, so they better amend their mission statement to "providing good food not including sushi" or "providing some types of good food," etc. (And really, who reads mission statements? Other than you, obviously!)

Besides, I do think it would be problematic to specifically exempt religious claims from the JREF's mission.

I think that within that broad mission statement it's fine to focus on particular areas where the JREF has something useful to contribute, where people are more open to persuasion, that are topical and relevant, etc. (On that last point: one of the reasons I stopped reading Randi's commentaries a while ago was that I was incredibly bored with his never-ending feud with Uri Geller. I get why it matters to Randi, but I doubt that many people under the age of 60 even know who Uri is any more, let alone pay attention to him.)

LibraryLady

18th November 2009, 06:12 PM

The vast majority of religion doesn't make testable claims in any form. It's kind of the whole point of religion.

Yep.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary [that dowsing is harmful]*.

*snip*.

Here you go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html)

*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

Pure Argent

18th November 2009, 07:07 PM

I have no idea what foundation members are, but theists are few and far between on the forum, although there are a fair number of deists.

I'm pretty sure that Darth Rotor is some Christian denomination, as is Maia. I know for a fact that Kurse and Arkyrion are both Christians - AvalonXQ as well, even though he's not here at the moment. I'm pretty sure that there are more.

Why it was founded isn't all that relevant in light of the current position, which is: (taken direct from JREF (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html))

The bolded bits seem to include religion from where I read them. (bolding mine)

They could apply to religion, yes, but again, most religions don't make concrete claims. We can debunk their arguments for the existence of god, yes, and show that prayer has no effect, but if they choose to believe nonetheless... not much we can do.

godofpie

18th November 2009, 07:15 PM

First because it's not Randi's beef.
His beef has always been with stage magicians who claim "real" paranormal ability.

Second because it's American and America isn't ready for that yet.

Third, because it's American and JREF isn't ready for that yet. If JREF continues beyond the passing of Randi and the foundation generation, then I expect it will become more obviously atheist, or the majority of the members, associates and hangers-on will drift into humanist or more obviously non / anti religious groups.

Religion has two functions; one is the propagation of nonsense, the other a sort of social substrate. To dump one is to lose the other. We should keep what's worth keeping. It is not inconceivable that the sort of social networks now growing around organizations like JREF via the 'Net may be the future core of a replacement for that substrate.
In the JREF house are many mansions. If that changes, someone will let you know.:)

Well said. Since becoming a member of the JREF just a little over a year ago, SS's prediction is exactly the direction I see the JREF headed.

Skeptic Ginger

18th November 2009, 07:48 PM

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Purely practical political pandering.

KingMerv00

18th November 2009, 07:56 PM

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Just so you know, What's the Harm does list some harm done by dowsing (http://whatstheharm.net/dowsing.html), but the actual harms seem to be due to homeopathy, while a couple are irrelevant and one or two may have cost someone a small amount of money. I'd happily call that harmless.

Here you go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html)

*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

LL stole my idea.

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

plumjam

18th November 2009, 08:15 PM

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

No. Money spent on dowsing is helpful in the area of well-being.

KingMerv00

18th November 2009, 08:37 PM

No. Money spent on dowsing is helpful in the area of well-being.

Just a font of puns aren't you?

The Atheist

18th November 2009, 10:17 PM

When I used the word "claim" in my post, it was in the generic sense; I wasn't limiting it to the MDC. Substitute "issues" if you like.

Ok, I was thinking of claims in a JREF/challenge sense.

What kind of issues do you mean then?

I wouldn't suggest it immediately turns into a Dawkin-esque entity whose sole purpose is to destroy religion - I probably could have been clearer myself.

Skeptigirl is largely right; it's a politically-correct thing more than anything else. I was more thinking along the lines of just an attitudinal - and public - shift from claiming it isn't atheist. It's not even compulsory for atheists to attack churches, as the London Bus campaign showed.

But I do think that once you start getting significantly into religious issues, it will dominate the agenda. Woos already try to do this: I remember the CNN feature on Sylvia Browne in which her spokeswoman couldn't stop pointing out that Randi and RSL were ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS, I TELL YOU!!!!!

Aside from failing to see how that would be a bad thing - people might think, "Hell that JREF is one smart organisation, maybe I should investigate my beliefs" - it seems far too much like caving in to religious pressure for my liking.

No, I meant just what I said -- that it's not a good use of JREF resources because there is little it can do that the many larger atheist organizations can't. Might as well focus one's efforts on where you can do the most good.

Covered by my response above.

I suppose so, but that seems awfully nitpicky to me. If a restaurant has a mission statement of "providing good food to our customers," I'm not going to complain that they don't serve sushi, and damn it, sushi is good food, so they better amend their mission statement to "providing good food not including sushi" or "providing some types of good food," etc. (And really, who reads mission statements? Other than you, obviously!)

:bgrin:

I actually only read it before I started the thread.

What made me think of it was a statement again - yes, by you, Unrepentant, you old christian hugger you - I saw recently that "The Jref is not...."

I think your analogy doesn't fit the situation at all.

I'll give what I think is a similar case: a Kiwi freezing works/abbatoir has told farmers that it will not kill its animals using halal methods, which many farmers consider inhumane.

Accordingly, their kill rate has gone up massively as farmers choose them over other works where the killing is done by halal methods.

Right or wrong, they're taking a stand.

Besides, I do think it would be problematic to specifically exempt religious claims from the JREF's mission.

Why do you think they would need to be different?

I think that within that broad mission statement it's fine to focus on particular areas where the JREF has something useful to contribute, where people are more open to persuasion, that are topical and relevant, etc.

Religion infecting 80-90% of Americans isn't topical or relevant?

Here you go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html)

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

I'm no fan of dictionaries, but if you can show just one recognisable dictionary which lists "locating bombs" as a meaning for dowsing, I'll believe ya.

*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

That quite often happens.

I'm pretty sure that Darth Rotor is some Christian denomination,...

He is too!

My god, do you think he knows I'm an atheist? Surely not!

Crikey, of all the people on the forum, Darth is the one bloke who's actually invited me to sit down and have a beer (and almost-dead cow) with him. Do you think he might change his tune if he finds out I'm an atheist.

Holy crap, I gotta go change my name, toot-sweet!

...as is Maia. I know for a fact that Kurse and Arkyrion are both Christians - AvalonXQ as well, even though he's not here at the moment. I'm pretty sure that there are more.

You know, the darnedest thing is, I know members here who genuinely believe that sasquatch exists. One of 'em, now banned but still online at his bigfoot forum, and who is also devout Catholic is another bloke who has invited me into his home.

What is your point?

Did you think I was advocating making them wear a crucifix and turning down their membership?

They could apply to religion, yes, but again, most religions don't make concrete claims.

Yeah, I said that.

We can debunk their arguments for the existence of god, yes,...

Can you? Jeez, you must be a smart bloke, because I'm an atheist and I wouldn't know where to begin to debunk the existence of god/s. All I do is not believe any of it. I can debunk the OT and most of the bible, but I certainly can't disprove doctrine of major religions.

Can you give me some tips?

...and show that prayer has no effect, but if they choose to believe nonetheless... not much we can do.

Well, I don't think we can do that either at this stage. There is some evidence that the positive effect of prayer might actually work! I happen to think that's a purely physical phenomenon, but the point of delusions is that they're comforting.

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Purely practical political pandering.

Correct! Thanks for that.

LL stole my idea.

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

Compared to tithing 10% of ones income to a church?

Come on, mate, that's not clutching at straws, that's just not there. How much money gets spent on dowsing a year compared to religion? 0.00000000001%?

Dunstan

18th November 2009, 11:00 PM

Ok, I was thinking of claims in a JREF/challenge sense.

What kind of issues do you mean then?

Not to be evasive, but I'd turn that question back to you: what does it mean to you for the JREF to be an "atheist organisation"?

But to be fair, here's my stab at it. I can think of the following potential meanings:

1. JREF membership is open to atheists only.

Rather implausible. Even under the current position, it's not like you have to sign an oath declaring oneself woo-free to be a member of the JREF. Basically, fill out a form and pony up the cash, and you too can declare yourself a JREF member. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, and Uri Geller could become JREF members, unless an alert staff member noticed the names and flagged them. Actually, I wonder what would happen even then. As Penn Jillette noted, "everybody's got a gris-gris," and the usual mantra around here is that critical thinking is a process rather than a set of positions. If Christians can be JREF members despite the lack of evidence for the divinity of Jesus, why can't the aforementioned be members? (Ok, Randi personally or Jeff Wagg or someone would probably step in, but on what principled basis could they be denied?)

2. The JREF does not accept the validity of any god claims.

Well, in this sense, the JREF would already be an atheist organisation. Presumably Randi hasn't accepted the validity of any god claim, or he wouldn't call himself an athiest, and as far as I know the JREF as an organisation has not done so either.

3. The JREF adheres to an atheist viewpoint.

Probably also true. Let's dispense with the tedious objections that there is no "atheist viewpoint." Define it as "the view that there is inadequate evidence for claims of the existence of any deity." In other words, the JREF is an atheist organisation in the sense that it is an a-dowsing viewpoint, etc.

4. The JREF actively promotes an atheist viewpoint.

(Again, see above re definition of "atheist viewpoint.") I concede that I long ago stopped following the "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" thread, but it's my understanding that this is where the real fight is. You don't have to sign on to the "no god" conclusion to join or support JREF any more than you have to sign on to a "no psychics" or "no ghosts" conclusion -- and the JREF itself takes no official position on the issue, any more than it declares that there are no psychics or no ghosts. There's a certain degree of coyness involved, of course. Randi will happily tell you that he keeps an "open mind" when the 10,000th person tells him she can dowse, but he'll add with a twinkle in his eye that he's not expecting to have to turn over the million any time soon. And religious claims don't get singled out for attention in the same way that other claims do, probably for the reasons you and skeptigirl call cowardly, and others call pragmatic, and I think are probably a little of both.

I wouldn't suggest it immediately turns into a Dawkin-esque entity whose sole purpose is to destroy religion - I probably could have been clearer myself.

I think Dawkins and the RDF might quibble with that account, too!

Skeptigirl is largely right; it's a politically-correct thing more than anything else. I was more thinking along the lines of just an attitudinal - and public - shift from claiming it isn't atheist. It's not even compulsory for atheists to attack churches, as the London Bus campaign showed.

With all the usual caveats about slippery slope arguments: where do you draw the line? Should the JREF take a position on global warming? On the desirability of the gold standard? On New Zealand's inferiority in cricket?

I think it's a tough question, actually. One of the reasons I don't embrace the "skeptic" label is that I think it's used in an oh-so-cute way. Saying that you go where the evidence leads puts you squarely with 95% of the population, because practically everybody thinks that. The folks who belong to "skeptical" organisations or web forums have a lot more in common than that, though they of course don't have everything in common, as even a cursory visit here would confirm.

Aside from failing to see how that would be a bad thing - people might think, "Hell that JREF is one smart organisation, maybe I should investigate my beliefs" - it seems far too much like caving in to religious pressure for my liking.

I prefer to think of it as horses for courses. Here in the U.S., the ACLU helps safeguard separation of church and state, though it is not an atheist organisation and in fact also helps protect the right to free exercise of religion. The National Committe for Science Education fights to protect the teaching of evolution in classrooms and fend off the efforts of creationists and ID'ers, and is happy to enlist theists like Kenneth Miller or several of the Dover plaintiffs in that role. I don't really have a problem with the JREF saying "we believe in critical thinking and having evidence for your claims, and while that applies to religious claims too, it's not our focus," because I think that's a role that needs to be filled, while the role of taking on religious claims can be filled by other people and organisations. All of whom I can and at various times have supported.

AdinDraco

18th November 2009, 11:01 PM

I think it's more a practical decision than anything else.

Religion is the 700-pound gorilla in the room. If the JREF made religious claims a top priority, then the prevalence of religious claims would mean the JREF spent most of its time dealing with them instead of other issues.

Which might be fine, but there's umpteen other atheist/humanist/secularist organizations out there filling that role. I'm not sure how much value the JREF would add to those efforts. It's not like the organization has any special expertise in dealing with (most) religious claims, whereas Randi's background at least gives it a leg up in dealing with many other claimants.

I think that this sums it up best. I'm atheist and can be "militant" about it, and I kind of agree with some who wish that skeptics would be equally skeptical about religious beliefs...but...the JREF has a focus which is sorely needed in today's world and I'm ok with them not diluting their efforts. Every skeptical, atheist, humanist etc organisation has one or more focuses and that's cool. Priorities may change over time as personel and society norms change, but that's why we're here ain't it? Now I'm off to the Evidence that the new testament writers told the truth thread to perch, vulture-like, to admire the carnage.

rjh01

18th November 2009, 11:34 PM

There is no need for JREF to declare itself an atheist organisation. When JREF sees that religion is doing some harm or making stupid claims then it has criticized them for it. Do a search in SWIFT on religion and you will find heaps of articles. Here is a recent one http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/686-the-dark-side-of-religion.html

Edit. Search on religion http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/search/religion.html?ordering=&searchphrase=all

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 12:43 AM

-- and the JREF itself takes no official position on the issue, any more than it declares that there are no psychics or no ghosts.

Yet, the encyclopedia of hoaxes, supernatural, frauds, etc quite happily says they're hoaxes while I can't find "religion", "god", Yahweh or any other god mentioned in it.

I think your option 2 is the important one - just being seen to be atheist.

With all the usual caveats about slippery slope arguments: where do you draw the line? Should the JREF take a position on global warming?

Absolutely!

In the scheme of things, that's possibly by miles the most important issue on earth, so it most definitely should. As has been said by many far smarter people than me, the science is solid on it, and I'd expect JREF to be firmly in the camp of that science.

Think about 9/11 claims. They take an enormous amount of effort, yet they're irrelevant - little boys with littler you-know-whats not allowed to play cowboys and indians any more, so play NWO and Illuminati instead. In JREF terms, 9/11 has been featured in both Swift and TAM, so it certainly features.

How about moon hoaxers. What harm do they do? Yet, they're attacked, and no doubt will be more with Plait becoming CEO.

On the desirability of the gold standard?

Possibly not that one.....

On New Zealand's inferiority in cricket?

Now you're asking for trouble!

I prefer to think of it as horses for courses. Here in the U.S., the ACLU helps safeguard separation of church and state, though it is not an atheist organisation and in fact also helps protect the right to free exercise of religion. The National Committe for Science Education fights to protect the teaching of evolution in classrooms and fend off the efforts of creationists and ID'ers, and is happy to enlist theists like Kenneth Miller or several of the Dover plaintiffs in that role. I don't really have a problem with the JREF saying "we believe in critical thinking and having evidence for your claims, and while that applies to religious claims too, it's not our focus," because I think that's a role that needs to be filled, while the role of taking on religious claims can be filled by other people and organisations. All of whom I can and at various times have supported.

Try this on for size:

If atheism is seen as "evil" by religionistas, then maybe a moderate organisation being openly atheist but not attacking religion a la Dawkins, might actually encourage theists to accept that atheism need not be a dogma.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

There is no need for JREF to declare itself an atheist organisation. When JREF sees that religion is doing some harm or making stupid claims then it has criticized them for it. Do a search in SWIFT on religion and you will find heaps of articles. Here is a recent one http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/686-the-dark-side-of-religion.html

Edit. Search on religion http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/search/religion.html?ordering=&searchphrase=all

Even other religions are capable of crapping all over Benny Hinn and Fred Phelps.

Those links seem to mainly focus on the loony fringe of religion.

If you want to look at the "harm" angle solely, why then do dowsing and moon hoaxers feature in JREF's sights? Where's the harm in them?

rjh01

19th November 2009, 12:51 AM

<snip>
Those links seem to mainly focus on the loony fringe of religion.

If you want to look at the "harm" angle solely, why then do dowsing and moon hoaxers feature in JREF's sights? Where's the harm in them?

The harm in dowsing has already been answered in this post.

Here you go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html)

*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

Cannot find much in SWIFT on the moon hoax. Mentioning the moon hoax is one way of teaching about critical thinking. I am sure others will come up with better reasons.

Mojo

19th November 2009, 01:32 AM

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

To give concern trolls something to do.

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 01:42 AM

The harm in dowsing has already been answered in this post.

Where was that, mate?

I saw LL's post, but I don't see that as dowsing, and the financial harm has to be something very, very small. I'd vote parking meters do more financial harm than dowsing.

Cannot find much in SWIFT on the moon hoax. Mentioning the moon hoax is one way of teaching about critical thinking.

You don't think religion might serve that purpose? It'd tie nicely into why we are conditioned to believe, social constructs, the origins of mythology and lots of things the JREF is passionate about. It seems like something ideally suited to the purpose of JREF.

But heck, I'm an official enema [sic] of JREF, so how would I know?

I am sure others will come up with better reasons.

Could do.

Certainly not this one:

To give concern trolls something to do.

Coming from a chick with 14,000 posts, that's pretty funny.

Much better than trying to answer the question.

Well played.

Mojo

19th November 2009, 01:57 AM

Much better than trying to answer the question.

The question has already been answered. Read the thread.

Miss_Kitt

19th November 2009, 02:25 AM

I'm not sure what the OP's beef is, here.

The JREF is not an atheist organization any more than it is an "a-life-on-Mars" organization. There is a copious absence of evidence, so to specific religious claims or issues raised, if an 'official' answer is given, it is "there's not evidence" or, in the case of something like the Virgin Mary in the Potato Salad, "here's a mundane explanation that would suffice with no supernatural entities needed".

Theism, per se, has no testable claims--assuming it's the rather standard outside-the-Universe Creator-type God. Specific religions *may*, or my not, have testable claims. And in as much as the JREF has taken a position on the subject of God(s) it is that there is no evidence...

You seem to be agitated because the JREF hasn't chosen to attack belief in god(s) per se as being wrong. There are lots of wrong-headed ideas that are not attacked, and some are very common: breaking a mirror brings 7 years bad luck; putting your baseball cap on inside-out will help your team win games; congressmen know the content of bills before they vote on them, etc. The JREF is not going to tackle every irrational belief, especially those that in most cases have no significant impact on the life of those who hold them.

You made the statement that religion defrauds people of their money. Does it? I know of no church that says the money given to them goes to God or any of his angels / consorts / co-Trinitarians. The money goes to the church to do its activities, which include holding services, buying music for the choir, maintaining its building(s), and generally also a fair bit of charity/good works for members and nonmembers as well. As one with a child in a private school, I can tell you that while it's expensive, I consider it worthwhile for the benefits it provides--not just to my child, but to the community it is in. I belong to my local zoological society for the same reason, even though we rarely visit the zoo. In part because of their tax-exempt status, churches tend to be fairly efficient at providing charitable services. It is not necessarily true that people are being bilked out of money in return for nothing, even if there is no Big Guy In The Sky.

JREF is, as someone else mentioned above, not an organization focussed on specific beliefs, but rather on ways of thinking. The education you can get from being associated with JREF and using its resources is about how to examine ideas--hypotheses, suggestions, web videos, health claims, or what the guy next door tells you--to consider how likely they are to be true; how to research for evidence supporting or denying the idea in question; how to validate the source(s) of information; how to logically consider someones argument(s) for fallacies. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs, it is an approach to assessing things.

I echo the call for clarification on what you mean by an "atheist organization" because I sense what you are really saying is, Why doesn't the JREF attack religion per se or churches per se or belief in any god(s)? To which the answer is, there are more important fish to fry. If someone learns how to examine their beliefs, to weigh evidence and to look for mundane explanations, they are going to most likely reject religion for the same reason they are likely to reject ghost hunters.

The exception might be for someone who has had an emotional or 'spiritual' experience that makes them think they have had some form of contact with their god(s)...in which case, there is nothing to dispute. They have chosen to assign an explanation to that experience that you disagree with; that is their right. But you can no more prove that it was *not* the touch of the Divine on their soul than they can prove it was. All you can do is argue that there is no objective evidence; and if they say, "I think my subjective evidence is enough" then it is as honest and personal a belief as whom you choose to love.

If someone's religious belief leads them to take actions I find objectionable, I will protest the actions; if they try to use the State to enforce my obeying the tenets or ceremonies of their religion, I will fight that with all my might. But I can't say, "You don't feel God in your heart" any more than I can say, "You don't like sex in the male-dominant position." It is purely their personal assessment of what turns their crank, and as such it falls into the realm of taste, not fact.

De gustibus non est disputandum which is normally translated, "There's no accounting for taste" actually means, "Taste is not subject to logical debate". It is a concise statement of a fact of discourse. You can't argue "pork is a better tasting meat than turkey" as a matter of fact. Preferences fall into the area of subjective experience, in which only the person having the experience is competent to judge. Belief in some kind of god--out there, somewhere, not specifically or personally involved in violating the laws of Physics--is like preferring pork.

When a specific religious claim is made that is demonstrably injuring people, it can be and often is, taken up by JREF as a subject for debunking. But belief in a deity per se is not necessarily something done in defiance of thought or logic. Hal Bidlack wrote a beautiful piece where he gave an eloquent example of the sort of 'just there somewhere, more than just physics' that is entirely reasonable for someone whose life experience makes that appropriate.

So, to summarize: specific religious claims,as "Prayer helps people heal faster" are open to dispute, refutation, and argument. JREF may and often does focus on such specific real-world claims. Specific religious practices, such as wearing particular clothing on certain days, are generally not. Not because religion is somehow 'off limits' socially, but simply because it falls outside the purview of skepicism.

Forgive my long-windedness, it's very late as I'm writing. But I thought your attack was misguided, and wanted to explain my views as clearly as possible.

Thoughtfully, Miss_Kitt

ETA -- Dowsing is a method of detecting things, such as water, ore, lost objects, missing persons -- and using the movement of wires to detect explosives is indeed a form of dowsing. And since Iraq's government has spent millions of dollars, much of it US aid money, on this instead of actual functioning methods of finding bombs, it does indeed have a high cost in both money and lives.

Mojo

19th November 2009, 02:28 AM

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

OK, let's look at this again.

First, it has not been demonstrated that JREF believes in god(s).

Oh, hang on: you're using the definition of "atheism" as a belief system that is so beloved of religious apologists, for example when they point to overtly religious charities and then say that there aren't "atheist" charities doing "good works".

What you mean by "atheist" is "explicitly anti-religious". It isn't the same thing.

The JREF is a secular organisation. It certainly doesn't give religion a free pass, when it makes claims that infringe on reality. Check out Swift for mentions of bleeding statues, "faith" healers, or creationism.

The JREF may even be secularist. However, what should a secularist organisation in the US campaign for? An amendment to the constitution to prevent the establishment of a state religion? The removal of the 16 unelected bishops in the Senate?

Basically, you're objecting because the JREF doesn't follow your personal agenda.

rjh01

19th November 2009, 03:40 AM

LL post was to a link to a device used in Iraq to detect bombs. The device is a type of divining rod. Here is a quote from it.

The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

laca

19th November 2009, 03:52 AM

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

Stretching? In what way? A divining rod that is used to "find stuff" fits the definition of a dowsing rod quite nicely.

zooterkin

19th November 2009, 04:21 AM

Coming from a chick with 14,000 posts, that's pretty funny.

Mojo is a chick? Blimey, she hides it well.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 04:31 AM

You know, I was just thinking to myself, "Self," I said to myself, "there just aren't enough atheist organizations in the USA. Sure, there's the Secular Coalition for America (http://secular.org/) and its member groups American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/), the American Ethical Union (http://www.aeu.org/), the American Humanist Association (http://americanhumanist.org/), Atheist Alliance International (http://atheistalliance.org/), Camp Quest (http://www.camp-quest.org/), the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/), the Institute for Humanist Studies (http://humaniststudies.org/), the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info/), the Secular Student Alliance (http://secularstudents.org/), and the Society for Humanistic Judaism (http://www.shj.org/), not to mention the United Coalition of Reason (http://unitedcor.org/), the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://richarddawkins.net/) and Sam Harris' Reason Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/), but if only we had one more group, maybe one that already has a clear-cut mission and very specific activities, and made that an atheist group, too, then we might have enough atheist groups."

Welp... I wasn't actually thinking that. I was thinking more along the lines that there actually are already enough atheist groups, and changing one of the only groups, if not the only group, that studies and exposes claims of the paranormal is not going to do anything meaningful or helpful for atheists or anyone else.

To the OP: If atheism is what you're after, there's an abundance of organizations to fulfill your most godless dreams. (Least godly?) I can't think of another nonprofit organization that does what JREF does. I can't see any benefit to changing JREF's mission or activities, especially since there are so many national and local groups for atheists already.

Maybe you should examine some of them more closely to see which of them hates God more or pickets churches or hosts debates or does whatever you seek in an atheist group. Hell, you could even join them, and maybe even volunteer. But trying to change the mission of an existing group sure seems like a waste of energy. It's not as if there's a shortage of atheism, or atheist organizations, these days.

Darat

19th November 2009, 05:06 AM

...snip...

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

Perhaps because it isn't? One of Randi's most famous exposures was of a preacher.

Darat

19th November 2009, 05:18 AM

...snip... And religious claims don't get singled out for attention in the same way that other claims do, probably for the reasons you and skeptigirl call cowardly, and others call pragmatic, and I think are probably a little of both.

...snip...

But they do get "singled" out - look at the "John of God (http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html)" stuff, Peter Popoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYdlX_Wn1K4), weeping statues and the like and Randi has never been coy about his views of religion. Here is an extract from a 2000 commentary that I think summarises his and the JREF's take on tackling "religion":

http://www.randi.org/jr/05-07-2000.html

...snip...
Fear and Trepidation

I have received an e-mail posting that I will share here with you, along with my response, so that you may have a clearer picture of the kind of traffic I get every day. In general, we do not handle religious matters at JREF - except where direct evidence is offered for examination. We would certainly look into weeping statues, claims of faith-healing, and such things as the Shroud of Turin. Religion seldom offers any sort of evidence to examine, and is a matter of philosophy rather than science.

I am appalled by the contents of this letter, and perhaps you'll see that my response reflects this dismay.......

Dear Mr. Randi, I think you misunderstand where the believer is coming from. If I unwittinglyaccept something as fact on the basis of faulty evidence, that is bad science. But if I willingly accept something as fact, despite understanding that all available evidence is to the contrary, that is faith. I understand that the creation account of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science. All scientific evidence is to the contrary. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it anyway. Why? Because I believe that willful disbelief is a grounds for damnation. I believe, even though I know I will never understand. From time to time, all believers have their doubts, just as all believers also face temptation. Yes, I occasionally have my doubts about creation. But I simply refuse to entertain or pursue those doubts. I am not responsible for my doubt; doubt is merely a form of temptation. I am held responsible, however, if I take that doubt to the next level, through reading or research. The Holy Spirit is responsible for what is in my heart; I am merely responsible for abstaining from the conduct of disbelief. This path of faith, far from making me stupid, actually enhances my character, precisely because it is such a hard path. It is my sincerest hope that a way can be found to teach the useful parts of science, such as biology and medicine, without teaching anything about evolution. Perhaps my children will want to become doctors and minister to the physical needs of their fellow-man, without compromising their life-giving faith or their own salvation. Every day, as a computer programmer, I work with Hindus from India. Despite their education and intelligence, they do not consider themselves too good to give their gods absolute devotion. (And their gods don't even exist!) Why, then, do we consider ourselves too good to give our God absolute devotion? Are we a less faithful race or nation? Let us direct our eyes to the practical applications of technology, and avert our eyes from the scandalous stuff that undermines the fabric of social faith and human dignity. Thank you, (name withheld).

Note that the writer has no doubt whatsoever theabout the non-existence of Hindu gods, and obviously accepts the existence of his personal god. My response follows:

Sir: You wrote, " . . . if I willingly accept something as fact, despite understanding that all available evidence is to the contrary, that is faith." I would define this either as obstinacy or "blind faith." Much more accurately, considering the rest of your posting, I would define it as a fear response. Again, quoting you, "I understand that the creation account of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science. All scientific evidence is to the contrary. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it anyway. Why? Because I believe that willful disbelief is a grounds for damnation. I believe, even though I know I will never understand." You have chosen to conduct your life from a condition of abject fear of damnation, which I find totally unacceptable for myself. Any god who demands that I stop thinking -- after having equipped me with the means to do so -- is a vindictive, cruel, vengeful, deity. I'll have no part of that. I know you're convinced that you're right -- and you MUST think that way, because you're afraid. Well, I'm not afraid, particularly of a savage mythology that I believe was developed by a religious hierarchy that has tried for generations to keep us under their huge collective thumb -- obviously with some success, judging from your fearful declaration. I simply cannot understand how a person with the ability to reason, can be so afraid to do so. But those who want to control you have been successful, and you'll go to your grave trembling in fear. I leave you to that.

James Randi

...snip...

Pure Argent

19th November 2009, 05:50 AM

Can you? Jeez, you must be a smart bloke, because I'm an atheist and I wouldn't know where to begin to debunk the existence of god/s. All I do is not believe any of it. I can debunk the OT and most of the bible, but I certainly can't disprove doctrine of major religions.

What, you mean you can't disprove the flood? The garden? Whatever? The argument from first cause gives you trouble? Pascal's wager seems like sound reasoning?
Hint: look for circular logic, special pleading and bare assertion in whatever theological arguments are put forth. They're usually very obvious - first cause is a good example.

Well, I don't think we can do that either at this stage. There is some evidence that the positive effect of prayer might actually work!

No, there isn't. The only thing it does is a placebo effect.

I happen to think that's a purely physical phenomenon, but the point of delusions is that they're comforting.

Hence, placebo effect.

LibraryLady

19th November 2009, 06:34 AM

*snip*

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

I'm no fan of dictionaries, but if you can show just one recognisable dictionary which lists "locating bombs" as a meaning for dowsing, I'll believe ya.

*snip*

I'm not at work, so don't have access to a lot of dictionaries right now, but if you google dowsing and bombs, it appears that a lot (http://www.google.com/search?q=dowsing+bombs&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=BX7&tbo=1) of people are calling this dowsing. While I agree that a lot of people calling something a name does not make the name correct, the description of a metal rod which is supposed to sense something unseen with no scientific evidence that it does so, fits the bill:

Dowsing is a divination method used to locate water or metals with sticks or rods ("divining rods"). It has also been called "water witching" and "rhabdomancy"

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Dowsing

Doubt

19th November 2009, 06:42 AM

Why do I find The Atheists denial of bomb dowsing funny? Probably because it is only a couple of degrees separated from the sort of denial used by the Iraqi General that fell for it.

But more importantly, if the JREF were an atheist organization, which from of atheism would be the right one?

Darth Rotor

19th November 2009, 06:47 AM

He is too!

My god, do you think he knows I'm an atheist? Surely not!

Crikey, of all the people on the forum, Darth is the one bloke who's actually invited me to sit down and have a beer (and almost-dead cow) with him. Do you think he might change his tune if he finds out I'm an atheist.

Holy crap, I gotta go change my name, toot-sweet!
I still think Grammar Tyrant is an awesome handle, TA, but I'll get over it. :cool:

The invite remains open, next time you are in Texas, and for that matter, in the US.

*Daniel Day Lewis Moment*

"Wherever you go, I will find you!"

(I mean that in the most non-stalker sense possible :) )
(If you have not seen the film version of The Last of the Mohicans, that's the ref, and it's a fine story/film).

Contra Skeptigirl's point, which has at least some merit, I find Hal Bidlack's position to be more accurate, and more useful, and more akin to my thinking: JREF is a big enough tent to fit in all sorts of folks.

Should Myriad be considered somehow un-welcome here? That might come about, were the JREF explicitly an atheist organization.

Put a different way: you pick your battles, and you expend the silver bullets only when necessary.

DR

Cuddles

19th November 2009, 09:05 AM

It seems quite futile to me to worry about what some penny-ante psychic is doing for $3-99 a minute when religions scam billions a year.

And guns kill more people than chickenpox so we shouldn't bother trying to cure that.:rolleyes:

Or just maybe it's worth going after many different things, and the fact that some are worse than others does not make it a sensible idea to ignore everything else.

Given that religions teach belief in nonsense and superstition, should it not be seen as the prime target for a skeptical organisation?

No. You can call it cowardice, political correctness, or whatever else you like, but the fact is that an awful lot of people are religious. If you attack religion itself, rather than just specific testable claims, you're going to have many people immediately ignore everything you say. If your objective is to try to get across to as many people as possible, that's not very helpful. Fortunately, as has already been pointed out, critical thinking is not an all or nothing thing. It's entirely possible to educate religious people about critical thinking, so there's no good reason to go out of your way to alienate them. Cowardice, or simply common sense?

I've seen Randi attack such harmless practices as dowsing while staying quiet on something which causes more trouble than probably every other form of pseudoscience and paranormalia added together.

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

As has already been noted, you're simply flat out wrong here. Randi has been very outspoken about religion and has specifically gone after several religious people and religious claims. You could certainly argue that he could attack religion more, but to claim that it is given a free pass simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what you're trying to complain about.

I Ratant

19th November 2009, 09:28 AM

No. Money spent on dowsing is helpful in the area of well-being.
.
Yeah, if you're the dowser. It does wizard things to -your- bank account, not so good for the mark's.

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 12:51 PM

I still think Grammar Tyrant is an awesome handle, TA, but I'll get over it. :cool:

I must go get it changed back; I never did find out how that's possible that it got changed.

Should Myriad be considered somehow un-welcome here? That might come about, were the JREF explicitly an atheist organization.

Put a different way: you pick your battles, and you expend the silver bullets only when necessary.

DR

How would it make a difference to Myriad?

He could still be a member, a forum member and a moderator.

A good analogy is a christian board with anagnostic/atheist moderator. And yes that does happen. Being openly in favour of something doesn't mean that you have to attack the other option. Do no straight people work for gay rights?

This is the point I alluded to before - if atheist organisations are seen as slavering religion-haters, isn't there a place for an organisation to be openly atheist and be seen as non-threatening? I think this was the point behind some "Out" campaign not long ago.

Hiding behind some kind of "we are not atheist" flag seems to be admitting that atheism is bad, which doesn't sit well with me. Atheism is a lack of religion; the end. What can be bad or threatening about that?

And guns kill more people than chickenpox so we shouldn't bother trying to cure that.:rolleyes:

Aside from being one the most-completely idiotic analogies ever seen, there's a some ironic humour in the fact that you've shot yourself in the foot with it.

You're specifically saying that it's unreasonable not to take one task on just because one is engaged in something else. That's exactly what I'm saying, so thanks for your support!

Or just maybe it's worth going after many different things, and the fact that some are worse than others does not make it a sensible idea to ignore everything else.

Quite right!

No. You can call it cowardice, political correctness, or whatever else you like, but the fact is that an awful lot of people are religious. If you attack religion itself, rather than just specific testable claims, you're going to have many people immediately ignore everything you say. If your objective is to try to get across to as many people as possible, that's not very helpful. Fortunately, as has already been pointed out, critical thinking is not an all or nothing thing. It's entirely possible to educate religious people about critical thinking, so there's no good reason to go out of your way to alienate them. Cowardice, or simply common sense?

Now you've changed tack again. Crikey, you're hard to keep up with.

Did I say anything about attacking religion? Nope; in fact, I've said just the opposite, so I'll just ignore that bit.

Can you explain how it would alienate people? Would theists suddenly stop being members? Do you have any evidence to back it up, if that what's you think?

As has already been noted, you're simply flat out wrong here. Randi has been very outspoken about religion and has specifically gone after several religious people and religious claims. You could certainly argue that he could attack religion more, but to claim that it is given a free pass simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what you're trying to complain about.

The free pass is inherent in the statement that the JREF is not an atheist organisation. As I've already pointed out, religions are critical of each other, so being outspoken about it on occasion doesn't really cancel the other out.

.
Yeah, if you're the dowser. It does wizard things to -your- bank account, not so good for the mark's.

Really?

The "wizard things" indicates to me that dowsers are out there creaming it. I think that's untrue and that dowsers make very little from their "gift".

Do you have any evidence to suggest you're right, because I'll certainly stand corrected if so.

Darth Rotor

19th November 2009, 01:30 PM

How would it make a difference to Myriad? He could still be a member, a forum member and a moderator.
Perhaps.
A good analogy is a christian board with anagnostic/atheist moderator. And yes that does happen. Being openly in favour of something doesn't mean that you have to attack the other option. Do no straight people work for gay rights?OK, I see your pont.
This is the point I alluded to before - if atheist organisations are seen as slavering religion-haters, isn't there a place for an organisation to be openly atheist and be seen as non-threatening? I think this was the point behind some "Out" campaign not long ago.OK, got that as well.

But.

The label "atheist" may act as a sort of mosquito repellent to some who might otherwise join into the scrum, or take a look see and check out the JREF. Not a good idea to put "Shields up, Scotty" unless there is a good reason.

My dos centavos.

DR

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 01:48 PM

The label "atheist" may act as a sort of mosquito repellent to some who might otherwise join into the scrum, or take a look see and check out the JREF. Not a good idea to put "Shields up, Scotty" unless there is a good reason.

My dos centavos.

DR

Two lousy cents?

We're drinking American beer, I presume!

:bgrin:

I'm sure you're right in why the stance is taken - because it will be seen as alienating the religious. That's really what I'm getting at. That even if it were to cause some short-term pain in alienating some, the longer term effects might be more positive by displaying atheism as non-threatening. Maybe I should get a reading done to see what the future holds?

Luckily, we're only on a discussion board and none of it's even worth half your $0-02.

;)

plumjam

19th November 2009, 02:02 PM

.
Yeah, if you're the dowser. It does wizard things to -your- bank account, not so good for the mark's.

Entirely natural that it would, and should, increase your liquid assets.
:thumbsdow :(

lomiller

19th November 2009, 02:03 PM

I suspect it’s because the non-existence of God is no more provable then is the existence of God. Similarly the concept of the non-existence of God is no more useful then concept of the existence of God, this being key because Science ultimately boils down to utility.

This kind of puts the whole discussion outside the realm of what JREF does. As long as no-one is making specific claims based on their beliefs on this question neither whatever beliefs they hold don’t really matter. It would only be when those beliefs changed the way you viewed the evidence before you that they mattered at all.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 02:47 PM

You know, the JREF is a secular organization already, if not de facto "an atheist organization" simply because the group is without a position on the existence of deities.

Lack of theism is atheism, after all...

technoextreme

19th November 2009, 03:00 PM

Stretching? In what way? A divining rod that is used to "find stuff" fits the definition of a dowsing rod quite nicely.
Translation: Crap I just got owned. Must find some way to weedle out of loosing debate.

erlando

19th November 2009, 03:00 PM

laca

19th November 2009, 03:04 PM

Translation: Crap I just got owned. Must find some way to weedle out of loosing debate.

Would be nice to know how you inferred that from what I've said.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 03:07 PM

Not quite. See agnostic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).

Sorry, while I consider atheism to be merely the absence of theism, I consider agnosticism to be a philosophical position, and I am not aware that the JREF has adopted any such philosophy.

I am aware that the JREF is without a position regarding deities, which unless it possesses an active belief, is, by definition, "without belief" and therefore "atheist" in the implicit sense.

Technically speaking, that is.

technoextreme

19th November 2009, 03:09 PM

Would be nice to know how you inferred that from what I've said.
Sorry. I forgot the software JREF uses doesn't create quote trees. It was this quote:
Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

I'm no fan of dictionaries, but if you can show just one recognisable dictionary which lists "locating bombs" as a meaning for dowsing, I'll believe ya.

six7s

19th November 2009, 03:38 PM

Hiding behind some kind of "we are not atheist" flag seems to be admitting that atheism is bad, which doesn't sit well with me. Atheism is a lack of religion; the end. What can be bad or threatening about that?It doesn't sit well with me, either...

However, I'm not the web admin for all of teh interwebs... and some web admins (and/or their bosses) seem to be directing their lusers into a lane on the information highway that leads to the dark ages

http://scienceblogs.com/ Indianapolis Schools Block Atheist Sites (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/indianapolis_schools_block_ath.php)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has written a letter to the Indianapolis Public Schools superintendent demanding that they change a written policy (PDF) that requires all "alternative spirituality" websites to be blocked from computers in their schools. The policy includes a list of sites that must be blocked, including this:

Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Wicca, Witchcraft or Satanism. Occult practices, atheistic views, vodoo rituals or any form of mysticism are represented here. Includes sites that endorse or offer methods, means of instruction, or other resources to affect or influence real events through the use of spells, incantations, curses and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.

What a bizarre amalgamation of unrelated things that is. What in the world is atheism doing lumped together with witchcraft in the first place? It's not as if atheists believe in witchcraft any more than they do in Christianity. Oh, that's right - to the fundamentalist mind, there is no distinction; anything non-Christian is evil and all in exactly the same way<snip/>

---------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ Council ban on atheist websites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7530519.stm)
Page last updated at 09:31 GMT, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:31 UK

A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.

Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was "discriminatory" and they would consider legal action.

The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.

The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.

'Very strong case'

The authority's Bluecoat WebFilter computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.<snip/>

six7s

19th November 2009, 03:47 PM

Lack of theism is atheism, after all...Not quite. See agnostic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).YES, quite

Just cos they don't know doesn't stop an agnostic living according to particular brand/blend of theism(s)

Likewise, an agnostic that does NOT live according to ANY theistic stuff is an atheist... whether or not they ('scuse teh pun) know it

lomiller

19th November 2009, 03:49 PM

I consider atheism to be merely the absence of theism

Nonetheless the generaly accpeted definition is the specific belief there is no deity/god.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

LibraryLady

19th November 2009, 03:50 PM

Just to clarify, you do not think dowsers are harmful, you believe they are not interested in making much money, and you think the items being used in Iraq are not dowsing rods.

A.A. Alfie

19th November 2009, 03:52 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/ Indianapolis Schools Block Atheist Sites (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/indianapolis_schools_block_ath.php)]

I remember yoyo's, skateboards etc were banned from school too because it detracted from what I was supposed to be doing there - learning the classes that were set out before me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ Council ban on atheist websites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7530519.stm)

One wonders why the council staff need to look at this stuff anyway. Has it something to do with their work?

You may be right with your inference, but what I'm trying to point out here is that you have given us no reason whatsoever as to why these bans had been put in place.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 04:12 PM

Nonetheless the generaly accpeted definition is the specific belief there is no deity/god.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

That's debatable!

But not in this thread. And I've already tipped my hand.

six7s

19th November 2009, 04:26 PM

You may be right with your inference, but what I'm trying to point out here is that you have given us no reason whatsoever as to why these bans had been put in place.I can only guess

Anyhoo, the reasons WHY some organisations ban atheist sites is irrelevant (to this discussion)

What is relevant is: some organisations DO ban atheist sites
technically speaking, its very easy for them to do so

lomiller

19th November 2009, 04:45 PM

That's debatable!

Possibly, but why should you even to debate it? Ultimately it’s up to speaker to make their point come across. Why should you ever want to use a term you know will be interpreted in ways you do not intend?

To me at least, your usage also smacks of intellectual laziness. It seems a definition designed to allow you to accept your own opinion is true simply on the basis of no one being able to prove otherwise. Not exactly what I would consider solid critical thinking.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 04:55 PM

Possibly, but why should you even to debate it? Ultimately it’s up to speaker to make their point come across. Why should you ever want to use a term you know will be interpreted in ways you do not intend?

To me at least, your usage also smacks of intellectual laziness. It seems a definition designed to allow you to accept your own opinion is true simply on the basis of no one being able to prove otherwise. Not exactly what I would consider solid critical thinking.

Perhaps you could copy this post, paste it into an OP in the appropriate forum, and send me a link to your new thread?

lomiller

19th November 2009, 04:58 PM

I’m unconvinced a new thread is required. After all it’s somewhat impossible to discuss the topic in this thread without a common set of definitions.

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 04:59 PM

I’m unconvinced a new thread is required. After all it’s somewhat impossible to discuss the topic in this thread without a common set of definitions.

Maybe you should send Jeff Wagg a link to this thread?

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 06:30 PM

You seem to be agitated because the JREF hasn't chosen to attack belief in god(s) per se as being wrong.

Agitated?

Where on earth do you get that from?

There are lots of wrong-headed ideas that are not attacked,

If you'd actually read what I wrote, you might have seen the several times I've explicitly said that attacks aren't necessarily a part of the process.

JREF is, as someone else mentioned above, not an organization focussed on specific beliefs, but rather on ways of thinking. The education you can get from being associated with JREF and using its resources is about how to examine ideas--hypotheses, suggestions, web videos, health claims, or what the guy next door tells you--to consider how likely they are to be true; how to research for evidence supporting or denying the idea in question; how to validate the source(s) of information; how to logically consider someones argument(s) for fallacies. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs, it is an approach to assessing things.

Very good!

We agree on all of that. The next bit goes a bit further, because I want you to explain which part of sceptical enquiry doesn't lead to atheism.

Thanks.

I echo the call for clarification on what you mean by an "atheist organization" because I sense what you are really saying is, Why doesn't the JREF attack religion per se or churches per se or belief in any god(s)?

Try reading my posts so far.

Forgive my long-windedness, it's very late as I'm writing. But I thought your attack was misguided, and wanted to explain my views as clearly as possible.

I agree it was long-winded.

Whether it was worth the effort is debatable.

ETA -- Dowsing is a method of detecting things, such as water, ore, lost objects, missing persons -- and using the movement of wires to detect explosives is indeed a form of dowsing. And since Iraq's government has spent millions of dollars, much of it US aid money, on this instead of actual functioning methods of finding bombs, it does indeed have a high cost in both money and lives.

I've been hearing about dowsing for 40 years, yet I've never heard of bomb-dowsing before.

It does show that you can call anything by any name you like.

To the OP: If atheism is what you're after, there's an abundance of organizations to fulfill your most godless dreams. (Least godly?) I can't think of another nonprofit organization that does what JREF does.

You never heard of CSICOP or whatever they're called now, various skeptical clubs, skepchick or any of the thousands of skeptical organisations?

Wow!

I can't see any benefit to changing JREF's mission or activities, especially since there are so many national and local groups for atheists already.

Nobody ever opens new shops or businesses? Do all the present atheist groups fit everyone's taste?

Maybe you should examine some of them more closely to see which of them hates God more or pickets churches or hosts debates or does whatever you seek in an atheist group.

I'll presume this came from some little fantasyland you inhabit, because it bears no relationship to anything I've posted.

Hell, you could even join them, and maybe even volunteer. But trying to change the mission of an existing group sure seems like a waste of energy. It's not as if there's a shortage of atheism, or atheist organizations, these days.

I can 100% guarantee the JREF won't change its position. Should we give up on bigfoot and 9/11 CT as well? They have been debunked for years yet people still believe.

What, you mean you can't disprove the flood? The garden?

Nice incorrect conflation.

How does disproving the flood disprove god/s?

Hence, placebo effect.

Yes, I did say that.

I'm not at work, so don't have access to a lot of dictionaries right now, but if you google dowsing and bombs, it appears that a lot of people are calling this dowsing.

Notable that all the returns stem from the first usage.

I'll specifically exclude bomb-dowsing from the harmless kind, even though it seems a misuse to me.

While I agree that a lot of people calling something a name does not make the name correct, the description of a metal rod which is supposed to sense something unseen with no scientific evidence that it does so, fits the bill[/QUOTE[

So a metal-detector, which doesn't work by magic, but does find metals, is also dowsing?

[QUOTE=LibraryLady;5325735]www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Dowsing

Bad choice of place to use as evidence. Last time I looked there was more misinformation on skeptic wiki than Uri Geller's site.

Why do I find The Atheists denial of bomb dowsing funny?

Well, since I'd never seen it used that way until LL used it, I wouldn't get too concerned.

But more importantly, if the JREF were an atheist organization, which from of atheism would be the right one?

Already answered.

I suspect it’s because the non-existence of God is no more provable then is the existence of God. Similarly the concept of the non-existence of God is no more useful then concept of the existence of God, this being key because Science ultimately boils down to utility.

This kind of puts the whole discussion outside the realm of what JREF does. As long as no-one is making specific claims based on their beliefs on this question neither whatever beliefs they hold don’t really matter. It would only be when those beliefs changed the way you viewed the evidence before you that they mattered at all.

That being the case, why does JREF make the claim that it isn;t an atheist organisation?

If no claim was made either way, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?

Just to clarify, you do not think dowsers are harmful, you believe they are not interested in making much money, and you think the items being used in Iraq are not dowsing rods.

That's about it, although as I noted, if dowsing is going to include bomb-finding from now on, I'll subtract that from the harmless kind. I also didn't say they weren't interested in making much money, I just strongly doubt that any dowsers make more than chump change from it, and as yet, no evidence to the contrary has come out.

Bloody decent of you to turn the discussion into a value-judgement on dowsing, which was only used as an anology.

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 06:32 PM

It doesn't sit well with me, either...

However, I'm not the web admin for all of teh interwebs... and some web admins (and/or their bosses) seem to be directing their lusers into a lane on the information highway that leads to the dark ages

Betcha this site is already blocked under those guidelines.

Prometheus

19th November 2009, 07:46 PM

Why do I find The Atheists denial of bomb dowsing funny? ....

Oh, no reason (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/763-when-antiscience-kills-dowsing-for-bombs.html).... :rolleyes:

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 08:36 PM

You never heard of CSICOP or whatever they're called now, various skeptical clubs, skepchick or any of the thousands of skeptical organisations?

Wow!

You said "atheist" not "skeptic."

A.A. Alfie

19th November 2009, 08:55 PM

I can only guess

Anyhoo, the reasons WHY some organisations ban atheist sites is irrelevant (to this discussion)

What is relevant is: some organisations DO ban atheist sites
technically speaking, its very easy for them to do so

Why is it important when you throw up the examples but not when I call your lameness on them? Double standards?
Very odd to say the least. FAIL! You were called, and pwned.

I would hope it is technically easy for employers to ban certain sites. As an employer, if I found my staff (say) on Christian websites all day rather than doing what I pay them for, I would hope I could ban those sites too.

They are there to do job - for which I pay them - not to stuff around doing other things.

Now get back to work!

The Atheist

19th November 2009, 08:57 PM

Oh, no reason.... :rolleyes:

This is really funny.

I didn't dispute that people use magical devices to find bombs.

I didn't dispute its insanity.

I merely stated that I'd never heard the term used in that context, and a search tends to confirm that because I can't find a single instance which is over a year old where bomb-finding had been called "dowsing", while also noting that 99% the Google returns relate to the very same story.

Oh, woe is me for not being able to read minds and think that searching for bombs by magic is henceforth going to be called "dowsing".

But please go on with this irrelevant side issue. I've already said a couple of times that I will stick to "non bomb'finding dowsing" in future. Until I see Edge or one of the other well-known water dowsers selling the bomb-locating kind, I think it's unreasonable to blame an old bloke with a bent stick for people getting wasted in Iraq.

You said "atheist" not "skeptic."

No, let me run you through it:

You said, and I quote directly, as I did before answering, "I can't think of another nonprofit organization that does what JREF does."

To me, that says that you know of no other NPO which "does what JREF does."

To help you out, I gave just a few examples of NPOs which "do what JREF does".

Just like the previous poster, you seem intent on making up things to attack, which is a bit silly. Your statement specifically concerned the JREF and was answered accordingly.

If you want to ask something else, please do so.

Thanks.

plumjam

19th November 2009, 08:57 PM

How can there be atheist websites? According to many of you guys, 'atheism' is like 'not collecting stamps'.
So are there any websites devoted to not collecting stamps?

Or is it just that some atheists use the term in a way which best suits themselves according to the current discursive situation, often in a way to try to get out of having to actually defend a position?....hmm... I wonder... *screen goes misty*...

EverLastingGodStopper

19th November 2009, 09:10 PM

If you want to ask something else, please do so.

Thanks.

I have nothing to ask as I am exceedingly pleased with the operation of the JREF and do not wish to impose my personal religious viewpoint on the organization.

rjh01

19th November 2009, 10:50 PM

How can there be atheist websites? According to many of you guys, 'atheism' is like 'not collecting stamps'.
So are there any websites devoted to not collecting stamps?

<snip>

How about a group that does not join groups? http://forums.randi.org/group.php?groupid=1

Prometheus

19th November 2009, 11:00 PM

This is really funny.

I didn't dispute that people use magical devices to find bombs.

I didn't dispute its insanity.

I merely stated that I'd never heard the term used in that context, and a search tends to confirm that because I can't find a single instance which is over a year old where bomb-finding had been called "dowsing", while also noting that 99% the Google returns relate to the very same story.

Oh, woe is me for not being able to read minds and think that searching for bombs by magic is henceforth going to be called "dowsing".

But please go on with this irrelevant side issue. I've already said a couple of times that I will stick to "non bomb'finding dowsing" in future. Until I see Edge or one of the other well-known water dowsers selling the bomb-locating kind, I think it's unreasonable to blame an old bloke with a bent stick for people getting wasted in Iraq.

<snip>

:zzw: Next time I don't mean to be taken seriously, I guess I'll have to use more smilies... :crc: :bike:

SezMe

19th November 2009, 11:32 PM

The vast majority of religion doesn't make testable claims in any form.
There you go - you've answered your own question.

six7s

19th November 2009, 11:37 PM

Why is it importantI didn't say important

I said relevant

You may be right with your inference, but what I'm trying to point out here is that you have given us no reason whatsoever as to why these bans had been put in place.

Your question is off-topic

Why is it important when you throw up the examples but not when I call your lameness on them? Double standards?
Very odd to say the least. FAIL! You were called, and pwned.Yeah?

I was called?

On what?

As for me being pwned...

:dl:

Do you have any idea what you want to say? I ask merely because what you dosay is nonsensical

I would hope it is technically easy for employers to ban certain sites.You don't have to hope... You have, literarally at your finger tips, the greatest repository of information in the history of humankind...

There is (almost) nothing to stop you at least trying to conduct your own research... Its excruciatingly easy - if you know some relevant keywords...

On second thoughts... stick with hope

Dogdoctor

19th November 2009, 11:37 PM

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

It seems quite futile to me to worry about what some penny-ante psychic is doing for $3-99 a minute when religions scam billions a year.

Given that religions teach belief in nonsense and superstition, should it not be seen as the prime target for a skeptical organisation?

I've seen Randi attack such harmless practices as dowsing while staying quiet on something which causes more trouble than probably every other form of pseudoscience and paranormalia added together.

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?
Atheism offers no common ground since it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). It's not a rallying point. Hey let's all go out and not believe in stuff.
Just doesn't work.

six7s

20th November 2009, 12:11 AM

Atheism offers no common ground since it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). It's not a rallying point. Hey let's all go out and not believe in stuff.
Just doesn't work.Although I ain't (necessarily) saying that the JREF should nail a big blue A to its mast... I have a sneaking suspicion that - if you can be bothered to do some reading - you'll find that you're wrong about 'the lack of belief NOT being a rallying point...there's the Secular Coalition for America (http://secular.org/) and its member groups American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/), the American Ethical Union (http://www.aeu.org/), the American Humanist Association (http://americanhumanist.org/), Atheist Alliance International (http://atheistalliance.org/), Camp Quest (http://www.camp-quest.org/), the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/), the Institute for Humanist Studies (http://humaniststudies.org/), the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info/), the Secular Student Alliance (http://secularstudents.org/), and the Society for Humanistic Judaism (http://www.shj.org/), not to mention the United Coalition of Reason (http://unitedcor.org/), the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://richarddawkins.net/) and Sam Harris' Reason Project (http://www.reasonproject.org/)

A.A. Alfie

20th November 2009, 01:05 AM

I didn't say important

I said relevant

Fair enough. So why is it only "relevant" when you bring in false arguments?

Your question is off-topic

Off topic? Really - I'll let the mods decide that for me rather than you, OK?

At any rate your examples were lame and unsupported, and you have yet to show reason why you have presented them as proof of anything.

Sounds like you just don't want to answer.

You don't have to hope... You have, literarally at your finger tips, the greatest repository of information in the history of humankind...

There is (almost) nothing to stop you at least trying to conduct your own research... Its excruciatingly easy - if you know some relevant keywords...

OK, twist it again, however you are not addressing the point, being that as an employer, if I choose to block something in the workplace because my staff are distracted I will then choose to do so. It s my prerogative to use my resources as I see fit - within the laws.
So, I repeat (with a minor change to fit with your literal requirements).

As an employer, if I found my staff (say) on Christian websites all day rather than doing what I pay them for, I would ban those sites too.

They are there to do job - for which I pay them - not to stuff around doing other things.

And what's wrong with that?

arthwollipot

20th November 2009, 01:23 AM

How can there be atheist websites? According to many of you guys, 'atheism' is like 'not collecting stamps'.
So are there any websites devoted to not collecting stamps?There's a Facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=70497718031&ref=ts

I know because I created it.

Mojo

20th November 2009, 01:26 AM

Hiding behind some kind of "we are not atheist" flag seems to be admitting that atheism is bad, which doesn't sit well with me.

Can you give an example of the JREF "Hiding behind some sort of "we are not atheist" flag? Or stating that the JREF is not atheist (they could hardly hide behind such a flag without doing so)?

Skeptic Ginger

20th November 2009, 01:44 AM

....
Contra Skeptigirl's point, which has at least some merit, I find Hal Bidlack's position to be more accurate, and more useful, and more akin to my thinking: JREF is a big enough tent to fit in all sorts of folks. ....

DR
So why not invite everyone into the 'big tent' regardless of their woo beliefs as long as they are anti[fill in the blank]woo?

But actually, I'm not suggesting anyone be excluded from the JREF. To think any of us are perfect skeptics is a bit more idealistic than the evidence suggests is likely. (Myself excluded, of course, being the perfect skeptic that I am.)

To be anti-god beliefs should be no different from being anti-any specific woo belief. Why do gods beliefs deserve a special exception? It's not the person we are talking about here, it is the woo belief and like it or not, gods are woo.

Skeptic Ginger

20th November 2009, 01:49 AM

...
It seems quite futile to me to worry about what some penny-ante psychic is doing for $3-99 a minute when religions scam billions a year....Randi has expressed the sentiment 'religion is damaging' very clearly multiple times.

Our president, Phil Plait, OTOH, has expressed the view that we should ignore god beliefs for the moment as not doing so chases away many potential blind spotted skeptics who just can't let go of god but who otherwise make good skeptics.

Skeptic Ginger

20th November 2009, 01:54 AM

I suspect it’s because the non-existence of God is no more provable then is the existence of God. .....Guess if you are going to repeat this tripe, I'll repeat my reply: You are asking the wrong question. Why 'disprove' gods exist when the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings humans created from their imagination?

Is there a single shred of evidence god beliefs are not made up myths? NO
Is there overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings? YES

Why do you need to disprove gods exist when you have so much evidence they are mythical beings?

Skeptic Ginger

20th November 2009, 01:58 AM

Sorry. I forgot the software JREF uses doesn't create quote trees. It was this quote:Huh? Youmeanatreelikethisone?Or are you talking about something else?

six7s

20th November 2009, 02:02 AM

Fair enough. So why is it only "relevant" when you bring in false arguments?Which "false arguments"?

So, I repeat (with a minor change to fit with your literal requirements).

As an employer, if I found my staff (say) on Christian websites all day rather than doing what I pay them for, I would ban those sites too.

They are there to do job - for which I pay them - not to stuff around doing other things.

And what's wrong with that?For the hard of thinking:

I did not assign any value judgements to employers implementing site-by-site blocking software

What I did do was to illustrate that site-by-site blocking software is part of reality; the relevance being, to this thread, that IF the JREF 'comes out' as overtly atheist, there is a risk that some (or - as The Atheist suggests - more) prospective visitors will be unable to access the site

Now please, STOP derailing this thread with off-topic nonsense

If you want/need to discuss the pros and cons of implementing site-by-site blocking software, please start a new thread

TYIA :)

A.A. Alfie

20th November 2009, 02:08 AM

Which "false arguments"?

For the hard of thinking:

I did not assign any value judgements to employers implementing site-by-site blocking software

What I did do was to illustrate that site-by-site blocking software is part of reality; the relevance being, to this thread, that IF the JREF 'comes out' as overtly atheist, there is a risk that some (or - as The Atheist suggests - more) prospective visitors will be unable to access the site

Now please, STOP derailing this thread with off-topic nonsense

If you want/need to discuss the pros and cons of implementing site-by-site blocking software, please start a new thread

TYIA :)

OK fine. If you don't want to answer just say so. All you're doing is avoiding acknowledging that you bring in false evidence and then can't back it up.

All I was doing was showing that using site blocking software is (probably) perfectly acceptable in the instances you provided.
"Hard of thinking" ...... giggle.

laca

20th November 2009, 02:38 AM

OK fine. If you don't want to answer just say so. All you're doing is avoiding acknowledging that you bring in false evidence and then can't back it up.

I did not assign any value judgements to employers implementing site-by-site blocking software

What I did do was to illustrate that site-by-site blocking software is part of reality; the relevance being, to this thread, that IF the JREF 'comes out' as overtly atheist, there is a risk that some (or - as The Atheist suggests - more) prospective visitors will be unable to access the site

Alfie, are you being deliberately obtuse? He answered you questions, but you seem to be picking on him for no apparent reason.

Pure Argent

20th November 2009, 07:41 AM

We agree on all of that. The next bit goes a bit further, because I want you to explain which part of sceptical enquiry doesn't lead to atheism.

Thanks.

Skepticism does not have to lead to atheism. It all depends on how loosely the term "god" is defined.
The point is, though, that the JREF is a skeptic group, not an atheist group, and it is entirely possible to have a skeptical theist. Why, then, should they be excluded?

Nice incorrect conflation.

How so? I'm seriously asking - I thought that was what you meant.

How does disproving the flood disprove god/s?

It disproves the existence of a god who flooded the world.

Yes, I did say that.

I was agreeing with you.

technoextreme

20th November 2009, 11:40 AM

I've been hearing about dowsing for 40 years, yet I've never heard of bomb-dowsing before.

I found out about bomb dowsing on PBS special that had Randi on.
Huh? Or are you talking about something else?
Automatically. I thought it would retain the quote that someone else quoted like on other forums.

EverLastingGodStopper

20th November 2009, 11:53 AM

Automatically. I thought it would retain the quote that someone else quoted like on other forums.

"Nested Quotes" (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=124334) is a vBulletin hack (modification). The JREF forum is the only vB forum I use that hasn't installed this hack.

technoextreme

20th November 2009, 11:58 AM

"Nested Quotes" (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=124334) is a vBulletin hack (modification). The JREF forum is the only vB forum I use that hasn't installed this hack.
Horribly offtopic but it does get annoying because then you get nested quote trees that are horribly long. The Penny Arcade forum actually has a rule making sure that you don't make them too big.

EverLastingGodStopper

20th November 2009, 12:01 PM

Horribly offtopic but it does get annoying because then you get nested quote trees that are horribly long. The Penny Arcade forum actually has a rule making sure that you don't make them too big.

Admins can modify the number of quotes allowed in the "nest." I've seen it limited to 2 or 3, and I've seen it unlimited. It can be annoying when the nested quotes are long, but many forum users will snip out the irrelevant parts.

The Atheist

20th November 2009, 12:10 PM

Or is it just that some atheists use the term in a way which best suits themselves according to the current discursive situation, often in a way to try to get out of having to actually defend a position?....hmm... I wonder... *screen goes misty*...

In all seriousness, that's a fair perception of it.

If 100% wrong.

I completely understand why you theist blokes think that way, but it is actually wrong. The oldest entry in the book is that "He who makes a claim must support the claim."

There's little point in getting into debate on what "atheism" means, or whether it ought to defend its position anyway. Let's just accept that for the purpose of this discussion, atheism is just a lack of belief in god/s. It's actually self-labelled "agnostics" who have the hardest time with it, because by not "knowing" they automatically do not believe and are therfore actually atheists as well. They HATE that, so I won't bring it up.

There is (almost) nothing to stop you at least trying to conduct your own research... Its excruciatingly easy - if you know some relevant keywords...

When the pair of you have calmed down, I'd just slip in that this is not a good answer, being a subtle form of GGI, which my daughter tells me is kidspeak for "Go Google it". Cooler people than me may have already known this.

Trouble is, mate, if I Google a subject like 9/11, I will find information that it was a terrorist attak, or an attack by a clique which runs the world. The first priority is finding the right information filter, and I find that people who start with one switched on to "God/s exist/s" aren't exercising their critical thinking skills correctly.

Atheism offers no common ground since it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). It's not a rallying point. Hey let's all go out and not believe in stuff.
Just doesn't work.

Yeah it does.

The common ground is saying to people who do believe that there is an alternative to bowing to an idol every Sunday. (and parting with your hard-earned cash)

Don't do it! You do not have to believe in the sky-daddy, it's quite possible to live lives which fit with a policy of WWJD and not actually believe in anything supernatural.

Can you give an example of the JREF "Hiding behind some sort of "we are not atheist" flag? Or stating that the JREF is not atheist (they could hardly hide behind such a flag without doing so)?

I suggest you go read the thread which clearly explains why it isn't. Someone already posted a link.

So why not invite everyone into the 'big tent' regardless of their woo beliefs as long as they are anti[fill in the blank]woo?

:bigclap

But actually, I'm not suggesting anyone be excluded from the JREF.

Me neither.

To think any of us are perfect skeptics is a bit more idealistic than the evidence suggests is likely. (Myself excluded, of course, being the perfect skeptic that I am.)

To be anti-god beliefs should be no different from being anti-any specific woo belief. Why do gods beliefs deserve a special exception? It's not the person we are talking about here, it is the woo belief and like it or not, gods are woo.

Apart from the enormous fallacy on who the Perfect SkepticTM* is, I'm still clapping.

Randi has expressed the sentiment 'religion is damaging' very clearly multiple times.

I hope you're wrong, because that would be a really dumb statement, on par with Dawkins' one about religious education being child abuse.

I doubt he puts it like that, does he? Surely, "can be" rather than "is"?

Our president, Phil Plait, OTOH, has expressed the view that we should ignore god beliefs for the moment as not doing so chases away many potential blind spotted skeptics who just can't let go of god but who otherwise make good skeptics.

:dl:

You're kidding aren't you?

Did he really say that? Did he give a list of what a "good skeptic" was as well.

If he said that, can you please link it?

*CFLarsen, surely?

Skepticism does not have to lead to atheism. It all depends on how loosely the term "god" is defined.

I'm guessing you're referring to the "deist" argument, if I may dignify it with the word argument - I usually refer to it as the "deist stupidity".

I'm not sure whether deists are on some kind of plan to get naturalism listed as a deity, or whether they all buy into Gaia or some such nonsense, but I rate the "Spinoza's god" stuff as quite a lot dumber than any religion. If there's something worthy of being called a "god", it really ought to be more than something which went "poof" and brought the universe into being.

I'll be happy in the future to call bomb-dowsing bomb-dowsing, but I fail to see any point in using god as a simile for naturalism.

The point is, though, that the JREF is a skeptic group, not an atheist group, and it is entirely possible to have a skeptical theist. Why, then, should they be excluded?

Here's this "exclusion" thing again.

Who suggested excluding people? If you can find one, that's the person you should be directing that question to.

How so? I'm seriously asking - I thought that was what you meant.

Ok.

It wasn't. You can disprove many of the claims made about god/s and their actions by theists, but you cannot even use that to disprove their god/s.

[QUOTE=Pure_Argent;5329479]It disproves the existence of a god who flooded the world.

Yes, but the point of atheism isn't, and shouldn't be, about disproving anyone's god/s. You disprove one, there are eight million lining up behind him and you get bogged down in it, which is one of the objections - that skepticism can be hijacked by religion.

Just don't let it.

I was agreeing with you.

Sensible option.

technoextreme

20th November 2009, 12:22 PM

Trouble is, mate, if I Google a subject like 9/11, I will find information that it was a terrorist attak, or an attack by a clique which runs the world. The first priority is finding the right information filter, and I find that people who start with one switched on to "God/s exist/s" aren't exercising their critical thinking skills correctly.
Ahhhh.... I think I can refute your entire argument with one sentence. Being an atheist does not disclude you from the moron category.

The Atheist

20th November 2009, 01:14 PM

Ahhhh.... I think I can refute your entire argument with one sentence. Being an atheist does not disclude you from the moron category.

Is that meant to be some kind of abuse at my statement, or a note that atheists can be morons? If you think my comment is moronic, why don't you try explaining why.

However, if you mean the latter, I agree wholeheartedly, atheists can be morons. Lots of them even are.

six7s

20th November 2009, 01:37 PM

Trouble is, mate, if I Google a subject like 9/11, I will find information that it was a terrorist attak, or an attack by a clique which runs the world. The first priority is finding the right information filter, and I find that people who start with one switched on to "God/s exist/s" aren't exercising their critical thinking skills correctly.I have no truck with your second sentence - other than its stating teh bleedin' obvious!!11!!

Your first sentence is a... an... erm... what's the word for a non-sequitur that precedes (rather than follows)? Anyhoo... its one o'them... unless you would suggest we eschew libraries on account of the fiction section... :boggled:

The Atheist

20th November 2009, 02:01 PM

I have no truck with your second sentence - other than its stating teh bleedin' obvious!!11!!

Most things are.

Your first sentence is a... an... erm... what's the word for a non-sequitur that precedes (rather than follows)? Anyhoo... its one o'them... unless you would suggest we eschew libraries on account of the fiction section... :boggled:

Premature sequitur?

At least you hit why it's not a good thing to write down.

Eschew libraries? What the hell would we do with all those bloody librarians running amok? It's only the existence of libraries that keep them in check. In a week, we'd be knee-deep in chained spectacles and budgie feathers!

(Libraries do at least have the fiction and non-fiction kept apart and signed appropriately.)

technoextreme

20th November 2009, 02:03 PM

However, if you mean the latter, I agree wholeheartedly, atheists can be morons. Lots of them even are.
I was actually trying to make a point about atheists in general not you. Why are you surprised that the JREF isn't an atheist organization? To me skepticism and atheism are not a direct correlation. You can be an atheist and have nonsenical and insane viewpoints.

Earthborn

20th November 2009, 03:04 PM

Many people here have expressed the sentiment that nothing is as beautiful and awe inspiring as the universe as it actually is. So why isn't JREF a pantheist organisation?

rjh01

20th November 2009, 03:07 PM

Sorry. I forgot the software JREF uses doesn't create quote trees. It was this quote:

For more discussion on this topic see this tag http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=multi+quote

EverLastingGodStopper

20th November 2009, 03:18 PM

For more discussion on this topic see this tag http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=multi+quote

Nested quotes typically include the previously quoted material, in the same post. Below is an example of nested quotes:
I think we should all get pizza and beverages.Your idea is great and I agree with your position!
Thank you User 2, I would like to sit near you at dinner.
Now that's what I call "agreeing with your position!" Hubba hubba.
I think the 3rd/4th level is kind of extreme, but it's nice to have the second-level nested quoting.

The multi-quote feature does not work in this case because the user has to scroll backwards through the thread to find the original post in order to multi-quote it. Furthermore, multi-quote does not "nest" the quotes as shown above; this must be done manually.

The Atheist

20th November 2009, 05:34 PM

I was actually trying to make a point about atheists in general not you.

Ok, that's why I asked. I don't recall you being on my "incinerate on sight" list, but it's pretty long.

Why are you surprised that the JREF isn't an atheist organization?

Because it seems to me that the core of sc/kepticism is "No belief without evidence."

If the JREF stands by that statement, it must be an atheist organisation, so why not stand up and say so?

To me skepticism and atheism are not a direct correlation. You can be an atheist and have nonsenical and insane viewpoints.

Correct; David Icke is an atheist.

But I don't think sc/kepticism can embrace religion, because religious belief requires faith since there is no direct evidence. Sc/kepticism and atheism aren't correlated but hey are definitely compatible, which I don't think religion and sc/kepticism are.

Many people here have expressed the sentiment that nothing is as beautiful and awe inspiring as the universe as it actually is. So why isn't JREF a pantheist organisation?

Yep, we've already been here and it only makes sense if you are able to call the natural universe "god".

That seems a strange perversion of the term.

Hokulele

20th November 2009, 09:41 PM

Because it seems to me that the core of sc/kepticism is "No belief without evidence."

So why doesn't the JREF go after philosophers? :cool:

Prometheus

20th November 2009, 10:46 PM

I agree with TA about the relationship of skepticism to religion. However, the JREF is not an explicitly skeptical organization. It's stated mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society todayhttp://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html

Of course, there's some overlap here, but it's certainly possible to promote critical thinking without insisting that it be applied universally.

six7s

20th November 2009, 10:48 PM

Because it seems to me that the core of sc/kepticism is "No belief without evidence."So why doesn't the JREF go after philosophers? :cool:

www.fortytwopoundsofflax.org Contexts of fatal flaw
(http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/1606129464)The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is not deconstructivism, as dialectic discourse suggests, but predeconstructivism. In a sense, Bataille promotes the use of libertarianism to modify society. Debord’s essay on subdeconstructive textual theory implies that the establishment is capable of significant form.

“Class is fundamentally meaningless,” says Derrida. Thus, Baudrillard suggests the use of dialectic discourse to deconstruct sexism. The subject is interpolated into a libertarianism that includes art as a totality.

However, Sartre uses the term ‘the neomaterialist paradigm of consensus’ to denote the role of the reader as poet. Geoffrey[1] holds that we have to choose between dialectic discourse and Sontagist camp.

In a sense, the primary theme of Bailey’s[2] critique of the postmodern paradigm of expression is a dialectic reality. In The Island of the Day Before, Eco reiterates dialectic discourse; in The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, however, he affirms libertarianism.

It could be said that many sublimations concerning subcultural theory may be discovered. Lyotard uses the term ‘libertarianism’ to denote the role of the artist as writer.

Hokulele

20th November 2009, 10:48 PM

Auwe.

Prometheus

20th November 2009, 11:03 PM

www.fortytwopoundsofflax.org Contexts of fatal flaw
(http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/1606129464)

:big: (Can we Nominate the output of a random text generator?)

A.A. Alfie

20th November 2009, 11:18 PM

www.fortytwopoundsofflax.org Contexts of fatal flaw
(http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/1606129464)

What the....?

Could someone explain this to me please. I've read it three times and its relevence and meaning still escapes me.

Prometheus

20th November 2009, 11:44 PM

What the....?

Could someone explain this to me please. I've read it three times and its relevence and meaning still escapes me.

You're not missing anything. It actually is meaningless. It's relevance to Hok's question is that it's futile to go after philosophers because they'll just throw walls of meaningless text at you. :)

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 12:08 AM

:bigclap
Me neither.
Apart from the enormous fallacy on who the Perfect SkepticTM* is, I'm still clapping.The sarcasm escaped you then?
I hope you're wrong, because that would be a really dumb statement, on par with Dawkins' one about religious education being child abuse....I doubt he puts it like that, does he? Surely, "can be" rather than "is"?Randi has said many times that religion is as much of a scam as any of the rest of his pet peeve woo. So I'm not sure if you get what I'm paraphrasing there or not.

:dl:

You're kidding aren't you?

Did he really say that? Did he give a list of what a "good skeptic" was as well.

If he said that, can you please link it?

*CFLarsen, surely?I've known Phil via the forum for years. I entered this realm via the Bad Astronomy forum long before it became the BAUT (Universe Today) forum. Phil has always had a very strong opinion of leaving politics and religion out of skeptic discussions. He's very big on just leaving any theism aspect of critical thinking alone.

So, again, I'm not quite sure how you've interpreted my comments but I know Phil's view on theism and skepticism pretty well.

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 12:11 AM

Many people here have expressed the sentiment that nothing is as beautiful and awe inspiring as the universe as it actually is. So why isn't JREF a pantheist organisation?Because pantheism is ludicrous?

Seriously, your analogy is a fail. Where is there any link between a rational world and pantheism?

The Atheist

21st November 2009, 02:17 AM

The sarcasm escaped you then?

Nope, you should have followed the asterisk.

Randi has said many times that religion is as much of a scam as any of the rest of his pet peeve woo. So I'm not sure if you get what I'm paraphrasing there or not.

You quoted Randi saying "religion is dangerous" which is different from what you've posted now.

I've known Phil via the forum for years. I entered this realm via the Bad Astronomy forum long before it became the BAUT (Universe Today) forum. Phil has always had a very strong opinion of leaving politics and religion out of skeptic discussions. He's very big on just leaving any theism aspect of critical thinking alone.

Probably unlikely things will change much then.

technoextreme

21st November 2009, 09:04 AM

Because it seems to me that the core of sc/kepticism is "No belief without evidence."
That is a horribly dumb definition of skepticism that legitimizes people like JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy and her ilk. If you didn't know better you would agree that they have plenty of evidence.
Correct; David Icke is an atheist.

But I don't think sc/kepticism can embrace religion, because religious belief requires faith since there is no direct evidence. Sc/kepticism and atheism aren't correlated but hey are definitely compatible, which I don't think religion and sc/kepticism are.

Actually, I was thinking of Bill Maher and the organization that gave him the award recently. Its the perfect example of ideology getting so out of whack that it makes them seem insane. Its probably the same exact trappings of religious people.

JoeTheJuggler

21st November 2009, 10:01 AM

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?
I'd say it's the same reason JREF isn't an anti-dowsing organization, or an organization that asserts there is no such thing as psychic powers.

Skepticism is a method whereby we follow the evidence to provisionally held conclusions. All our conclusions are provisional, so if the balance of the evidence were to shift (extremely, incredibly, extraordinarily unlikely to happen in the examples I've given), we would either reject or modify our previously provisionally held conclusions.

Now, if you ask, "Is theism (or belief in psychic powers, etc.) consistent with skepticism?" I would say, "No, it is not."

technoextreme

21st November 2009, 11:07 AM

Skepticism is a method whereby we follow the evidence to provisionally held conclusions. All our conclusions are provisional, so if the balance of the evidence were to shift (extremely, incredibly, extraordinarily unlikely to happen in the examples I've given), we would either reject or modify our previously provisionally held conclusions.

Now, if you ask, "Is theism (or belief in psychic powers, etc.) consistent with skepticism?" I would say, "No, it is not."

Dam you Joe. Dam you!!!!!! :piangry: That was what I was trying to say.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 11:43 AM

The "proper" skeptical stance starts with neutrality. If someone makes an incredible sounding claim, then (ideally) you should remain neutral at first, and then see which direction the evidence goes.

Granted, not all skeptics are good at starting neutral. But, it is a value to be promoted as much as possible.

If someone makes a claim that is completely and utterly untestable, that is: You can't prove it nor disprove it empirically; then it would (ideally) make sense to remain neutral about it, forever!

Individual members of JREF may or may not believe in god. (I assume the later far outweighs the former.) But, as an organization, it is in JREF's best interests to remain neutral on the idea.

Many specific claims, of course, can be tested. If someone says "This tube of Jesus tears can cure your wounds", then a skeptic will probably not remain neutral for very long, even if they are heroic in starting that way. This is regardless of the role "Jesus" plays in the claim. If the wounds don't really get healed more effectively, the claim is debunked.

The claim "Jesus is the son of God" is about as untestable as anything I can think of. Why should JREF take any stance on that one?

What is so wrong about remaining neutral on untestable claims?

The Atheist

21st November 2009, 12:16 PM

That is a horribly dumb definition of skepticism that legitimizes people like JB Handley, Jenny McCarthy and her ilk. If you didn't know better you would agree that they have plenty of evidence.

Nope.

Manufactured or false evidence isn't evidence. I've never heard of Handley, but Jenny McCarthy ignores Himalayas of actual evidence.

As I said somewhere earlier - evidence has to be filtered for veracity else it doesn't count.

I'd say it's the same reason JREF isn't an anti-dowsing organization, or an organization that asserts there is no such thing as psychic powers.

Point: miss.

Atheism isn't anti-religion, nor does it claim there is no such thing as god, so they're irrelevant comments.

Skepticism is a method whereby we follow the evidence to provisionally held conclusions. All our conclusions are provisional, so if the balance of the evidence were to shift (extremely, incredibly, extraordinarily unlikely to happen in the examples I've given), we would either reject or modify our previously provisionally held conclusions.

And I'd hope it sc/keptics keep doing just that.

Was there a point in there?

Now, if you ask, "Is theism (or belief in psychic powers, etc.) consistent with skepticism?" I would say, "No, it is not."

QED

The "proper" skeptical stance starts with neutrality. If someone makes an incredible sounding claim, then (ideally) you should remain neutral at first, and then see which direction the evidence goes.

Very good. As noted, that is the opposite of religion.

The claim "Jesus is the son of God" is about as untestable as anything I can think of. Why should JREF take any stance on that one?

Who has sugested JREF take a stance on it?

What is so wrong about remaining neutral on untestable claims?

Bertrand Russell, teapot, Venus. Go check it out.

six7s

21st November 2009, 12:24 PM

www.fortytwopoundsofflax.org Contexts of fatal flaw
(http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/1606129464):big: (Can we Nominate the output of a random text generator?)Maybe the output ain't exactly nom-worthy...

However, IMNSHO, the URL is another kettle of piranhas ;)

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 01:07 PM

Who has sugested JREF take a stance on it? You were asking why JREF is not an atheist organization. I was pointing out why.

Bertrand Russell, teapot, Venus. Go check it out. I tried to, but it wasn't there.

JoeTheJuggler

21st November 2009, 01:07 PM

Atheism isn't anti-religion, nor does it claim there is no such thing as god, so they're irrelevant comments.
Atheism is a conclusion on the question of belief in a god or gods. As I mentioned skepticism isn't a credo or dogma of any particular conclusion; rather it is a method.

Was there a point in there?
Yes. Atheism is a conclusion. Skepticism is a method whereby one can arrive at provisionally held conclusions, and is not defined by any particular conclusion.

Now I rather agree with your position that the damage done by religions is often much greater than that done by $3.99/minute psychics or whatever. I don't think Randi or other JREF bloggers have been shy about criticizing religion--have they?

I think the main reason why the JREF MDC won't address religious claims per se is that many of them aren't testable. Where they are testable, they're fair game. If a person uses his religious belief to explain why he claims he can walk on water or levitate or see the future, then the JREF's position at least wrt the MDC is that we're not interested in the theories, just the claim.

ETA: And in many cases religious belief and paranormal beliefs are all tangled up together anyway. Spiritualism is considered a religion. So is Sylvia Browne's Novus Spiritus. So is $cientology. And I'm sure some MDC claimants would tie their claims to more conventional religious beliefs too.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 01:27 PM

Bertrand Russell, teapot, Venus. Go check it out.A slightly more serious reply:

1. Detecting a teapot floating around the solar system is, in principal, testable, even if our measuring devices are not powerful enough to detect it, yet. So, it is a rather bad example, in that respect. God (if he hold all of his "omni" properties) is not detectable, even in principal.

2. Let's put together another idea, call it "Russell's Invisible Unicorn", for lack of a better term. An "ultra-invisible" unicorn that is, by definition, undetectable by any empirical measuring device, is floating around Venus. How can we test that? I think that is a much better analogy for God.
My point is that JREF is better off not taking any stance on that Unicorn claim, since it is not an empirical one, should it become a popular belief. Even an "invisible unicorn athiest" would, in reality, be forced to remain neutral, forever, in the strictest of scientific views, in spite of any beliefs or lack thereof.

3. Perhaps the real issue is one of reliability. We know we can not rely on there being teapots or unicorns or gods out there. But, when someone tries to rely on them (for example, the claim that "Jesus tears" can cure wounds), JREF can help us see the flaws. The less reliance is made on a claim, the less JREF would have anything to do with it, I assume.

If someone believes in God, for comfort or whatever, but does not necessarily rely on God, why would JREF try to force a stance on that?

The Atheist

21st November 2009, 02:45 PM

The claim "Jesus is the son of God" is about as untestable as anything I can think of. Why should JREF take any stance on that one?

You were asking why JREF is not an atheist organization. I was pointing out why.

Nope.

You specifically said this:

The claim "Jesus is the son of God" is about as untestable as anything I can think of. Why should JREF take any stance on that one?

which has nothing to do with an atheism, beyond "I don't believe it".

Not believing it is neither denying nor refuting it.

Atheism is a conclusion on the question of belief in a god or gods.

I can't believe you're still using this fallacy.

Atheism is not a conclusion. It is saying "there is not believable evidence that god/s exist, so I'm withholding belief in it".

No conclusion involved.

Yes. Atheism is a conclusion.

Until we get past this point, I rather think further discussion is pointless as we'll just go round and round in circles.

A slightly more serious reply:

The other one was much funnier though.

If someone believes in God, for comfort or whatever, but does not necessarily rely on God, why would JREF try to force a stance on that?

How is standing beside a statement that you don't believe something forcing a stance on anyone or thing?

plumjam

21st November 2009, 03:40 PM

Because pantheism is ludicrous?

I knew I'd have to agree with you at some point. I mean, who in their right mind would worship a pan?

EverLastingGodStopper

21st November 2009, 04:18 PM

Atheism is a conclusion on the question of belief in a god or gods. As I mentioned skepticism isn't a credo or dogma of any particular conclusion; rather it is a method.

Yes. Atheism is a conclusion.

Sorry to side-track, but only some people hold this view. Many people feel that atheism is simply the absence of theism. Again, it's entirely off-topic for this thread, but it is incorrect to state "atheism is a conclusion" when this viewpoint is hotly debated by atheists and others, with no agreement in sight.

Your viewpoint is mistaken because there are many atheists for whom atheism is not a conclusion whatsoever; atheism is, in their view, the nature of being without theism, and nothing more.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 04:19 PM

How is standing beside a statement that you don't believe something forcing a stance on anyone or thing?I tihnk I can summarize my point by saying: JREF is not an atheist organization because they are more like a scientific organization. Or at least science-minded.

Science is not atheistic. It is empirical.

JREF is not atheistic. It is also empirical.

Understand?

six7s

21st November 2009, 04:21 PM

I knew I'd have to agree with you at some point. I mean, who in their right mind would worship a pan?Hey kid, just lie back and think of Delphi... it'll come to you

six7s

21st November 2009, 04:25 PM

Science is not atheisticAre you suggesting that science is theistic?

No?

Then science IS atheistic

A.A. Alfie

21st November 2009, 04:39 PM

Atheism isn't anti-religion, nor does it claim there is no such thing as god, so they're irrelevant comments.

Really?! :jaw-dropp
I'm honestly surprised.
So when next an "atheist" says to me.. "I'm an atheist, there is no God". I can respond by telling them they don't know what an atheist actually is, and suggest they go study the definition of the term?
I can also say that there are plenty in this forum that use the label atheist as a means to be "anti-religious".

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 04:53 PM

Then science IS atheisticScience is neutral to non-emprical claims.

Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.

At least not in the strictest sense of scientific ideals.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 04:59 PM

So when next an "atheist" says to me.. "I'm an atheist, there is no God". I can respond by telling them they don't know what an atheist actually is, and suggest they go study the definition of the term?
I can also say that there are plenty in this forum that use the label atheist as a means to be "anti-religious".
The word "atheist" does not necessarily, by itself, imply "anti-religion". Some atheists are willing to live a peaceful coexistence with humans of religious faith.

Though, I suppose the "softer" atheists usually call themselves something else, like "humanist" or "agnostic", or whatever. It is more often the "harder" atheists, the ones closer to "anti-religion" that actually call themselves atheists. But, that's just a common usage argument.

Earthborn

21st November 2009, 05:14 PM

Yep, we've already been hereWe have? But anyway, you are not answering the question, which is basically this: why is JREF not an organisation promoting any other position on the existence of God? I think if you tried to answer that question you get the answer to the question in the title of this thread.

and it only makes sense if you are able to call the natural universe "god".

That seems a strange perversion of the term.It may seem to be a strange perversion of the term to an atheist...

Earthborn

21st November 2009, 05:28 PM

Because pantheism is ludicrous?It is no more ludicrous than atheism; in fact both make nearly identical claims with regard to the fundamental nature of the universe: that there is no Creator-God outside of it.

Where is there any link between a rational world and pantheism?What exactly is a "rational world" ? Rationality is usually considered a property of minds. Are you claiming the world is endowed with a rational mind? If so, then the link between it and pantheism seems obvious.

six7s

21st November 2009, 05:42 PM

Science is neutral to non-emprical claims.

Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.The two are mutually exclusive - sorta like sexual/asexual reproduction, aerobic/anaerobic bacteria, etc - there is NO grey area between theism and atheism (NB cf theists and atheists... where the spectrum covers every imaginable permutation of shade, tone, depth and brightness)

six7s

21st November 2009, 05:49 PM

So when next an "atheist" says to me.. "I'm an atheist, there is no God". I can respond by telling them they don't know what an atheist actually is, and suggest they go study the definition of the term?It might be better if you tell them that you simply don't understand

Atheism does not equal anti-theism

Saying 'there is no god' is no more 'anti-religion' than saying 'I don't play the banjo' is 'anti American'

I can also say that there are plenty in this forum that use the label atheist as a means to be "anti-religious".Sure... you can say that... So what?

mikeyx

21st November 2009, 05:59 PM

It's very simple: this is an inclusive group. People who espouse a particular religion are welcome here. The understanding is that you might get asked some pointed questions about your faith. Just as nonbelievers should understand that they themselves might (read that "will") get asked questions about their nonbelief. It's an equal-opportunity brawl, so to speak.

For one, I'm pretty proud of the way the forum and JREF operates, and feel honored to be allowed to take part. I've certainly learned a great deal here in the years I've been on board, and have changed a few long-held opinions based on my interactions here.

Warts and all, this place works pretty well AS LONG as you realize that your individual sacred cows might be considered a potential meal by other members. Fortunately, they're (usually) polite enough to ask permission first before firing up the grill.

Beanbag

for what its worth, this is one of the few places online where religious discussion doesnt turn to poo as a rule, one of the more interesting aspects is hearing both sides of the equasion, often with sirprising civility

JoeTheJuggler

21st November 2009, 06:12 PM

Atheism is not a conclusion. It is saying "there is not believable evidence that god/s exist, so I'm withholding belief in it".
That is a conclusion. The skeptical approach would point out that if the evidence for the existence of a god or gods changed, I would provisionally accept theism.

That's why JREF is, as I pointed out, not an anti-ESP organization either. (If there were compelling evidence for ESP, a skeptic would provisionally accept ESP.)

Until we get past this point, I rather think further discussion is pointless as we'll just go round and round in circles.
I agree.

We reject claims of ESP because the evidence doesn't point to the conclusion that ESP exists. But JREF is not a priori against the conclusion that ESP exists. (JREF is not an "aESPist" organization.) We are free to change position on the provisionally held conclusion based on the available evidence.

The best description of JREF, in this context, is "a skeptic organization".

Again, I'd agree that people who claim to be skeptics and are theists are not consistently applying skepticism. (Same with people who believe in ESP.)

Earthborn

21st November 2009, 06:13 PM

The two are mutually exclusive - sorta like sexual/asexual reproduction, aerobic/anaerobic bacteriaPretty bad examples of things that are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

six7s

21st November 2009, 06:21 PM

Pretty bad examples of things that are supposed to be mutually exclusive.Really?

Please cite an example of a specimen borne of sexual AND asexual reproduction?

TYIA :)

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 06:31 PM

The two are mutually exclusive Balloney!

If you think science is atheistic, then you prove that god does not exist: Conclusively and empirically!

sorta like sexual/asexual reproduction, aerobic/anaerobic bacteria, etc You picked two bad examples.

There are, in fact, life forms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually (many plants fall into this category, but also certain species of worms).

There is even a case of worms, found near Chernobyl, that are in the process of evolving from one to the other.

In the case of multicelluar life forms, you could almost say both are going on at the same time: mitosis (asexual) and meiosis (preparing half a cell for sexual reproduction). The more you look at all the varieties of ways molecules can replicate, the more absurd it is to think there is only two ways.

E. Coli is neither aerobic nor anaerobic, strictly speaking. It is considered "facultative", and can survive with oxygen or without.

And, I am sure a specialist in these areas could come up with better examples.

six7s

21st November 2009, 06:44 PM

Balloney!

If you think science is atheistic, then you prove that god does not exist: Conclusively and empirically!Bollocks

If you think science is NOT atheistic, cite one field of research that includes a 'God did it' factor in its method

You picked two bad examples.

There are, in fact, life forms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually (many plants fall into this category, but also certain species of worms).

<snip/>
And, I am sure a specialist in these areas could come up with better examples.Hopefully the specialist will recognise and comprehend the use of the word "sorta" in my post above

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 06:45 PM

If you think science is NOT atheistic, cite one field of research that includes a 'God did it' factor in its methodScience has nothing to say about untestable claims.

What a silly request.

A.A. Alfie

21st November 2009, 06:51 PM

It might be better if you tell them that you simply don't understand

Atheism does not equal anti-theism

Saying 'there is no god' is no more 'anti-religion' than saying 'I don't play the banjo' is 'anti American'

Sure... you can say that... So what?

Wow thanks!
But how are you managing to channel TA?
:)

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 07:05 PM

I knew I'd have to agree with you at some point. I mean, who in their right mind would worship a pan?I do like you PJ. Now if we could just cure that skeptical blind spot of yours. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 07:09 PM

Science is neutral to non-emprical claims.

Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.

At least not in the strictest sense of scientific ideals.Six7s is right here, Wowb. and you are wrong (IMO). Science goes out of its way to exclude theism and the supernatural as untestable therefore out of the realm of science claims. That fits the definition of atheism.

You are ascribing a single definition to atheism when I think what you are trying to say is only problematic because one can use the term, atheism, in more than one way.

Science is atheistic. You seem to think that means science is anti-theistic.

Personally, I disagree and think science should quit claiming the supernatural including gods are outside the realm of science. I don't agree with this position and believe modern thinking scientists will eventually drop that PC position of leaving people to their faith based beliefs as if it was in some parallel universe to the rational universe. Before the Big Bang and outside the Universe may indeed be beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. But creating an additional out-of-the-realm-of-science category for certain woo beliefs, IMO, is just avoiding confronting magical belief systems people have created.

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 07:18 PM

It is no more ludicrous than atheism; in fact both make nearly identical claims with regard to the fundamental nature of the universe: that there is no Creator-God outside of it.

What exactly is a "rational world" ? Rationality is usually considered a property of minds. Are you claiming the world is endowed with a rational mind? If so, then the link between it and pantheism seems obvious.You can interpret your version of a rational world any way you want, but that doesn't make it an actual rational version of reality. Just as god believers try to claim science is just another religion, this is not true.

A rational world is a scientific evidence based world. An irrational world is one made up by people without any evidence to support the conclusions (sometimes called faith based). There are very clear distinctions between rational thinking and faith based thinking.

I don't want to get into the side track that atheism is rational where agnosticism is not, but in a nutshell: There is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings people made up. There is no evidence of any actual gods. The position we cannot prove gods don't exist ergo we must conclude agnosticism is the correct conclusion ignores that overwhelming evidence gods are mythical and only considers the absence of evidence any real gods exist.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 07:23 PM

You are ascribing a single definition to atheism when I think what you are trying to say is only problematic because one can use the term, atheism, in more than one way.All right, I can accept that explanation.

I was using it to mean "belief that god does not exist". Perhaps six7s was using the word to mean "not using god as a basis for anything" (regardless if god exists or not)?

But, my original point about JREF being science-oriented, and therefore neutral about the existence of god still seems to hold.

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 07:40 PM

...
But, my original point about JREF being science-oriented, and therefore neutral about the existence of god still seems to hold.Why do you ignore the evidence gods are mythical beings? Is the JREF neutral about fairies existing?

In one sense, the JREF does not need to take a stand on any particular woo. We agree there. Taking a stand merely on the scientific process and the fact we live in a rational Universe is all one needs to be firm on. The evidence takes care of the specific conclusions.

But it's my opinion a lot of people are treating god beliefs differently than they treat other woo. Like I said above, there IS EVIDENCE. The evidence is that gods are mythical beings. There is no evidence gods are real. Why must we ignore the evidence for what gods are? Why can we not draw a conclusion from that evidence?

Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies? I doubt it. The scientific process allows for the door to be open to the existence of fairies and gods should any evidence of either be found. But that is not a reason to decline from drawing a conclusion based on the evidence we do have. Fairies and gods are mythical beings. END of story. No need to concern yourself with the fact you cannot prove fairies and gods don't exist.

Dunstan

21st November 2009, 08:23 PM

That is a conclusion. The skeptical approach would point out that if the evidence for the existence of a god or gods changed, I would provisionally accept theism.

That's why JREF is, as I pointed out, not an anti-ESP organization either. (If there were compelling evidence for ESP, a skeptic would provisionally accept ESP.)

This is such wankery.

I suppose we should also say that the American Cancer Society is not anti-cancer, because if compelling evidence came forward that cancer was actually good for you, it would provisionally become pro-cancer.

In fact, I guess we should never say that anybody is actually anti-anything, or pro-anything, or takes any position on any issue, except in the incredibly rare exceptions where someone actually says that they are not open to changing their minds based on new evidence. It's so funny to me how self-proclaimed skeptics think they're so special for doing, or claiming to do, what pretty much everyone does.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 08:26 PM

Why do you ignore the evidence gods are mythical beings? Is the JREF neutral about fairies existing?
I am not a JREF employee, so anyone who actually works for the JREF can correct me if I am wrong about this, but:

I think the JREF would be neutral about fairies if the claim was untestable.

If someone came up with a protocol for proving the existence of fairies, I am sure the JREF would be much more interested. Though, their position on that particular claim would solidify once the test results are in.

Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies? I doubt it. Of course not! There's a fairy grove in my backyard, in fact. I sit and watch them dance, every now and then. :)

The scientific process allows for the door to be open to the existence of fairies and gods should any evidence of either be found. But that is not a reason to decline from drawing a conclusion based on the evidence we do have. Individual scientists might draw conclusions, but that is different from asking an entire organization to do so.

six7s

21st November 2009, 09:10 PM

I was using it to mean "belief that god does not exist".Then you are using the term erroneously

Perhaps six7s was using the word to mean "not using god as a basis for anything" (regardless if god exists or not)?Yep

I have a hunch that you'll find that almost* any scientist worth their salt does likewise

* yep... I acknowledge that there's at least one exception - Francis Collins (http://biologos.org/about)... but I have a hunch that his god is not implied by Collins et al." in his published works

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ In Defense of Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/defense-evolution.html)
...A professor of biology at Brown University and coauthor (with Joe Levine) of the standard high-school textbook Biology, Miller testified at the Dover trial as an expert witness for the plaintiffs<snip/>

I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict. Science is the child of reason.
<snip/>

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

<snip/>

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

<snip/>

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

<snip/>

JoeTheJuggler

21st November 2009, 09:44 PM

I suppose we should also say that the American Cancer Society is not anti-cancer, because if compelling evidence came forward that cancer was actually good for you, it would provisionally become pro-cancer.
No, what I said is nothing like that. The American Cancer Society is an anti-cancer organization, not a skeptical organization.

Again, JREF is no more an atheist organization that it is an "aESPist" organization.

That doesn't mean JREF doesn't mean to educate people on what the best available evidence says about belief in ESP. I also don't think JREF shies away from religious beliefs in the same way.

In fact, I guess we should never say that anybody is actually anti-anything, or pro-anything, or takes any position on any issue, except in the incredibly rare exceptions where someone actually says that they are not open to changing their minds based on new evidence. It's so funny to me how self-proclaimed skeptics think they're so special for doing, or claiming to do, what pretty much everyone does.
But everyone doesn't exercise skepticism. Dogmatics pointedly claim that a certain doctrine is true regardless of or even in spite of the available evidence.

JoeTheJuggler

21st November 2009, 09:50 PM

In one sense, the JREF does not need to take a stand on any particular woo. We agree there. Taking a stand merely on the scientific process and the fact we live in a rational Universe is all one needs to be firm on. The evidence takes care of the specific conclusions.

But it's my opinion a lot of people are treating god beliefs differently than they treat other woo.

I agree with this assessment. JREF is not (and ought not be) an atheist organization merely because atheism is a conclusion that the evidence points to.

However, I do think skepticism is incompatible with theism, the same way I think it's incompatible with belief in ESP or whatever. But I wouldn't describe JREF as an anti-ESP organization. (I don't know that religion gets any especially deferential treatment by the JREF, though.)

Skepticism is a process and not a predetermined set of positions on various topics. In fact, a pre-determined set of positions on various topics sounds a lot more like dogmatism which is pretty much the opposite of skepticism.

Where skepticism follows the evidence to provisionally held conclusions, dogmatism starts off with conclusions regardless of the evidence.

Wowbagger

21st November 2009, 09:59 PM

Then you are using the term erroneouslyUsing a term in a manner that is commonly used by others, though does not necessarily match its usage for everyone, is not exactly "erroneous". Though, I suppose that could also depend on how you define "erroneous", too.

Dunstan

21st November 2009, 10:08 PM

No, what I said is nothing like that. The American Cancer Society is an anti-cancer organization, not a skeptical organization.

Again, JREF is no more an atheist organization that it is an "aESPist" organization.

Sure, and the ACS isn't an anti-cancer organization, it's a "pro-health" organization.

The point is that when an organization expounds a view that X is true, the fact that the organization is (or claims to be willing to) change its position if new evidence is produced does not alter the fact that it is currently taking a position on X. Yes, yes, a "provisional" position -- but they all are.

You might as well say that the Pope isn't anti-abortion, because he's willing to change his mind if God tells him to do so.

But everyone doesn't exercise skepticism. Dogmatics pointedly claim that a certain doctrine is true regardless of or even in spite of the available evidence.

In most cases, the problem is that people aren't persuaded by the evidence that you think they should be persuaded by, and/or that they've reached their current position by misconstruing the evidence, engaging in logical fallacies and cognitive biases, etc.

The problem with "woos" generally isn't that they're afraid or unwilling to change their minds. People aren't born being 9/11 Truthers, and I dare say most did not immediately become Truthers upon watching the news coverage that day. They were non-Truthers who changed their minds based on "evidence" they saw on YouTube, Loose Change, etc.

There's a reason one of the most common arguments we hear is some variation of "I never used to believe in [god, psychics, bigfoot, a 9/11 conspiracy, whatever], but then I [read the Bible, had a reading done, watched a "documentary," looked up a bunch of things on Google], and I realized the evidence was too compelling!" It actually doesn't matter whether they're being sincere or if they're lying about their "conversion": the point is that they recognize that their audience will respect them more for insisting on their fealty to the evidence and their willingness to change their minds. It's the same reason why "woos" insist that "skeptics" are dogmatic just as much as the "skeptics" say that about the "woos."

I'm basically on the "skeptic" side of most, if not all, of the usual issues that get discussed here. But it's not because I think that either I or self-identified skeptics are any more willing to change their minds than the "other side." The difference is in the kinds of evidence and argument that will cause one side to change its mind.

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 10:29 PM

I am not a JREF employee, so anyone who actually works for the JREF can correct me if I am wrong about this, but:

I think the JREF would be neutral about fairies if the claim was untestable.

If someone came up with a protocol for proving the existence of fairies, I am sure the JREF would be much more interested. Though, their position on that particular claim would solidify once the test results are in.

Of course not! There's a fairy grove in my backyard, in fact. I sit and watch them dance, every now and then. :)

Individual scientists might draw conclusions, but that is different from asking an entire organization to do so.My issue is the double standard applied to god woo that is not applied to other woo and I believe I can support that claim with evidence. You've not addressed the issue. You started to then fizzled.

First off, there's no way rational people are agnostic about fairies in anything other than lip service. So let's not pretend. You are referring to a principle within the scientific process that I am not arguing against. Facts are true but not proved, science maintains uncertainty, yadda yadda, we don't disagree there.

And there are rational thinkers who hold my point of view so I'm not claiming there is any single way rational thinkers treat the god question, don't waste time on the straw man that I'm applying my criticism to some nebulous 'science decider'. Clearly there is no such person just as the true Scotsman is a fallacy.

So what is the problem then?

Wowb.: "Science has nothing to say about untestable claims." We don't disagree here.

But my problem here is ignoring the evidence gods are mythical beings made up by people. When rational thinkers (aka skeptics as we know them) spout the 'can't disprove gods' mantra over and over, they apply a double standard. That is not neutral!

No one rants on and on in thread after thread that one cannot prove there are no fairies and you know it. We all know it. So you tell me, why do you treat god beliefs differently than you treat a belief in fairies or witches or hobgoblins?

Dogdoctor

21st November 2009, 10:32 PM

Although I ain't (necessarily) saying that the JREF should nail a big blue A to its mast... I have a sneaking suspicion that - if you can be bothered to do some reading - you'll find that you're wrong about 'the lack of belief NOT being a rallying point

If you look closely you will find it's not lack of belief that bring those organizations together. Atheism offer nothing. What do atheists talk about? Hmmmmmm it ain't about the only thing they share in common with all other atheists. They develop small groups of like minded individuals who share something more than a simple lack of belief.

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 10:44 PM

...www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ In Defense of Evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/defense-evolution.html)
Quote:
...A professor of biology at Brown University and coauthor (with Joe Levine) of the standard high-school textbook Biology, Miller testified at the Dover trial as an expert witness for the plaintiffs<snip/>

I think that faith and reason are both gifts from God. And if God is real, then faith and reason should complement each other rather than be in conflict. Science is the child of reason.
<snip/>

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

<snip/>

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

<snip/>

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

<snip/>

This is just the thing I am questioning. I realize it is probably a majority view currently among scientists and science based thinkers. To me, however, this is no more than a politically correct cop out. Rather than challenging god beliefs as ignorant and ludicrous, they are given some special place as if we don't dare tell the emperor he has no clothes.

Tell me which god belief or other supernatural belief includes no claims.

Either gods do not interact with the Universe (aka an untestable claim) or they do (a testable claim). Why ignore the testable part of the equation? Can you see gods? Feel them? Do they answer prayers? Did they communicate with humans millennia ago? Did they inspire the Bible? These are testable claims. It's no more than a PC position to ignore these aspects of god belief claims and act as if god beliefs are some kind of pure entity void of all real aspects in their existence.

A.A. Alfie

21st November 2009, 10:53 PM

This is just the thing I am questioning. I realize it is probably a majority view currently among scientists and science based thinkers. To me, however, this is no more than a politically correct cop out. Rather than challenging god beliefs as ignorant and ludicrous, they are given some special place as if we don't dare tell the emperor he has no clothes.

Tell me which god belief or other supernatural belief includes no claims.

Either gods do not interact with the Universe (aka an untestable claim) or they do (a testable claim). Why ignore the testable part of the equation? Can you see gods? Feel them? Do they answer prayers? Did they communicate with humans millennia ago? Did they inspire the Bible? These are testable claims. It's no more than a PC position to ignore these aspects of god belief claims and act as if god beliefs are some kind of pure entity void of all real aspects in their existence.

My bold
Just wondering, how are these testable.
Additionally, you have said three times (I think) that you can prove that god doesn't exist. Could you please show me.

six7s

21st November 2009, 11:05 PM

I agree with this assessment. JREF is not (and ought not be) an atheist organization merely because atheism is a conclusion that the evidence points to.If you keep telling the same lie, you'll believe it, huh?

Atheism is NOT "a conclusion that the evidence points to"

Atheism is an approach to LTUAE that is devoid of theistic woo

six7s

21st November 2009, 11:18 PM

Tell me which god belief or other supernatural belief includes no claims.The Church of Hank (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)

The Erisian Movement (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/14.php)

DAMN! This is HARD!

six7s

21st November 2009, 11:25 PM

Using a term in a manner that is commonly used by others, though does not necessarily match its usage for everyone, is not exactly "erroneous". Though, I suppose that could also depend on how you define "erroneous", too.Try derived from and/or leading to errors, inaccuracies and/or mistakesOr Wrong

Prometheus

21st November 2009, 11:35 PM

Skeptic Ginger

21st November 2009, 11:36 PM

My bold
Just wondering, how are these testable.
Additionally, you have said three times (I think) that you can prove that god doesn't exist. Could you please show me.
You ignore what people post, AAA and go on your merry way. So I'll only address your questions once unless you add something new, but here is my reply:

Can you see gods? No. Can you? Should we accept your hallucination as evidence gods are visible?

Feel them? Same answer.

Do they answer prayers? Numerous studies have tried to show prayer works. No evidence prayer has any effect has been established. If gods answered prayers we should see a difference in prayed for things vs not prayed for things.

Did they communicate with humans millennia ago? There is no evidence anything written in the Bible or in any other religious texts contain anything one would have needed a supernatural source of information to see in the text. So unless all the gods did was communicate with people about things the people already knew, there is no evidence of special knowledge found in ancient text.

Did they inspire the Bible? Same answer. The Bible has it wrong about the beginning of the Universe, the claim the Moon is a source of light rather than reflected light, the existence of humans around the planet, the germ theory, evolution and so on. If a god inspired the Biblical text one would expect to see knowledge reflected in the text that would not have been common among the Biblical writers at the time. No such special knowledge exists in Biblical text.

you have said three times (I think) that you can prove that god doesn't exist. Clear evidence you are not reading what I've written but are instead forming the world of your choosing.

I have said many times, there is NO NEED TO PROVE GODS DON'T EXIST, because one can explain god beliefs (the evidence is clear god beliefs are myths) and after one explains the origin of and the 'what are' god beliefs, there is no more evidence left. There is no more evidence of real gods than there is evidence of fairies or any other known fictional beings humans have imagined.

A.A. Alfie

21st November 2009, 11:48 PM

You ignore what people post, AAA and go on your merry way. So I'll only address your questions once unless you add something new, but here is my reply:

Can you see gods? No. Can you? Should we accept your hallucination as evidence gods are visible?

Feel them? Same answer.

Do they answer prayers? Numerous studies have tried to show prayer works. No evidence prayer has any effect has been established. If gods answered prayers we should see a difference in prayed for things vs not prayed for things.

Did they communicate with humans millennia ago? There is no evidence anything written in the Bible or in any other religious texts contain anything one would have needed a supernatural source of information to see in the text. So unless all the gods did was communicate with people about things the people already knew, there is no evidence of special knowledge found in ancient text.

Did they inspire the Bible? Same answer. The Bible has it wrong about the beginning of the Universe, the claim the Moon is a source of light rather than reflected light, the existence of humans around the planet, the germ theory, evolution and so on. If a god inspired the Biblical text one would expect to see knowledge reflected in the text that would not have been common among the Biblical writers at the time. No such special knowledge exists in Biblical text.

Clear evidence you are not reading what I've written but are instead forming the world of your choosing.

I have said many times, there is NO NEED TO PROVE GODS DON'T EXIST, because one can explain god beliefs (the evidence is clear god beliefs are myths) and after one explains the origin of and the 'what are' god beliefs, there is no more evidence left. There is no more evidence of real gods than there is evidence of fairies or any other known fictional beings humans have imagined.

OK, so you've got nothing new then either. Same old stuff people have been churning for hundreds of years.
Just for the record, that isn't proof of anything.

As many here have already pointed out the existence of a God is unprovable as is the non existence of a God.

Prometheus

21st November 2009, 11:57 PM

OK, so you've got nothing new then either. Same old stuff people have been churning for hundreds of years.
Just for the record, that isn't proof of anything.

As many here have already pointed out the existence of a God is unprovable as is the non existence of a God.

There's an important difference between 'proof of x' and 'evidence for x'

The two are not interchangeable.

The Atheist

22nd November 2009, 12:01 AM

Jesus. Lots of posts, and I was going to answer them all brilliantly, then I got to this one:

This is such wankery.

I suppose we should also say that the American Cancer Society is not anti-cancer, because if compelling evidence came forward that cancer was actually good for you, it would provisionally become pro-cancer.

In fact, I guess we should never say that anybody is actually anti-anything, or pro-anything, or takes any position on any issue, except in the incredibly rare exceptions where someone actually says that they are not open to changing their minds based on new evidence. It's so funny to me how self-proclaimed skeptics think they're so special for doing, or claiming to do, what pretty much everyone does.

so I'll just quote it and let Dunstan pwn everyone agin.

:bigclap

Doubt

22nd November 2009, 02:19 AM

Jesus. Lots of posts, and I was going to answer them all brilliantly, then I got to this one:

so I'll just quote it and let Dunstan pwn everyone agin.

:bigclap

Except that it is wrong.

Sorry, the mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking. Rather wide scope there.

The mission of the American Cancer society (Loosely stated) is to fight cancer.

It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion, it would be a valid analogy. But it is not.

It would also be a valid analogy if the goal of the JREF was to challenge windmills to jousting matches. The chances of accomplishing something as an anti religion foundation make as much sense as such silly things like having a war on terror or a war on drugs. Rather than say, something that can be archived such as a war against one terrorist organization or one drug supplier.

If the JREF is to have any success, it must have goals that can be achieved.

KoihimeNakamura

22nd November 2009, 02:33 AM

There is a severe difference on taking positions based on evidence and investigating positions without any known evidence.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 08:55 AM

Except that it is wrong.

Sorry, the mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking. You should try it... you have nothing to lose but your delusions :)

It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion

This has echoes of the so-called 'war against terrortm

Atheism is NOT a 'fight against religion'

If you keep telling the same lie, you'll believe it, huh?

Atheism is NOT "a conclusion that the evidence points to"

Atheism is an approach to LTUAE that is devoid of theistic woo

technoextreme

22nd November 2009, 09:08 AM

Nope.

Manufactured or false evidence isn't evidence.
Have you actually read their blog and studied the issue a bit more? They do actually have faulty evidence. Even I have a hard time trying to figure the flaws in some of their studies they cite. Other cases not so much. That is why your definition is stupid.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:17 AM

Sure, and the ACS isn't an anti-cancer organization, it's a "pro-health" organization.

The point is that when an organization expounds a view that X is true, the fact that the organization is (or claims to be willing to) change its position if new evidence is produced does not alter the fact that it is currently taking a position on X. Yes, yes, a "provisional" position -- but they all are.
No they're not. I already mentioned that dogmatic beliefs don't change no matter what the evidence.

JREF as an organization doesn't expound a view that any particular conclusion is true. (Not that a god doesn't exist or that ESP doesn't exist.)

From the JREF's "about us page"

he Foundation's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

So once again, the reason JREF isn't an atheist organization is the same reason it's not an ESP-denying organization.

However, if someone makes a testable claim on either subject, JREF will encourage a rigorous, scientific evidence-based questioning of that claim.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:22 AM

If you keep telling the same lie, you'll believe it, huh?

Atheism is NOT "a conclusion that the evidence points to"

Atheism is an approach to LTUAE that is devoid of theistic woo

I disagree.

Skepticism is a method (following the evidence to either reject or provisionally accept propositions). ETA: Skepticism is NOT a set of positions on propositions (either provisionally accepted or rejected).

Atheism, either as the belief that a god or gods doesn't exist or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is a conclusion. It is either the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition.

See above where I cited JREF's goals. The JREF's aim is not to promote either acceptance or rejection of any particular proposition (that is, it does not hold any a priori conclusion). Instead it seeks to apply rigorous methodology to question or investigate these propositions.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:23 AM

Except that it is wrong.

Sorry, the mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking. Rather wide scope there.

The mission of the American Cancer society (Loosely stated) is to fight cancer.

It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion, it would be a valid analogy. But it is not.

It would also be a valid analogy if the goal of the JREF was to challenge windmills to jousting matches. The chances of accomplishing something as an anti religion foundation make as much sense as such silly things like having a war on terror or a war on drugs. Rather than say, something that can be archived such as a war against one terrorist organization or one drug supplier.

If the JREF is to have any success, it must have goals that can be achieved.

Thank you, and well said.

ETA: One quibble here. "It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion, it would be a valid analogy. But it is not." I would say, if the mission of the JREF were to promote the non-existence of god or even to deny the existence of god, it would be a valid analogy.

That is, atheism is not equal to fighting religion. It is simply either the belief in the non-existence of god or the rejection (or lack) of a belief in god.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:28 AM

Atheism, either as the belief that a god or gods doesn't exist or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is a conclusion. It is either the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition.Is NOT having fish for dinner tonight a conclusion?

Is NOT buying the latest Rick Astley CD today a conclusion?

If you think/pretend that they are, then you are conflating the term conclusion

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:32 AM

That is, atheism is not equal to fighting religion. It is simply either the belief in the non-existence of god or the rejection (or lack) of a belief in god.NO

Atheism is a stance

Atheism is an approach

Atheism is NOT a belief

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:38 AM

I disagree.

Skepticism is a method (following the evidence to either reject or provisionally accept propositions). ETA: Skepticism is NOT a set of positions on propositions (either provisionally accepted or rejected).Non sequitur

The JREF's aim is not to promote either acceptance or rejection of any particular proposition (that is, it does not hold any a priori conclusion). Instead it seeks to apply rigorous methodology to question or investigate these propositions.Are you pretending that the JREF employs theistic techniques in its "methodology"?

If not, then what the hell are you on about?

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:41 AM

NO

Atheism is a stance

Atheism is an approach

Atheism is NOT a belief

Sorry, I think you are wrong. As evidence, I invite you to read about the meaning of the suffix "-ism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ism)". (The only one that makes sense in this word is number 3.)

Atheism is either belief in the non-existence of a god or gods (generally "strong atheism") or the rejection or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods ("weak atheism"). Either way, it specifically answers the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"

Again, I believe skepticism is inconsistent with theism (and consistent with atheism), but that's not the same thing as saying skepticism is atheism. JREF is an organization that promotes skepticism, not one that promotes atheism (or any other conclusion--that is, any other provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition).

BTW, the following is from the FAQ page on JREF's MDC:

2.5 Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?

Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

This is pretty much what I said earlier. JREF doesn't avoid religious or spiritual issues out of deference, but merely because the claims are usually untestable. Where a specific claim is testable, the "goddidit" theory is extraneous to the claim and can be ignored.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:47 AM

Sorry to side-track, but only some people hold this view. Many people feel that atheism is simply the absence of theism. Again, it's entirely off-topic for this thread, but it is incorrect to state "atheism is a conclusion" when this viewpoint is hotly debated by atheists and others, with no agreement in sight.

Your viewpoint is mistaken because there are many atheists for whom atheism is not a conclusion whatsoever; atheism is, in their view, the nature of being without theism, and nothing more.

I think I maybe wasn't very clear earlier (though I have been since).

It is a conclusion either to provisionally accept or reject a proposition. Atheism is either the provisional acceptance of a proposition (strong atheism) or the rejection of a proposition (weak atheism).

Either of those is a conclusion rather than what JREF promotes (skepticism or critical thinking skills or the rigorous, evidence-based investigation of propositions).

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:52 AM

Non sequitur
What? Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow", and is used to describe invalid logical arguments. I was describing why JREF, an organization that promotes skepticism, does not hold any conclusion on the propositions it seeks to investigate a priori, and that's the reason it is not an atheist organization. So everything I've said does follow.

Are you pretending that the JREF employs theistic techniques in its "methodology"?
Not in the least. I have even said on several occasions in this thread that I think skepticism and theism are incompatible. (Meaning that the evidence points to atheism-- or points away from theism--as the proposition to provisionally hold or reject.)

So I've pretty much consistently said the opposite of what you're asking here.

If not, then what the hell are you on about?
I'm sorry if you can't understand what I've written. It was quite clear. If you have a specific question, I could maybe help you.

Maybe it would help if you read my posts more carefully.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:53 AM

Sorry, I think you are wrong. As evidence, I invite you to read about the meaning of the suffix "-ism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ism)". (The only one that makes sense in this word is number 3.)Try thinking again, it won't hurt

If you want to use merriam-webster.com to understand what is meant by atheism:
Look up the prefix a (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a-[2]) Look up theism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism)

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:56 AM

What? Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow", and is used to describe invalid logical arguments. I was describing why JREF, an organization that promotes skepticism, does not hold any conclusion on the propositions it seeks to investigate a priori, and that's the reason it is not an atheist organization. So everything I've said does follow.You just don't get it

Sad

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:00 AM

Is NOT having fish for dinner tonight a conclusion?

Is NOT buying the latest Rick Astley CD today a conclusion?

If you think/pretend that they are, then you are conflating the term conclusion

"Not having fish for dinner tonight" is an incomplete proposition. (Ditto the other example, so I'll just use the one.)

It's simply a gerundive (a type of noun phrase). If you said, "Not having fish for dinner tonight will help me lose weight" or even simply "I am not having fish for dinner tonight", then these are propositions. They are not propositions about the supernatural, so it's not such a big dealt to provisionally accept or reject them. However, that provisional acceptance or rejection of these propositions would indeed be a conclusion.

Now, if you accepted one of these propositions for reasons other than the evidence--for example, "I don't believe not having fish for dinner tonight will help me lose weight because a leprechaun told me" that would be using a method other than skepticism to reach a conclusion.

JREF's aim is to promote the correct method of reaching conclusions; it is not to promote any particular conclusions.

And I'm not sure you're using the word "conflate" properly, by the way. You can't possibly "conflate" one thing.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:03 AM

Try thinking again, it won't hurt

If you want to use merriam-webster.com to understand what is meant by atheism:
Look up the prefix a (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a-[2]) Look up theism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism)

Yes, as I've been saying atheism is either the belief in the non-existence of a god or gods [athe]ism or the rejection or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods a[theism]. Both are valid usages of the term, and I've been using both of these in my explanation for why JREF is not an atheist organization.

(By the way, I studied ancient Greek for 2 years and classical Latin for 5 years.)

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:05 AM

You just don't get it

Sad

Well what a waste of a post that was!

Is this meant to pass as an argument or a refutation of my argument?

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 10:16 AM

No they're not. I already mentioned that dogmatic beliefs don't change no matter what the evidence.

JREF as an organization doesn't expound a view that any particular conclusion is true. (Not that a god doesn't exist or that ESP doesn't exist.)

From the JREF's "about us page"

So once again, the reason JREF isn't an atheist organization is the same reason it's not an ESP-denying organization.

However, if someone makes a testable claim on either subject, JREF will encourage a rigorous, scientific evidence-based questioning of that claim.

I don't care what the JREF's mission statement says. That's spin. I'm not going to accept that as the definitive word on the JREF any more than I would accept any organization's claim on the subject.

It is utterly disingenuous to claim that the JREF doesn't have a view on the effectiveness of homeopathy, the paranormal abilities of Uri Geller, John Edward, or Sylvia Browne, etc.

I'm sorry, but James Randi only gets to write so many scoffing remarks about (e.g.) Uri Geller's "abilities" before it becomes silly to insist that he -- and the organization he founded that publishes his remarks -- doesn't have a position on the issue.

It's not like this is a bad thing! Taking a position on an issue, after studying the evidence or lack thereof, is a good thing. Yes, yes, acknowledge that you may be wrong, be receptive to further evidence, blah blah blah, but pretending that the JREF specifically or skeptics in general do not even reach provisional conclusions is disingenuous nonsense, and it makes the JREF and skeptics look bad.

Doubt

22nd November 2009, 10:21 AM

Thank you, and well said.

ETA: One quibble here. "It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion, it would be a valid analogy. But it is not." I would say, if the mission of the JREF were to promote the non-existence of god or even to deny the existence of god, it would be a valid analogy.

That is, atheism is not equal to fighting religion. It is simply either the belief in the non-existence of god or the rejection (or lack) of a belief in god.

I have no argument with your quibble. If the JREF were to be similar to the American Cancer society, it would have to be doing something like fighting religion. Rather than promoting a good tool set to examine the world.

Doubt

22nd November 2009, 10:29 AM

I don't care what the JREF's mission statement says. That's spin. I'm not going to accept that as the definitive word on the JREF any more than I would accept any organization's claim on the subject.

It is utterly disingenuous to claim that the JREF doesn't have a view on the effectiveness of homeopathy, the paranormal abilities of Uri Geller, John Edward, or Sylvia Browne, etc.

Clear this up for me. You don't believe that the JREF mission statement is what the organization is about? Really? If I am wrong, correct my error here.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 10:29 AM

Case in point. In the "Ask the Skeptics" column (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/779-ask-the-skeptics-my-sons-a-witch.html) on the JREF's home page blog, a letter writer seeks help dealing with her 13-year-old son's interest in Wicca, sparked by a book "called To Ride a Silver Broomstick, and it is by a woman named Silver RavenWolf. It's ridiculous. It says, among other things, that you can bi-locate yourself via 'astral projection' and meet and converse with spirit guides and fairies."

So the JREF Skeptic's response, of course, was to say that the JREF takes no position on the validity of Wicca generally or the claims in this book specifically, and encourages a scientific investigation of the claims? Yeah, not so much:

[introductory remarks snipped]
Yes, Wicca is worryingly woo-ful. But unless there are extenuating circumstances that your letter failed to mention, you shouldn't be too worried. A lot of folks who are raised skeptical can't imagine how convincingly a professional woo-slinger can sling woo until they come face-to-face with it -- and in that confrontation, any 13-year-old is at a significant disadvantage.

And that's the nut of it. 13-year-olds are inexperienced, naïve, trusting, and more than a little crazy. When I told Randi of your dilemma, he said: "Tell her not to worry. One expects 13-year-olds to believe strange things. He'll grow out of it." In fact, he'll likely grow out of it sooner if you respect and support his interest in Wicca and avoid turning it into a generational stand-off. Instead, consider turning "spirituality," or whatever your preferred term might be, into a thing you and your son explore together. Don't raise objections; ask questions. Give him the tools to think critically, and in time, he'll probably use them. (If not, having a happy, healthy Wiccan son isn't the worst thing in the world.)

All good advice, and I agree with it. But where's the supposed neutrality, the desire to see claims investigated? Instead, it's simply assumed that Wicca, and this particular book's claims, are "worringly woo-ful" and that the son believes in "strange things." Can any fair-minded person read that exchange and not conclude that the author (and let's set aside temporarily the issue of whether a blog post on the JREF's own blog by someone selected by the JREF to respond to inquiries to the JREF can be said to reflect the JREF's position -- I think it's obvious that they do, but I don't want to get bogged down in that) has not reached a provisional conclusion with respect to Wicca?

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 10:34 AM

Clear this up for me. You don't believe that the JREF mission statement is what the organization is about? Really? If I am wrong, correct my error here.

I don't believe that the JREF's mission statement is a complete and accurate description of the organization's viewpoints and goals, any more than I would believe a political party's mission statement is a complete and accurate description of its viewpoints and goals, or any other advocacy group's self-description.

I don't think psychics can fairly say they don't make paranormal claims just because they slip some "for entertainment purposes only" fine print into their ads.

One might even say that I apply skepticism to the JREF's claims about itself. Shocking, I know.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:40 AM

My bolding:
Can any fair-minded person read that exchange and not conclude that the author (and let's set aside temporarily the issue of whether a blog post on the JREF's own blog by someone selected by the JREF to respond to inquiries to the JREF can be said to reflect the JREF's position -- I think it's obvious that they do, but I don't want to get bogged down in that) has not reached a provisional conclusion with respect to Wicca?
Why should we set aside the difference between an individual, even a JREF spokesman, answering a question and whether or not JREF is an atheist organization?

At any rate, the advice given was certainly in keeping with the goals of JREF. You quoted it yourself:

Don't raise objections; ask questions. Give him the tools to think critically, and in time, he'll probably use them.
In the language I'm using that would be like saying, "Don't try to push conclusions on him; instead challenge him to use critical thinking skills to arrive at the correct conclusion himself."

ETA: All good advice, and I agree with it. But where's the supposed neutrality, the desire to see claims investigated?
Right there at the end of the section you quoted--the same part that I just quoted here.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 10:42 AM

Oh, here's another example. The National Center for Science Education describes itself (http://ncse.com/about) as follows:

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 4000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious affiliations.

Hmm. Well, they say they just want to educate people about the "creation and evolution controversy"! Guess they haven't taken a position on the issue! (For those who don't know, the NCSE is one of the leading organizations fighting creationism/ID in schools. If anyone has any doubt on this point, I can dig out the last fundraising letter I got from them and quote the bits where they brag about their anti-creationism efforts.)

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:50 AM

Oh, here's another example. The National Center for Science Education describes itself (http://ncse.com/about) as follows:

Hmm. Well, they say they just want to educate people about the "creation and evolution controversy"! Guess they haven't taken a position on the issue! (For those who don't know, the NCSE is one of the leading organizations fighting creationism/ID in schools. If anyone has any doubt on this point, I can dig out the last fundraising letter I got from them and quote the bits where they brag about their anti-creationism efforts.)

So are you saying that JREF is or isn't an atheist organization? It sounds like you're arguing that they're not but they ought be, and the reason they ought be is because they shouldn't adhere to their own stated goals but instead be deceptive and misleading like this Creationist organization you cite.

Seriously, I'm just not following your position.

Mine is simply an answer to the question T.A. asked: The JREF is not an atheist organization because atheism is a conclusion and JREF promotes critical thinking skills or skepticism and not any particular conclusion.

I have further added (several times) that I think skepticism is not compatible with theism (just as it's not compatible with belief in ESP). But I wouldn't want JREF to promote either of those conclusions; instead they should promote critical thinking and hopefully people will arrive at the same conclusions I provisionally hold (assuming mine are all the correct ones, of course!)

Personally, I'm also the leader of a local atheist group. A lot of our membership overlaps with that of a local skeptical group, but the two are different organizations with different (though similar and sometimes overlapping) goals. As a matter of definition, the skeptic organization is not an atheist organization.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 10:50 AM

My bolding:

Why should we set aside the difference between an individual, even a JREF spokesman, answering a question and whether or not JREF is an atheist organization?

Because I think it's rather silly to take the position that a person who the JREF has authorized to read and respond to questions emailed to the JREF, and whose responses have been published by the JREF in its blog on its website, is speaking for the JREF.

Organizations are abstract entities; they can only speak through individuals.

Now, I'm sure from time to time one of the JREF's employees or spokespersons will say something that the higher-ups disagree with and want to disavow, etc. But in the absence of any such indication, I think I'm entitled to infer that the writer's views reflect the JREF's.

At any rate, the advice given was certainly in keeping with the goals of JREF. You quoted it yourself:
Don't raise objections; ask questions. Give him the tools to think critically, and in time, he'll probably use them.

In the language I'm using that would be like saying, "Don't try to push conclusions on him; instead challenge him to use critical thinking skills to arrive at the correct conclusion himself."

Not the JREF's goals as you have defined them. The advice assumes the result; that if the son applies critical thinking skills, he will reach the "correct conclusion." Notice that the writer does not advise the mother to apply critical thinking skills with respect to the book's claims; it's assumed that she did so because she stated the "correct" conclusion that the claims were "nonsense." There's no admonition that the mother should keep an open mind, or that we can't evaluate those claims until we've fully tested them.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 10:56 AM

Not the JREF's goals as you have defined them. The advice assumes the result; that if the son applies critical thinking skills, he will reach the "correct conclusion."
I disagree. I think the advice not to push conclusions but to ask questions is exactly in line with the JREF's goals. I think it's safe to say that the conclusions pushed by the book were not the result of critical thinking or skepticism. Poking holes in that sort of thinking is just what the JREF's goals say they do. Challenging people to think rationally about claims is exactly in line with what JREF does.

Yes, if JREF sees that an ESP test is done with faulty controls or sloppy methodology, it will point out that the conclusions of that process are invalid. (But not because the JREF has an a priori position on ESP. but because the so called experiment does not constitute evidence that would lead one to that conclusion--to provisionally accept the existence of ESP.) It sounds like their advice in this Wicca case is wholly consistent with this approach.

Doubt

22nd November 2009, 10:57 AM

You should try it... you have nothing to lose but your delusions :)

And what delusion(s) would that be?

This has echoes of the so-called 'war against terrortm

Atheism is NOT a 'fight against religion'
[/quote]

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons I think the analogy to the American Cancer society is wrong. Which was the motivation for what I posted.

In the mean time, the JREF is still not an atheist organization. It does not exist to promote atheism and has non-atheist supporters. That does not mean that a large percentage of those involved are not atheists and no one involved is required to censor themselves on the issue of the existence of god.

Doubt

22nd November 2009, 11:01 AM

I don't believe that the JREF's mission statement is a complete and accurate description of the organization's viewpoints and goals, any more than I would believe a political party's mission statement is a complete and accurate description of its viewpoints and goals, or any other advocacy group's self-description.

I don't think psychics can fairly say they don't make paranormal claims just because they slip some "for entertainment purposes only" fine print into their ads.

One might even say that I apply skepticism to the JREF's claims about itself. Shocking, I know.

I see your point of view, but disagree with it. Political entities lie. Educational institutions that lie are worthless. It the JREF mission statement is about politics, then the organization is not telling the truth.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 11:09 AM

So are you saying that JREF is or isn't an atheist organization? It sounds like you're arguing that they're not but they ought be, and the reason they ought be is because they shouldn't adhere to their own stated goals but instead be deceptive and misleading like this Creationist organization you cite.

Seriously, I'm just not following your position.

Incidentally, that was a pro-evolution organization I was citing. And I don't think the NCSE is being deceptive; they don't hide the ball that they oppose creationism. It just wasn't phrased that way in their description of themselves. I was just making a small point about the folly of assuming that a self-description -- even from the "good guys" -- is a complete and accurate description of an organization. I felt that point was necessary after my daring to suggest that the JREF's mission statement isn't the end of the discussion provoked an incredulous "really?" from Doubt.

As to the "JREF as an atheist organization," I don't really have a position on that one way or the other. As I said in my first post in this thread, a response to The Atheist, it really depends on what it means to be an "atheist organization." I'm inclined to say that the JREF is not an atheist organization, but I don't buy this "conclusion vs. approach" distinction you're trying to draw. It just seems to me that the JREF tries to avoid religious issues (except the easier targets like Popov or John of God), and has gone out of its way to assure people that theists are welcome -- in a way that it hasn't done with respect to other supernatural claims.

Ultimately I think it's a question of practicality: there are plenty of explicitly pro-atheist organizations already out there, and the JREF's particular strengths don't lie in that direction.

Mine is simply an answer to the question T.A. asked: The JREF is not an atheist organization because atheism is a conclusion and JREF promotes critical thinking skills or skepticism and not any particular conclusion.

Yeah, that's the distinction I'm not buying. Critical thinking can be applied to just about everything, but the JREF has particularly focused on claims of the paranormal, especially but not only with respect to the Challenge. And while the JREF may not state that its goal is to persuade people of any particular conclusion on any particular issue, I think that the JREF most certainly does make efforts to do so.

I have further added (several times) that I think skepticism is not compatible with theism (just as it's not compatible with belief in ESP). But I wouldn't want JREF to promote either of those conclusions; instead they should promote critical thinking and hopefully people will arrive at the same conclusions I provisionally hold (assuming mine are all the correct ones, of course!)

Yes, but I think it's disingenuous to pretend -- and I can't tell for sure if you are -- that the JREF isn't pushing particular conclusions other than "critical thinking is good."

Let's suppose I have a son, and I keep telling him that he should become a scientist. I lecture him repeatedly on the importance of science to the world, on how he has an aptitude for it and it would be a shame to waste it, I'm constantly sending him booklets and web sites about science programs, etc.

Finally, the kid has had enough of it, and demands that I stop pushing him to become a scientist and let him discover what he wants on his own. "Oh, but I'm not pushing you to become a scientist," I insist. "I only want you to be happy!"

I think that skeptics sound a lot like that father when they insist that they're only about critical thinking, and aren't really taking a position on the paranormal.

Personally, I'm also the leader of a local atheist group. A lot of our membership overlaps with a local skeptical group, but the two are different organizations with different (though similar and sometimes overlapping) goals. But as a matter of definition, the skeptic organization is not an atheist organization.

I'm sure that's the case. Unless one defines "atheist organization" in a very trivial way, there is a difference. The JREF has made its choice, and I'm fine with it.

The Atheist

22nd November 2009, 11:12 AM

Except that it is wrong.

Sorry, the mission of the JREF is to promote critical thinking. Rather wide scope there.

Yep, and I'd like to think that those critical thinking skills start from a base of "What is this?". No a priori reasoning involved, and the only way to do that with theism is from an atheist base. If you want to find the facts, you need to start with nothing.

It the mission of the JREF was to fight Religion, it would be a valid analogy. But it is not.

And if anyone said that the mission of JREF should be fighting religion, you'd have a point!

There is a severe difference on taking positions based on evidence and investigating positions without any known evidence.

As a "good skeptic", I'd follow Phil Plait, Randi and even Socrates' rules and start with there being no evidence. On the basis of there being no evidence, I'd be an atheist. No evidence = no belief.

Pretty straightforward.

You Atheism is NOT a 'fight against religion'

Do you and me agree on this?

Christ! One of us has to be wrong; we're screwed!

Have you actually read their blog and studied the issue a bit more? They do actually have faulty evidence. Even I have a hard time trying to figure the flaws in some of their studies they cite. Other cases not so much. That is why your definition is stupid.

You should try reading this whole derail again.

You said - "they have evidence"

I said - "the evidence is flawed or false"

You just said - "It's hard to find the flaws"

What was so stupid about my post again? Do anti-vaxers have valid evidence or not? If not, regardless of how well they appear to have some, you are wrong.

... the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is a conclusion.

:dl:

Sorry, Joe - I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing because I've spent the past couple of months arguing this very point against a team of extremely clever apologetic theists. Because theism is a proposition based on faith, and faith means nothing to atheists, it's really important for theists to try to smear atheism with exactly the same flaws as religion - faith, belief without evidence, reaching a conclusion based on flawed evidence, that kind of thing.

Exactly the same track you're on here.

There's more than a little ironic humour in it.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 11:13 AM

I disagree. I think the advice not to push conclusions but to ask questions is exactly in line with the JREF's goals. I think it's safe to say that the conclusions pushed by the book were not the result of critical thinking or skepticism.

Why do you think that's safe to say? Is that not what you would call an a priori position?

Yes, if JREF sees that an ESP test is done with faulty controls or sloppy methodology, it will point out that the conclusions of that process are invalid. (But not because the JREF has an a priori position on ESP. but because the so called experiment does not constitute evidence that would lead one to that conclusion--to provisionally accept the existence of ESP.) It sounds like their advice in this Wicca case is wholly consistent with this approach.

Can you give an example of someone who does have an a priori position on ESP?

Wowbagger

22nd November 2009, 11:24 AM

My issue is the double standard applied to god woo that is not applied to other woo and I believe I can support that claim with evidence. You've not addressed the issue. You started to then fizzled.
Can you give me a clear example of double-standard? I do not think there is one: All untestable claims cannot be tested. All testable ones can (and often are) tested. That is not a double-standard. That is just a fact of the universe.

If science was truly atheistic, then all of the good scientists would only be atheists. But, that is clearly not the case: There are plenty of good scientists out there, who are not atheists.

The same goes for skepticism and critical thinkers, in general. There are plenty of good skeptics who are not atheists. That is not a double standard, as long as they understand that their faith is not in something that can be tested.

If JREF were to become an atheist organization, then all of its members would only be atheists. And, I think a few of its best members and staff members would be shoved out the door. (I am not going to name any names.) None of them have any double standards. They are all good at deducing what is testable and not, near as I can tell.

There is a difference between:
"Fairies do exist." and "This is a photo of a fairy."
And between
"God exists." and "Jesus gave me this tube of his tears when I was in a coma."

Same standards apply to one side vs. the other.

Wowbagger

22nd November 2009, 11:27 AM

Try derived from and/or leading to errors, inaccuracies and/or mistakesOr Wrong
While you are looking up the definition of words, you might also want to see how "atheist" also has more than one usage and definition.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 12:24 PM

Well what a waste of a post that was!

Is this meant to pass as an argument or a refutation of my argument?The former:

You aren't posting arguments

You're posting confused nonsense, presumably as a consequence of some unshakable need to pontificate on the TRUE!!11!! (ie false) meaning of the term atheism

Try interpreting atheism simply; i.e. without the erroneous complications that arise from references to the irrelevant term skepticism

six7s

22nd November 2009, 12:25 PM

While you are looking up the definition of words, you might also want to see how "atheist" also has more than one usage and definition.
As does funny

laca

22nd November 2009, 01:04 PM

Yes, as I've been saying atheism is either the belief in the non-existence of a god or gods [athe]ism or the rejection or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods a[theism].

No, the lack of belief in god(s) does not translate to belief in no god(s). And atheism means just that: "without belief in god(s)".

six7s

22nd November 2009, 01:21 PM

No, the lack of belief in god(s) does not translate to belief in no god(s). And atheism means just that: "without belief in god(s)".Its all Greek to Joe

laca

22nd November 2009, 01:28 PM

If science was truly atheistic, then all of the good scientists would only be atheists. But, that is clearly not the case: There are plenty of good scientists out there, who are not atheists.

First of all, science being "atheistic" and people being atheists do not mean the same thing. People can believe in stuff, science cannot: it is a concept, a way of doing things. Atheism with regard to science can only mean "does not concern itself with theism". That aside, you are making a conclusion on the parts of something based on the whole. That doesn't work either. One can be a good scientist and still be a theist by making sure the two stay separate.

The same goes for skepticism and critical thinkers, in general. There are plenty of good skeptics who are not atheists. That is not a double standard, as long as they understand that their faith is not in something that can be tested.

For me, being a good skeptic would mean to be able to question everything. Religion included.

If JREF were to become an atheist organization, then all of its members would only be atheists.

Sorry, that just does not follow. For me, at least.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 01:39 PM

Do anti-vaxers have valid evidence or not?

Good analogy. JREF is also not a pro-vaccine organization for the same reason it's not an atheist organization.

Why do you think that's safe to say? Is that not what you would call an a priori position?
No, it's not an a priori position. It's safe to say as the result of my having read a great deal about supernatural claims of various religions. I have yet to see any credible evidence for these claims.

However, I wouldn't want someone to reject these claims because I said so. I would prefer to teach them about critical thinking skills and let them see where the evidence leads them.

Can you give an example of someone who does have an a priori position on ESP?
From another thread, I have learned that Jung had that position. He believed that the Rhine experiments supported that position. Even though the evidence says otherwise, he nonetheless believed in ESP (and astrology and so on). In fact, pretty much everyone who believes in ESP holds that belief either regardless of or in spite of the evidence. That's what I mean by an a priori conclusion.

They're not exercising skepticism; they're not following the evidence. Instead, they're trying to "fix" the evidence to the conclusion (this is precisely what religious apologetics are too, but with regard to deductive rather than inductive reasoning). I mentioned Rhine, I could also mention Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz and many others. You can read how time and again they'll use all sorts of sloppy thinking to try to make the "evidence" appear to support their a priori position. It's abundantly obvious (especially in some cases) that there is nothing you could do--no demonstration, no test, no statistical analysis, no evidence whatsoever--that could get them to let go of their belief in ESP. This is the opposite of skepticism: believing or rejecting a provision (that is, holding a conclusion) regardless of or in spite of the evidence.

And it is possible that someone could be an atheist and not a skeptic, BTW. You could just believe there is no god (or not believe there is a god) because you're obeying an authority figure who said so, or because you had a hallucination and you believe a super-advanced space alien from another dimension created our universe, and that space alien told you there is no god.

Again, JREF is about the method--skepticism or critical thinking or evidence-based reasoning--but atheism is a conclusion. Skepticism ought lead one to atheism, IMO, but you could get to atheism by some other route.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 01:43 PM

Its all Greek to Joe
:)

<derail>Incidentally, my Greek professor forbade ever using that response in his class on the very first day of the first semester! He was quite a card, though. Made an ancient language a lot of fun (plus he was the director of the Honor's College at that university). His last name was Tarkow, which so resembles the infinitive form of a Greek verb, that one day when he was late, we conjugated his name all over the chalkboard. There was great debate on whether or not to make him an irregular verb, but we never even considered the first question he asked when he saw it. What's the translation?</derail>

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 01:48 PM

No, the lack of belief in god(s) does not translate to belief in no god(s).
Yes it does. "No" is just as legitimate a translation of the Greek "a-" or "an-" prefix as "without". (In fact, "without" can be ambiguous since it can also mean "outside of", though that's getting to be a slightly archaic usage.) So are "lack of" or "not".

And atheism means just that: "without belief in god(s)".

Both usages are conventionally used. You can say it means "no/without (belief in god)" or "(no/without god) belief". Both the etymology and conventional usage supports this position.

Typically the former is considered "weak atheism" and the latter "strong atheism".

The answer I've been giving to the question T.A. asks has used both.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 02:09 PM

You're posting confused nonsense, presumably as a consequence of some unshakable need to pontificate on the TRUE!!11!! (ie false) meaning of the term atheism
Bull. And I am using both conventionally accepted usages of the term atheism.

Try interpreting atheism simply; i.e. without the erroneous complications that arise from references to the irrelevant term skepticism

The thing about language is that it works by convention. If you're going to make up your own meaning of a word, you can't expect to have decent communication. ETA: And surely you're not saying skepticism is irrelevant to a discussion of what kind of an organization JREF is?

ETA: Also, I never have defined atheism using the word skepticism. My answer to the question of this thread uses skepticism which is entirely relevant since JREF is an organization that promotes skepticism.

Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) (whose job it is to describe the conventional usages) says exactly what I've been saying:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
2a is "weak atheism" and 2b is "strong atheism". Either is an acceptable usage of the term. The one you offered is not.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 02:14 PM

Its[sic] all Greek to Joe
Is that supposed to be an insult? I'm sorry, I just can't feel threatened by an insult regarding my ability to understand words from someone who confuses "its" and "it's" and thinks you can "conflate" one thing.

laca

22nd November 2009, 03:28 PM

Yes it does. "No" is just as legitimate a translation of the Greek "a-" or "an-" prefix as "without". (In fact, "without" can be ambiguous since it can also mean "outside of", though that's getting to be a slightly archaic usage.) So are "lack of" or "not".

Nope, you're wrong. Even if you're right about what you said, all that does is to transform the question from "lack of belief does not translate to belief in no" to "no belief does not translate to belief in no". Which is still correct.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 03:45 PM

Nope, you're wrong.
Am not!

ETA: My bolding:
a-, an- +

(Greek: a prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)

Linky (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838/6/?spage=1&letter=).
Imagine that! The exact words I used that you claim are wrong.

And this site (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa052698.htm) gives:
"alpha privative", a negative
Which is actually more accurate. The words given as translations are really just glosses. The meaning is some form of a negative.

This site (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/18.htm) just gives:
* a- [an- before a vowel] not, un-, -less

There are literally hundreds of other such sources to support what I said.

So do you still think I'm wrong?

Even if you're right about what you said, all that does is to transform the question from "lack of belief does not translate to belief in no" to "no belief does not translate to belief in no". Which is still correct.

Again, both usages are conventional. I suggest you read up on strong vs. weak atheism.

ETA: Or at least look in a dictionary (see M-W entry above).

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 03:57 PM

uing this very point against a team of extremely clever apologetic theists. Because theism is a proposition based on faith, and faith means nothing to atheists, it's really important for theists to try to smear atheism with exactly the same flaws as religion - faith, belief without evidence, reaching a conclusion based on flawed evidence, that kind of thing.

I disagree. For one thing, you're restricting the definition of atheism to weak atheism. But even within weak atheism, I don't think it's merely the lack of belief. Do you consider a newborn baby to be an atheist? Do you consider a dog to be an atheist? (If so, on either example, it's surely not the same way a human adult is an atheist.)

I think that "lack of" is more like the provisional rejection or non-acceptance of the proposition, "A god or god exists."

I understand this can be a very passive thing. It's the same way I don't need to disprove or debunk a paranormal power. I merely note that there isn't sufficient evidence to provisionally accept the proposition that such a power exists.

Jono

22nd November 2009, 04:12 PM

Given that religions teach belief in nonsense and superstition, should it not be seen as the prime target for a skeptical organisation?

Well naturally at times the essential issues pertaining to religious belief is critiqued (I don't like the term 'attacked', because of its zealotry'esque sound).
Also, in my opinion there's plenty of beliefs about politics, history and so forth that are populary held (PC if you will) that I consider to be held as a result of poor critical thinking too, but that only means 'critical thinking' can be applied six ways from sunday. Critical thinking is indeed a good tool to not only shrug off nonsense and/or incoherent views, but also to be more open about many of the things atheists hold to be true and righteous. It's not just about obvious religious woo or pseudoscience. Ideally, it should be about possible reality over preferred dogma, independant of the stigma associated with given views/beliefs et al.

But as I said at the top, religious beliefs and more importantly the claims made by people based on them (Why people believe weird things) are pretty much what the organisation deals with. At least from what I've seen these past four, five years.

laca

22nd November 2009, 04:13 PM

Am not!

ETA: My bolding:

Linky (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838/6/?spage=1&letter=).
Imagine that! The exact words I used that you claim are wrong.

I'm not claiming your "words" are wrong. Your translation is. Lets see...

By your post, a- means "absence, lack of, without, etc.". So, atheism mean "absence, lack of, without" theism. Theism means "belief on god(s)". Hence, atheism means "absence, lack of, without belief in god(s)".

You're saying this is just like "belief in no god(s)". Which is what I'm having trouble accepting. Because it just does not follow.

There are literally hundreds of other such sources to support what I said.

So do you still think I'm wrong?

Yes, see above.

Again, both usages are conventional. I suggest you read up on strong vs. weak atheism.

ETA: Or at least look in a dictionary (see M-W entry above).

I know about weak vs. strong atheism. Strong atheism is belief in no god(s), weak atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Which is exactly why without belief in gods does not translate to belief in no gods: they are referring to two distinct concepts.

Dunstan

22nd November 2009, 04:19 PM

No, it's not an a priori position. It's safe to say as the result of my having read a great deal about supernatural claims of various religions. I have yet to see any credible evidence for these claims.

So even though you haven't examined the evidence for this particular claim, you think it's "safe to say" it's false, because you've rejected similar claims in the past. I'm not sure that there's any meaningful sense by which that's not an a priori position. None of us are blank slates, and we tend to approach any situation by drawing on seemingly similar situations we've encountered, so if that counts as "evidenced-based," then pretty much all positions are evidence-based and almost none are a priori.

From another thread, I have learned that Jung had that position. He believed that the Rhine experiments supported that position.

Well, but your second sentence demonstrates that Jung was basing his belief on (his interpretation of) the evidence.

Even though the evidence says otherwise, he nonetheless believed in ESP (and astrology and so on). In fact, pretty much everyone who believes in ESP holds that belief either regardless of or in spite of the evidence. That's what I mean by an a priori conclusion.

They're not exercising skepticism; they're not following the evidence. Instead, they're trying to "fix" the evidence to the conclusion (this is precisely what religious apologetics are too, but with regard to deductive rather than inductive reasoning). I mentioned Rhine, I could also mention Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz and many others. You can read how time and again they'll use all sorts of sloppy thinking to try to make the "evidence" appear to support their a priori position. It's abundantly obvious (especially in some cases) that there is nothing you could do--no demonstration, no test, no statistical analysis, no evidence whatsoever--that could get them to let go of their belief in ESP. This is the opposite of skepticism: believing or rejecting a provision (that is, holding a conclusion) regardless of or in spite of the evidence.

It looks to me like all you're saying is "people who disagree with my interpretation of the evidence are not simply drawing the wrong conclusions from the evidence, they are unwilling to follow evidence." That they're not just mistaken; they're acting in bad faith.

I don't really think that's the case. I think they genuinely believe that they are following the evidence, and they genuinely are just as willing to change their opinion in light of what they see as contrary evidence as any skeptic is. The difference is that they're not interpreting the evidence correctly.

I think that's more than a semantic difference. I think that when skeptics start preening about how they're willing to change their minds when the evidence dictates, the general public -- not just "woos," but the average non-skeptic -- rolls their eyes, because it's the equivalent of saying that you try to make correct decisions or try to be a good person. Everybody at least thinks that they do that, so it's not a distinguishing characteristic of skeptics. It makes skeptics look clueless and condescending in my opinion.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 04:56 PM

I disagree. For one thing, you're restricting the definition of atheism to weak atheism.I think that you're derailing this discussion by making irrelevant/erroneous posts that not only ignore but also blurr the distinction between the JREF organisation and it's (;)) staff/representatives

The periodic table omits Albinoni, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, etc. Does this imply that chemistry and/or chemists are amusical?

The Atheist

22nd November 2009, 05:02 PM

I disagree. For one thing, you're restricting the definition of atheism to weak atheism.

Wrong again, sorry.

Within the spectrum of not believing, there are those who believe there is not a god, along with those who don't care, but don't believe.

I think that "lack of" is more like the provisional rejection or non-acceptance of the proposition, "A god or god exists."

Repeating it won't make it right.

I understand this can be a very passive thing. It's the same way I don't need to disprove or debunk a paranormal power. I merely note that there isn't sufficient evidence to provisionally accept the proposition that such a power exists.

Funny how you can't see that same position with religion.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:12 PM

I'm not claiming your "words" are wrong. Your translation is.
Yes, I understand that, and I've already shown that you're wrong. My translation is correct. I cited several sources that show "no" or "not" or "negative" is just as good a gloss as "without".

Also "my" translation agrees with the conventional usage of the word and the dictionary. (That is, it's not my translation at all.)

You're saying this is just like "belief in no god(s)". Which is what I'm having trouble accepting. Because it just does not follow.
I'm not sure how better to explain it. It does follow, from the etymology, from the dictionary and from conventional usage.

Strong atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods. Weak atheism is the absence or lack of or rejection of the belief in a god or gods.

I'm not making this up.

I know about weak vs. strong atheism. Strong atheism is belief in no god(s), weak atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Which is exactly why without belief in gods does not translate to belief in no gods: they are referring to two distinct concepts.
Exactly! The same word--atheism--can be used to refer to two concepts. That's what I've been saying. (I have not been saying that the two concepts are the same or that they're interchangeable, if that's what you think.) My explanation for why JREF is not an atheist organization addresses both of them. (I've said this like 6 times so far.)

They're not all THAT different, though. (Merriam Webster considers them to be two variations of the same meaning, which is why they're numbered 2a and 2b rather than 2 and 3.)

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:19 PM

Wrong again, sorry.

Within the spectrum of not believing, there are those who believe there is not a god, along with those who don't care, but don't believe.
So do you believe a dog is an atheist? They don't believe and don't care.

Repeating it won't make it right.
Which is why I added in a list of cites to show that I'm right.

Funny how you can't see that same position with religion.
But I do, and that's exactly why I said that about paranormal powers! It was to show that I'm using the same argument wrt atheism. Even if it's passive, not accepting a proposition is a conclusion.

I agree with you that accepting either the proposition "There is no god or gods" (strong atheism) or rejecting the proposition, "A god or gods exist(s)" is the conclusion that skeptical thinking applied to the evidence leads to, but it is still a conclusion. JREF's goal is to promote the process and not the conclusion.

As I said, there can be people who are atheists but hold that conclusion for reasons other than critical thinking. So the same conclusion can be reached by skepticism and by stuff that is antithetical to skepticism.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd November 2009, 09:27 PM

I think that you're derailing this discussion by making irrelevant/erroneous posts that not only ignore but also blurr the distinction between the JREF organisation and it's (;)) staff/representatives
Nonsense.

I will repeat my answer one more time: the reason JREF is not an atheist organization is because JREF's goals are to promote critical thinking skills (skepticism) and not to promote conclusions.

Why do I say atheism is a conclusion?
Atheism is either acceptance of the proposition "No god or gods exist(s)" (strong atheism) or the rejection/non-acceptance of the proposition, "A god or gods exist(s)" (weak atheism).

JREF doesn't want people to accept or reject a proposition (that is, reach a conclusion) because they say so. Instead, they want to promote the critical thinking skills needed to reach those conclusions on your own.

Similarly, JREF doesn't want people to reject ESP because they say so. Instead, they want them to have the critical thinking skills to see where the evidence leads.

The reason, I suspect, that the emphasis of JREF is on non-religious paranormal claims goes back to the entry from the MDC FAQ I cited earlier: many religious claims are not falsifiable--at least by inductive reasoning. In fact, the existence of the Religion & Philosophy forum where members do frequently engage in discussions on this topic, IMO, shows that JREF doesn't shy away from the topic (or politics, history, art, etc.---all topics that skepticism and critical thinking skills can be applied to, as WhiteLion correctly stated already).

Skeptic Ginger

22nd November 2009, 09:29 PM

OK, so you've got nothing new then either. Same old stuff people have been churning for hundreds of years.
Just for the record, that isn't proof of anything.

As many here have already pointed out the existence of a God is unprovable as is the non existence of a God.Just as I predicted. You absolutely ignore what people post and go on your merry way. I have yet to have a discussion with you where you actually discuss what is said rather than completely dismiss/ignore it.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd November 2009, 09:31 PM

Skeptic Ginger

22nd November 2009, 09:33 PM

You should try it... you have nothing to lose but your delusions :)

This has echoes of the so-called 'war against terrortm

Atheism is NOT a 'fight against religion'I think you misconstrued Doubt's post. He never said atheism was a fight against religion. He merely stated a hypothetical analogy to make a point.

The Atheist

22nd November 2009, 09:37 PM

So do you believe a dog is an atheist? They don't believe and don't care.

Correct!

Dogs, babies, trees and rocks are all atheist - without god/s.

Simple, eh?

Which is why I added in a list of cites to show that I'm right.

No. You added cites which concur your opinion. They're as wrong as you are.

Why do I say atheism is a conclusion?

Because you enjoy being wrong?

A.A. Alfie

22nd November 2009, 09:40 PM

Just as I predicted. You absolutely ignore what people post and go on your merry way. I have yet to have a discussion with you where you actually discuss what is said rather than completely dismiss/ignore it.

Bzz. wrong
You said you had evidence. No?
I supposed, that given this "evidence" of yours, I could have put the question of god to bed once and for all. Sadly, you managed only to spout the usual arguments. Others have said all the way through that the existence and/or non existence of god is untestable, and I think that holds true in spite of your claims.

Oh, and btw, every time I have a discussion with you, you claim you have "evidence", but only provide .. well.., opinions.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 09:56 PM

My explanation for why JREF is not an atheist organization addresses both of them. (I've said this like 6 times so far.)

Why do I say atheism is a conclusion?
Atheism is either acceptance of the proposition "No god or gods exist(s)" (strong atheism) or the rejection/non-acceptance of the proposition, "A god or gods exist(s)" (weak atheism).You are one stubborn ass!

In the words of TA:Wrong again, sorry.

Repeating it won't make it right.You know that 'argument ad nauseaum' is bloody annoying, right?

Please, stop it!

dropzone

22nd November 2009, 09:57 PM

Wasn't the JREF founded to debunk paranormal claims? Unless religions makes specific, testable claims, there's nothing the JREF can do.Dude, I'm Evangelical Lutheran. Besides the total washout on the evangelizing part, after ten years I'm not clear how well we do with the "specific, testable claims" part. We're mostly just nice people offering a cup of coffee and a slice of pumpkin bread to strangers. We don't even do the "evangelical" part well; some newbie wrote an usher up with praise for being the first person to ask that she and her brood return next week. No matter how cute she was. :eek:

six7s

22nd November 2009, 10:03 PM

I think you misconstrued Doubt's post. He never said atheism was a fight against religion. He merely stated a hypothetical analogy to make a point.Thanks, skeptigirl, for pointing that out.

Sorry, Doubt

Skeptic Ginger

22nd November 2009, 10:12 PM

Can you give me a clear example of double-standard? I do not think there is one: All untestable claims cannot be tested. All testable ones can (and often are) tested. That is not a double-standard. That is just a fact of the universe.Well, considering we've had very long threads discussing the double standard, perhaps I should just dredge one up. This one has a pretty thorough discussion of the problem:

Taking a second look at untestable gods. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135594)

And I touched on the double standard issue in this thread as well as another I'm still looking for:

Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366)

In a nutshell, are you agnostic about the existence of fairies?
Do you find yourself clarifying the fact you cannot disprove the existence of fairies every time fairies come up in a discussion?
Do you mention, every time you discuss the theory of plate tectonics that we can't be certain of any conclusion because new evidence is always potentially going to emerge that changes your current conclusion?
And for what other woo do you find yourself excusing believers as relying on faith which is outside the realm of science?

While you focus on the untestable claims excuse for giving god believers a pass, you ignore the evidence gods are mythical beings. How many mythical gods does it take before you can conclude all gods are mythical? How many genome analyses does it take for you to conclude evolution theory applies to all life on Earth?

And most importantly of all, why can you not see my point? This is the one that ices the cake. Many skeptics cannot see the point I am making. They don't argue against my point, they don't see it. If you want to argue against my point, don't tell me about the scientific principle of uncertainty. I am well aware of it. Don't tell me about the scientific principle of not being able to prove some negatives. I'm well aware of that principle as well.

Tell me why you are not really agnostic about fairies or why you don't feel the need to point out ALL the things in the Universe one cannot disprove. Tell me why you can conclude all things are [X] when you've seen sufficient evidence while not checking each and every one of those [Xs], but you cannot as readily conclude all gods are mythical beings, when you have just as convincing evidence.

If science was truly atheistic, then all of the good scientists would only be atheists. But, that is clearly not the case: There are plenty of good scientists out there, who are not atheists.You have no trouble saying science is neutral. Are all scientists neutral? You yourself said gods claims are untestable therefore they are outside the realm of science.

My gripe with that position is that no god beliefs are truly without testable claims. The only untestable god claim is of a god which does not interact with the Universe or purposefully hides its tracks. Neither of those gods are gods as people define them. Deists have tried to define such a god. But the Deist god has one big logic flaw. No one should be aware of a Deist god. Once a Deist god makes its presence known, it no longer meets the definition of not interacting with the Universe.

The same goes for skepticism and critical thinkers, in general. There are plenty of good skeptics who are not atheists. That is not a double standard, as long as they understand that their faith is not in something that can be tested.This is a different problem. One can be a good skeptic generally, but not be a perfect skeptic. Faith based beliefs are by definition, not critical thought based beliefs. I find skeptics with god beliefs to merely have a blind spot for critical thinking when it comes to god beliefs.

Think about it. A few thousand years ago you might be defending people who were generally skeptical but who believed Zeus was real. How would such a person look today? Silly. That's how people who believe in the modern day version of the Zeus god are going to look in a few more thousand years, silly.

If JREF were to become an atheist organization, then all of its members would only be atheists. And, I think a few of its best members and staff members would be shoved out the door. (I am not going to name any names.) None of them have any double standards. They are all good at deducing what is testable and not, near as I can tell.I've never argued the JREf should be an atheist organization. There's plenty of room for skeptics with blind spots and what I said was I sincerely doubt there is a skeptic among us who is perfect (except me ;) ).

There is a difference between:
"Fairies do exist." and "This is a photo of a fairy."
And between
"God exists." and "Jesus gave me this tube of his tears when I was in a coma."

Same standards apply to one side vs. the other.Pick your imaginary being if the fairies analogy isn't cutting it for you. Invisible pink unicorns then....

six7s

22nd November 2009, 10:24 PM

A.A. Alfie

22nd November 2009, 10:54 PM

Please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)

My God?
Which is my God?
Whoever suggested I had a God. If anything I am probably best described as an agnostic. :boggled:
You clearly mistake my objections to your (and others) hate filled rantings as a personal belief?
This is another example of the typical "if you aren't for us, your against us" paranoia that infiltrates (nay overruns) small closed minds.

I will pray for you. :D

six7s

22nd November 2009, 11:01 PM

I supposed, that given this "evidence" of yours, I could have put the question of god to bed once and for all. Please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)My God?
Which is my God?
Whoever suggested I had a God. If anything I am probably best described as an agnostic. :boggled:
You clearly mistake my objections to your (and others) hate filled rantings as a personal belief?
This is another example of the typical "if you aren't for us, your against us" paranoia that infiltrates (nay overruns) small closed minds.

I will pray for you. :DOK

Calm down and try to respond to at least ONE of my posts without getting onto a hissy fit

Please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your ANY god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)

A.A. Alfie

22nd November 2009, 11:13 PM

OK

Calm down and try to respond to at least ONE of my posts without getting onto a hissy fit

Please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your ANY god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)

As I have already pointed out, I (and others in this thread alone) see the whole thing as untestable.
If you and/or SG can provide some new evidence I will gladly review it.

"Hissy fit". giggle.

six7s

22nd November 2009, 11:28 PM

As I have already pointed out, I (and others in this thread alone) see the whole thing as untestable. Fascinating...

Of course, it doesn't address my request...

Do you actually understand/remember what you meant when you said "put the question of god to bed once and for all"?

A.A. Alfie

22nd November 2009, 11:48 PM

Fascinating...

Of course, it doesn't address my request...

Do you actually understand/remember what you meant when you said "put the question of god to bed once and for all"?

Um, sure. I wrote it.
But why don't you tell me what I meant.:)

six7s

23rd November 2009, 12:05 AM

Um, sure. I wrote it.
But why don't you tell me what I meant.:)I have no IDEA what you meant

If you do, please do explain AND please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your ANY god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)

EverLastingGodStopper

23rd November 2009, 06:01 AM

I have no IDEA what you meant

If you do, please do explain AND please describe one (or more) of the factors that keeps your ANY god from sleeping like a very, very tired mammoth

TYIA :)

This is why JREF is "not an atheist organization."

JoeTheJuggler

23rd November 2009, 12:42 PM

Correct!

Dogs, babies, trees and rocks are all atheist - without god/s.

Simple, eh?
Simple doesn't mean correct. I think it's an abuse of the language to refer to rocks as atheists or atheist (the adjective). (That's like referring to a rock as a teetotaller because it doesn't drink alcohol, or claiming they're celibate because they don't have sex!)

Again, turning to Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

For a moment, though, let's say your definition of atheist is correct--that it means only "without gods." In that case, isn't JREF already an "atheist" organization? As an organization, it doesn't have any gods. (Unless you believe that RFT writer who said that it's a cult and members look to Randi as a deity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152304).)

No. You added cites which concur your opinion. They're as wrong as you are.
Just to make this clear: you're claiming that "no" or "not" or a general meaning of a negative is not a legitimate translation of the Greek prefix "a-" as in the term atheism?

I supplied several cites that concur with my opinion (and frankly, I didn't think even that was necessary since I assumed that was general knowledge among educated people). Yet you accuse me of being wrong and offer exactly nothing to back it up?

Because you enjoy being wrong?
The question you cited was directed to myself (as a stylistic device) in order to introduce the paragraph where I explained (yet again) why atheism is a conclusion in this context.

If all you're going to do is game play at saying "You're wrong", this discussion is pointless--sort of like trying to talk to a rock.

I've offered a consistent answer to your question. My answer takes into account the two broad definitions of atheism and matches well with the stated goals of JREF.

But all you can do is say I'm wrong and offer an unsubstantiated, extremely narrow definition atheism.

I notice you've not responded to the point I have repeatedly made that a person can be an atheist for reasons other than following the evidence and exercising good critical thinking skills. Do you think it's desirable to get people to become atheists for reasons other than following the evidence and exercising good critical thinking skills?

Anyway. . . I now take it you meant your question in the thread title to be rhetorical, since you're obviously not listening to the reasonable answers several people have given you. I take it what you really mean is to claim that JREF should be an atheist organization. (See above; in your hyper-narrow definition of atheism, JREF already is.) You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that it's not (using conventional definitions of atheism), and the reason it's not makes good sense.

For myself, I would not want JREF to promote conclusions as a part of the identity of the organization. If it did, it would be wide open to criticism for being dogmatic.