JREF a Gay Organization?

[dglas]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, the JREF should be a happy organization.

[hcmom]

Are you saying that Randi is dull and boring?

[Vic Vega]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[IMST]

This will make recruiting so much easier!

[Miss_Kitt]

Or, we could say, pointless--like the question.

I have never understood the fascination some people have with trying to position people's private lives as somehow relevent to their job duties. I neither know, nor care, what Phil Plait or James Randi's taste in music are; what colors they prefer; whether they are left- or right- handed; or what their ethnic heritage is. Such issues are immaterial to the JREF and its activities.

[jasonpatterson]

Is this a serious question? If it is, it's absurdly stupid, and if it's not, well, it's still absurdly stupid. Are you 9?

[sthomson]

Is this a serious question? If it is, it's absurdly stupid, and if it's not, well, it's still absurdly stupid. Are you 9?

I assume it's a joke, similar to all the people demanding to know if JREF is specifically an atheist organization because Randi is atheist.

[Doubt]

Is this a serious question? If it is, it's absurdly stupid, and if it's not, well, it's still absurdly stupid. Are you 9?

I think it is a parody of a thread about the JREF being an atheist organization thread.

[commandlinegamer]

Look, there's a difference between having to be a Nazi to join the Nazi Party and having to be a critical thinker to be in the JREF. Actually, maybe not. Oh well, Godwinned; let's have another thread.

[KoihimeNakamura]

dglas is starting this becuase of an argument over whether or not the JREF is an atheist organization, with people pointing out it was only asked about being atheist due to Randi.

[king catfish]

... the JREF a gay organization? ...


Doesn't make us bad people.:p

[Roma]

the JREF a gay organization? ...

do we all have to be gay too ?

can I just pretend to be gay when I post http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/innocent0009.gif (http://www.topsmileys.net)

[Cynic]

do we all have to be gay too ?

can I just pretend to be gay when I post http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/innocent0009.gif (http://www.topsmileys.net)

So far, so good. ;)

I take this thread as a joke related to the Is JREF an Atheist Organization thread as well.

[not daSkeptic]

This will make recruiting so much easier!

Have you got your toaster yet? :p

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, at least the whole population of San Francisco is gonna be with the JREF.

[godofpie]

do we all have to be gay too ?

can I just pretend to be gay when I post http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/innocent0009.gif (http://www.topsmileys.net)
I don't know. Can you lisp when you type?

[dasmiller]

So . .. if it's a gay organization, does that mean it's only attracted to other nonprofits?

[gnome]

...other non-profits of the same gender.

No more getting jiggy with the lady non-profits.

[dglas]

For those of you assuming the OP is a joke, it is not.

I am asking this question in dead earnest. There's a reason for it. There's a point to it.

Now that you know it is NOT a joke, here it is again.

"So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that."

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Darat]

I would say give it some time and if the sexuality of the JREF's president becomes a regular topic for attacking the work the JREF, if it is used in high profile media outlets to personally attack the character of the president and so on, then I would suspect that they will probably end up with a few blog entries mentioning that the sexuality of any member of the JREF has nothing to do with the work they do.

[Gawdzilla]

If we're gay these tacky drapes HAVE TO GO!

Redecorate squad, get on it! (No, no, no, not on him, on IT!)

[Geek Goddess]

For those of you assuming the OP is a joke, it is not.

I am asking this question in dead earnest. There's a reason for it. There's a point to it.

Now that you know it is NOT a joke, here it is again.

"So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that."

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

Right. And a policy statement that its not a male organization, or a perso-with-facial hair organization, or a short-men organization...

Demonstrate that you are posting in the JREF forums because you are interested in promoting skepticism, critical thinking, and science, rather than seeing what points you think you are score off of people.

[Darat]

By the way is the new president bloke gay?

If so then I would say that the opening post of this thread provides the evidence that at least some people will be willing to use his sexuality to try (in their minds at least) to "discredit" the JREF. It's a shame that such bigotry still exists and I hope it won't cause the JREF too much of a problem, it's akin to Randi's atheism; some people have tried to use that to "discredit" the JREF and what he has done (albeit that the discrimination faced by homosexuals is of a different type to that shown towards atheists even in societies like the USA).

[Shrike]

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

Can I keep my 'Dull day' settings for the forum?
On a more seriuos note: Was the JREF an astronomers organisation under Phil Plait?
Was the JREF a magicians organisation under James Randi?

Why don't you show some acuity and educate me about what would change if it was a gay organisation?

[gnome]

For those of you assuming the OP is a joke, it is not.

I am asking this question in dead earnest. There's a reason for it. There's a point to it.

Now that you know it is NOT a joke, here it is again.

"So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that."

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

Ok, you're asking it straight, I'll give a straight answer. No, and no. As GG said, does it seem to you we need policy statements confirming whether other characteristics of the president are shared by the organization?

I'll respond even more seriously. Why would you think that the sexual orientation of someone makes anything they become president of, an advocacy group for their orientation? Why is that a default assumption that needs confirmation or refutation?

[Lothian]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

.... I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...That is an absolutely incredible co-incidence. I had posted the exact same thing to my facebook status. I too got ‘interesting’ feedback.

46 % said I was a homophobic jerk. 38% said I was a ignorant cretin and the reminder said I obviously had sexuality issues that would be sorted once I lost my virginity.

[Gawdzilla]

Why would you think that the sexual orientation of someone makes anything they become president of, an advocacy group for their orientation? Why is that a default assumption that needs confirmation or refutation?
Oh! Oh! I know that one, I know!

Ahem. If one were seeking to give another excuse to nutcases to hate JREF, then one way would be to suggest that it's "controlled by gays". Once the meme is out there, it will have a life of its own.

Attempted sabotage, in other words.

[philkensebben]

Can I keep my 'Dull day' settings for the forum?
On a more seriuos note: Was the JREF an astronomers organisation under Phil Plait?
Was the JREF a magicians organisation under James Randi?

Why don't you show some acuity and educate me about what would change if it was a gay organisation?

We'd all have better fashion sense?

[Alan]

By the way is the new president bloke gay?

He is gay, yes. From an article he co-wrote:
One of us (DJ Grothe) had more of a problem with his family when he "came out" as a nonbeliever than when he came out as gay years previously.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/grothe-dacey_24_2.htm

He also mentioned it in passing on the episode of Point of Inquiry (a podcast that he hosts) that I listened to today. The episode is called "Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism" (and perhaps other episodes but that was the first time I've listened).

[Cayvmann]

I think the JREF is simply FAAAABULOUSSS!!!

But not in a gay way or anything...

[zooterkin]

Ah, now I understand the motivation behind this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161424). It's part of the new membership qualifications.

[Ysidro]

Not gay, just merry. Oh wait, I thought we were talking about JEFF!

[Alan]

I would like to get a confirmation or denial about whether the JREF will become an organisation for people whose last names begin with a "G". I, for one, am furious about this possibility.

Oh dear, I have to take a nap to calm down now.

[Hokulele]

JREF is an organization that supports critical thinking. If various members of that organization and this forum choose to use critical thinking to promote a heterophobic agenda, that is simply a personal issue. Please note, I am referring to "normal" members, not staff.

[Shrike]

I would like to get a confirmation or denial about whether the JREF will become an organisation for people who like dance music. Come on, the president's name is DJ Grothe. I, for one, am furious about this possibility.

[Oliver]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...



First of all: Why do you hate gay people? :confused:

[not daSkeptic]

I would like to get a confirmation or denial about whether the JREF will become an organisation for people who like dance music. Come on, the president's name is DJ Grothe. I, for one, am furious about this possibility.

I suppose it depends on the exact form of dance music in question. Some good Trance with a solid, futuristic-sounding anthem I find to be rather uplifting. And Big Band is sometimes thought to fall within the dance category -- that's not too bad either. But I'm not really into Drum & Bass, and Happy House generally makes me want to choke cute little bunny rabbits with pink cotton-candy rays of sunshine.

[Shrike]

I suppose it depends on the exact form of dance music in question. Some good Trance with a solid, futuristic-sounding anthem I find to be rather uplifting. And Big Band is sometimes thought to fall within the dance category -- that's not too bad either. But I'm not really into Drum & Bass, and Happy House generally makes me want to choke cute little bunny rabbits with pink cotton-candy rays of sunshine.

See my avatar :D

<----------

[Symbol]

I once worked for a company where the President was from the Netherlands.

I slaved for this damn organization for years and I still don't have a Dutch passport.

[Shrike]

nm

[The Shrike]

Sorry to potentially confuse folks by posting right after "Shrike" (we're two different individuals who apparently share a penchant for butcherbirds), but this thread is pretty astounding to me. For one it creeps me out that evil bigots are out there apparently keeping watch on gay people to make sure they don't gain too much power or something. How else could we explain the OPer even knowing that Groethe is gay? Either DJ is on some kind of homophobe watchlist or this guy is a huge fan of DJ's. I smell the former. I'm a regular listener of Point of Inquiry and had no idea DJ was gay - not even any "gaydar" suspicions.

But what does it matter anyway? If he was straight would we be having a question about whether or not the JREF is a straight organization?

[Cynic]

That was a serious question? Resigning from thread in 3....2...1...

[Shrike]

(we're two different individuals who apparently share a penchant for butcherbirds)

Actually, my name comes from the Hyperion books, where The Shrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shrike) is the monster and anti-hero of the novel. It is known for impaling people on a massive tree made of metal, whose branches are massive thorns. It is named after the "Shrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrike)" bird which impales insects and small animals on the thorns of a tree.
(wikipedia)

[kuroyume0161]

I don't know. Can you lisp when you type?

I can type LISP. Does that count? :boxedin:

[I Ratant]

"Lively and friendly" doesn't mean "gay"... except in the sewers, where there's little life and nothing friendly.. especially those alligators!

[Darth Rotor]

1. Suspect OP has not yet won powerball.
2. The Foundation, and what it is, are easily derived from its (on record) documents.
3. One cannot stop people from being jerks if they wish to denigrate or defame the JREF
4. DJG has doubtless spent enough time running into similarly phrased stabs, and developing ripostes, that I doubt he'll be baited into doing anything against the JREF's interests while serving as president when such rhetorical feces is flung at JREF.
5. If the various detractors of JREF persist in attempting to disparage JREF due to one, ten, or a hundred members being gay, I suggest the JREF sic TragicMonkey on them: his ability to ideate horrific and bloody deaths makes Steven King look like See Spot Run's author.
6. There is no G in JREF. ;)

DR

[FenerFan]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...

Just for clarification, do you mean like Rob Halford kind of gay or like Boy George kind of gay?
Halford rocks, but George...:rolleyes:

[Shrike]

5. If the various detractors of JREF persist in attempting to disparage JREF due to one, ten, or a hundred members being gay, I suggest the JREF sic TragicMonkey on them: his ability to ideate horrific and bloody deaths makes Steven King look like See Spot Run's author.

I like your thinking!

[Alan]

Some posts dglas has made in other threads (on the first page of posts when you click to show more of dglas's posts) clarify what this thread is about:
Is the JREF a women's organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not a women's organization.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not a gay rights organization.

Is the JREF an <insert race here> organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not an <insert race here> organization.

The explicit statement that the JREF is not an atheist organization is unneeded, singles out for special exclusion, and only draws attention to an artificial distancing of the JREF from atheism. There is no legitimate reason for this statement. One wonders what the reasons for making this special distinction are; what audience is the statement directed at.
The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

...but, very well, I am asking now...

Mr. Randi,

Is the JREF a theist organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization?
Is the JREF a gays organization?
is the JREF an <insert racial group> organization?

Surely there will be no problem with expressly stating, publicly, in precisely the same manner it was expressed that the JREF was not an atheist organization, that the JREF is none of these, yes? And right now, I AM presuming that the JREF is a theistic organization, specifically because it has gone to special public effort to distance itself specifically from atheism.
So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization?

There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto.

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at gays and publicly proclaim it is not a gay rights organization?
Is the JREF a black organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at blacks and publicly proclaim it is not a black organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at women and publicly proclaim it is not a womens organization?
Pick any other examples you care to.

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.

I would say the JREF should not claim it is an atheist organization (and I call myself an anti-theist), but by precisely the same token I would say the JREF should not take special pains to claim it is not an atheist organization. That's exclusionary, indeed discriminatory, and is a significant part of the reason I let my membership in the JREF lapse and only pop in once in a while to see if anyone has learned anything yet.

Not yet. The deists and theists are still poisoning the ear.

I'll check in again in another 6 months or so, maybe.

[Davidlpf]

So Tobias will fit right in.

[Davidlpf]

As long it promotes skepticism I do not really care who is charge.

[JihadJane]

Or, we could say, pointless--like the question.

I have never understood the fascination some people have with trying to position people's private lives as somehow relevent to their job duties. I neither know, nor care, what Phil Plait or James Randi's taste in music are; what colors they prefer; whether they are left- or right- handed; or what their ethnic heritage is. Such issues are immaterial to the JREF and its activities.


Don't you care about Randi's beard, just a little bit?

[SonOfLaertes]

Some posts dglas has made in other threads (on the first page of posts when you click to show more of dglas's posts) clarify what this thread is about:

dglas, do you belong to any Venusian Hedonistic organizations? If not, you should put a statement out specifically denying any such involvement.

[quarky]

Posting on the internet is gay.

[MattusMaximus]

For those of you assuming the OP is a joke, it is not.

I am asking this question in dead earnest. There's a reason for it. There's a point to it.

Now that you know it is NOT a joke, here it is again.

"So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that."

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774749fe3d4290b22.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16214)

[I Ratant]

Posting on the internet is gay.
.
Oh, you silly!
Stop that!

[kuroyume0161]

It is obvious that the JREF is an older, balding, white-haired, short guy organization because, well, just look at the owner... :o

There must be a fallacy for the ridiculous argument of the OP.

[Bill Thompson]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...

You mean like a country club?

I don't understand. How is an organization gay unless it excludes straight people?

What does the person becoming president make something a gay organization? Is he gay? Is the USA now a black country?

[arthwollipot]

By the way is the new president bloke gay?Yes.

He also mentioned it in passing on the episode of Point of Inquiry (a podcast that he hosts) that I listened to today. The episode is called "Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism" (and perhaps other episodes but that was the first time I've listened).And also in episode (mumble) of the Nonsense Podcast, where I asked him whether he receives any less homophobia or discrimination from skeptics as he does from non-skeptics.

The answer, unfortunately, was no. In fact he told me about a situation where he was one of several men in a group at TAM7 and he accidentally touched someone (he didn't say who) on the shoulder, who recoiled and said "don't touch me".

[dglas]

Thank you, Alan, for posting the relevant material.

The evidence is in, and it is quite similar to what I found on Facebook.

It is interesting that some people think I'm a homophobe now, and have explicitly attacked me on those grounds. This proves the point I have been trying to make since the JREF issued that discriminatory "The JREF is not an atheist organization" public disclaimer.

This thread was a test to see if anyone would take the call for a statement akin to "The JREF is not a gay organization" as being an example of something arising from homophobia or bigotry, as opposed to being just a simple declaration of a trivial truth. Would anyone read malicious intent in my requirement? More than a few have, it seems. So much for the idiot arguments I have been hearing that such exclusionary statement are just expressions of trivial truths.

The thread has been successful in this regard, using merely a simple substitution. Those who ascribed homophobia or bigotry to me prove the point that the JREF's statement "The JREF is not an atheist organization" is, in fact, a phobic and bigoted statement that arises from a bias against atheists quite akin to prejudice - which is what I have been saying since that prejudiced statement was issued.

It is truly and profoundly sad that I actually had to take this method to prove this point, but deliberately obtuse, reflexively defensive, persons persist in trying to pretend there is no discrimination against atheists in the JREF's public policy declaration. After this thread, it must be clear, even to the deliberately obtuse, that there is. Unfortunately, the vaunted ability to learn of some so-called skeptics in dubious at best.

If anyone is still confused allow me to quote Darat:

"If so then I would say that the opening post of this thread provides the evidence that at least some people will be willing to use his sexuality to try (in their minds at least) to "discredit" the JREF. It's a shame that such bigotry still exists and I hope it won't cause the JREF too much of a problem, it's akin to Randi's atheism; some people have tried to use that to "discredit" the JREF and what he has done (albeit that the discrimination faced by homosexuals is of a different type to that shown towards atheists even in societies like the USA)."

It is, indeed a shame that such bigotry still exists, but more so is the shame that the JREF, as an organization, is an active participant and complicitor in such bigotry.

Worst still are the atheists permitting themselves to be treated in this manner. If you won't even stand up for yourselves, who will?

So, here's the question I have for all of you, including Randi and D.J. Grothe (and my more virulent attackers): Are you still able to learn, or has your grey matter hardened so thoroughly? Can you recognize prejudice when the evidence for it is provided to you - as it has been in this thread? You can no longer bury your head in the sand and pretend the JREF declaration that it is not an atheist organization is a simple expression of some trivial truth, without content directed at atheists.

What is the proper response when someone tries to discredit an organization in the way Darat describes? Is it to issue statements designed to appease them, and in the process, effectively vilify this or that group?

It is not the case that I am attempting to discredit the JREF. It is the case that the JREF is discrediting itself by publicly issuing discriminatory and exclusionary statements. There are no justifications for the JREF issuing an anti-atheist statement such as it has. There are contrived excuses, and spurious defenses, but no legitimate justifications. It is time to publicly retract this prejudicial statement.

[dglas]

It is obvious that the JREF is an older, balding, white-haired, short guy organization because, well, just look at the owner... :o

There must be a fallacy for the ridiculous argument of the OP.

There absolutely is, and I have been trying to point it out since the JREF issued that hateful statement: "The JREF is not an atheist organization." It is profoundly sad that it took such a pointed parody to prove it, since the people committing the tragic error could not be reasoned with - their minds closed to any discussion.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the people, enlightened and sensitive to issues of discrimination, could not be caused to see the tragic error they were making.

I am not saying the JREF should decree itself an atheist organization. I am saying the JREF should not specifically point at atheists and loudly proclaim, "Not us!" This is what it has done.

People in this thread exhibited the ability to recognize prejudicial thinking when the subject matter was homosexuals, and yet are perfectly, perhaps deliberately, oblivious when the subject matter is atheists.

That suggests the lesson hasn't been learned at all.

[arthwollipot]

Oh, so the whole point was an extended exercise in "gotcha"?

[I Ratant]

Oh, so the whole point was an extended exercise in "gotcha"?
.
Yes, but in a good sense.

[dglas]

Right. And a policy statement that its not a male organization, or a perso-with-facial hair organization, or a short-men organization...

Demonstrate that you are posting in the JREF forums because you are interested in promoting skepticism, critical thinking, and science, rather than seeing what points you think you are score off of people.

And yet you think it is defensible to issue a policy statement that it is not an atheist organization. Please do feel free to get back to me when you have made up your mind.

I am very interested in promoting skepticism, critical thinking and science. You are failing, deliberately or otherwise, to recognize it. There is a point to this exercise, and it is not to score points. It is to demonstrate an error and hopefully see it dealt with.

That you are oblivious to the error, and wield unthinking assumptions and mischaracterizations as a smoke screen for your obliviousness, is your failure, not mine.

[I Ratant]

Skepticism can lead to atheism.
Or anti-paranormalism.
Or anti-scientific-scamism.
There's many directions skepticism can lead a person.
This site does that, provides a forum to discuss all manner of woo.
Religions are a subset of woo, but not the only such.

[dglas]

Oh, so the whole point was an extended exercise in "gotcha"?

If you think the whole point of this was an extended exercise in "gotcha" then you truly have completely and utterly missed the point.

Think of the risk I've taken here. There are now a number of people who think I am a homophobe (for the record, I am not), but that perception will persist, especially when unfortunate persons try to obfuscate the point with accusatory fluff and nonsense, or dismissively disregard it as some ploy or another, without content or reason.

I have been consistently saying the same thing since that discriminatory public declaration was made. There's a "paper trail." This is not some instance of trolling without a purpose or just to get a reaction. Unfortunately, trying to present the point in simple argument form just brought out the trolls, hard-headed bickerers, and comic-wannabes.

Seems to me I recall someone you may have heard of fooling almost an entire nation in order to make a point about the gullibility of people. Someone named Randi, if memory serves me right. Was that just an extended game of "gotcha?"

[arthwollipot]

...that discriminatory public declaration...Here's where I lose you (and obviously, your entire point). The JREF makes a statement that theists are not excluded, and this is somehow discriminatory? How does that work?

ETA: Yes yes, I read your bolded statement above. And I still don't get it.

[Alan]

Yes.

And also in episode (mumble) of the Nonsense Podcast, where I asked him whether he receives any less homophobia or discrimination from skeptics as he does from non-skeptics.

The answer, unfortunately, was no. In fact he told me about a situation where he was one of several men in a group at TAM7 and he accidentally touched someone (he didn't say who) on the shoulder, who recoiled and said "don't touch me".
I think it was episode 8.

Saying "don't touch me" could have nothing to do with homophobia whatsoever. Perhaps the person was an aspie? Or valued his personal space?

[popscythe]

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.

Overly emphatic for this exact usage? Perhaps.
Valuable to the forum as a whole? Definitely.

[arthwollipot]

I think it was episode 8.

Saying "don't touch me" could have nothing to do with homophobia whatsoever. Perhaps the person was an aspie? Or valued his personal space?It's entirely possible, but it's certainly not the impression DJ got, and he was the one who was there.

[Belz...]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

So... he's a guy, right ? Does that make the JREF a guy organisation ?

[Belz...]

Thank you, Alan, for posting the relevant material.

The evidence is in, and it is quite similar to what I found on Facebook.

It is interesting that some people think I'm a homophobe now, and have explicitly attacked me on those grounds. This proves the point I have been trying to make since the JREF issued that discriminatory "The JREF is not an atheist organization" public disclaimer.

This thread was a test

Well, you might not be a homophobe but you seem to be a troll, however.

[dasmiller]

And yet you think it is defensible to issue a policy statement that it is not an atheist organization.

I remember buying Snyders pretzels. It was Snyders of Berlin, and the bag had a big notice that said "Not associated with Snyders of Hannover." They didn't feel the urge to add "Not associated with Campbell's Soups" and "Not associated with Frito-Lay" etc etc, and yet, I didn't think that their uneven lack-of-association notice implied either a condemnation of Snyders of Hannover or a connection to Campbells. They were simply clarifying a common point of confusion.

And so it is here. I can understand why many would assume that JREF is an atheist organization, so it makes sense to be clear that it's not. I can't see why many would assume that it's a gay organization, or a feminist organization, etc, hence the lack of comparable policy statements.

[LostAngeles]

I think it was episode 8.

Saying "don't touch me" could have nothing to do with homophobia whatsoever. Perhaps the person was an aspie? Or valued his personal space?

I vaguely remember making this same drunken arguement to DJ Grothe at TAM. I was drunk enough that I didn't realize that the DJ Grothe I was talking to was DJ Grothe of CFI and more than likely knows the person (and can rule the other things out) until a few days later. At the bar, I kind of let it go, I think, and we moved on.

I feel like an ass because I vaguely remember being really argumentative on this.

On the other hand, I was really drunk and my memory from that night is pretty piecemeal.

[MattusMaximus]

Yes.

And also in episode (mumble) of the Nonsense Podcast, where I asked him whether he receives any less homophobia or discrimination from skeptics as he does from non-skeptics.

The answer, unfortunately, was no. In fact he told me about a situation where he was one of several men in a group at TAM7 and he accidentally touched someone (he didn't say who) on the shoulder, who recoiled and said "don't touch me".

That's sad. DJ is a great guy. I'd gladly hang out with him any day of the week.

[arthwollipot]

That's sad. DJ is a great guy. I'd gladly hang out with him any day of the week.Absolutely. I found Phil to be a little... standoffish, but DJ was awesome.

[Cavemonster]

Don't you care about Randi's beard, just a little bit?

Why isn't the JREF a bearded organization?

[Alan]

I guess that I tried to come up with other possible explanations to avoid being angry about homophobia. I didn't know that they knew each other, and I didn't mean to imply that I knew more about the situation than anyone who was involved.

[LostAngeles]

I guess that I tried to come up with other possible explanations to avoid being angry about homophobia. I didn't know that they knew each other, and I didn't mean to imply that I knew more about the situation than anyone who was involved.

No, that's completely valid. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that I had asked him that in a dickish way and I'm a dick for it, but I got the impression that he knew enough to rule those out.

[dglas]

Here's where I lose you (and obviously, your entire point). The JREF makes a statement that theists are not excluded, and this is somehow discriminatory? How does that work?

ETA: Yes yes, I read your bolded statement above. And I still don't get it.

That is not what the statement says. That may be how some people are depicting it, but that is not what it says. Is the only way theists can be included to pont at atheists for special dissociation? If so, who is determining this? Are there no ways to include everyone? Could not the language included theists without excluding atheists? I can think of several examples that do, and I have presented several.

Here's one from Alan quoting me earlier: "Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

Several of us non-believer sorts were delighted to hear President Obama include non-believers in his vision of the citizenry. This seemed significant for some reason, perhaps because it was inclusive - and it included us non-believers (I will admit I am a Canadian, but I still found it refreshing). For me that was worth the price of admission alone. To be included and not singled out for exclusion, not treated as if we somehow brought the discussion down just being mentioned.

The people who were asking if the JREF is an atheist organization were looking precisely for an exclusion statement. Otherwise, there would have been no motivation for making it. And Randi pandered to them, appeasing their prejudices against us with a statement that only talks about one group and with "not us" wording. It was a terrible mistake by Randi; it included theists in the conversation about the organization and told atheists there was no room at the table for us.

This is not about whether the JREF is an exclusively atheist organization (that trivial truth that so many justifications are leaning on), but whether the atheist presence is a legitimate feature of the JREF. Those "asking the questions" wanted to separate the JREF from its atheist contingent at a mission statement level, one specific group independent of the mission of the JREF - and the JREF complied. This is the stuff of which discrimination and systemic bigotry is built.

Imagine for an instant, if Randi had said that the JREF is not a theist organization. Can you imagine the uproar? Do you honestly think theists will be thinking, "Oh, well, that's trivially true. It doesn't mean anything." By the same token, the JREF could publicly claim, like this thread suggested, that it is not a gay organization. Again trivially true, but will people take it that way? Not bloody likely. Look at the vitriol I have received in this thread, accusations of homophobia included, and you will see that such statements are not just about trivial truths.

You know that the same kinds of people, seeking special exclusions of atheists in the text of the JREF, are eventually going to learn that Mr. Grothe is gay. They will, and theists are, after all, notorious for their intolerance of homosexuality. When they start demanding public statements, distancing the JREF from homosexuals, like the one I put forward (to make a point) in the OP, what will you say then? Will you understand then? If so, then why the difficulty understanding now? Is it merely that it is acceptable to discriminate against atheists? That we permit ourselves to be run roughshod over?

[Cavemonster]

dglas,
I think you're taking an accident of wording and drawing it out into a complex philosophy.

[dglas]

Well, you might not be a homophobe but you seem to be a troll, however.

Well, if that's your impression, I doubt very much if I can sway you from it. Is this a failing on my part or on yours?

I will say that if this thread makes me a troll, then everyone on these forums is a troll. Everyone on here is discussing something...

I think you need a more useful definition of troll, but that's another topic, perhaps for another time.

[Cynic]

Ok, I peeked.

Dglas, if all that was put up there were the words "JREF is not an atheist organization", then I agree, it could have been worded better. That said, don't jerk people around -- people don't like being jerked around.

[bpesta22]

If DJ simulates oral sex and kisses a man at the next tam, perhaps.

[Marquis de Carabas]

In fact he told me about a situation where he was one of several men in a group at TAM7 and he accidentally touched someone (he didn't say who) on the shoulder, who recoiled and said "don't touch me".
That was me. I didn't say it because he's gay, though, but because he's not rustypouch.

[Doubt]

It is not the case that I am attempting to discredit the JREF. It is the case that the JREF is discrediting itself by publicly issuing discriminatory and exclusionary statements. There are no justifications for the JREF issuing an anti-atheist statement such as it has. There are contrived excuses, and spurious defenses, but no legitimate justifications. It is time to publicly retract this prejudicial statement.

FAIL!

Sorry, but the only way you can see the JREF statement about not being an atheist organization as anti-atheist is if you choose to see the world in a black and white context. That would be if the JREF is not an atheist organization than it is anti-atheist. Fortunately, the world does not fit into those boxes you have selected for it. Not being an atheist organization does not imply the opposite to a normal thinking adult. You have chosen an interpretation that is not what the JREF intended and not what the average person reading it would take it to mean.

This was a stupid stunt on your part based on a flawed assumption.

[arthwollipot]

dglas, I'm only going to single out a few of your statements for comment, because quite frankly I think your entire position is paranoid and hysterical. Be that as it may, you have made a few notable points that I would like to reply to.

It was a terrible mistake by Randi; it included theists in the conversation about the organization and told atheists there was no room at the table for us.See, here's where you and I disconnect. By saying that the JREF is not an atheist organisation is a comment about the type of organisation the JREF is and is not, not about who is included and excluded. Is the JREF an atheist organisation? No, it isn't. Not like the American Atheists is. It is a skeptical organisation, which promotes science education and critical thinking. Many atheists happen to be members, because skepticism and atheism overlap to a certain extent, but the JREF is not an atheist organisation. It is a skeptical organisation.

If I say "The JREF is not a men's club", does that mean that men are not welcome? No. It does not. It is simply a statement that the JREF is not that type of organisation. There are atheist organisations. The JREF is not one of them. It doesn't exist to promote atheism, or host atheist conferences, or publish atheist apologetics. Atheism is not what is in its mission statement.

This is not about whether the JREF is an exclusively atheist organization (that trivial truth that so many justifications are leaning on), but whether the atheist presence is a legitimate feature of the JREF.No, it's not about that at all. And it is quite honestly way beyond my ken to see how you can possibly interpret it in that way.

...That we permit ourselves to be run roughshod over?I don't want to be seen to be making ad-homs here, but it very much seems to me like you want to be run roughshod over (down, Marquis!). You seem to have this victim complex - you have taken a statement about the type of organisation the JREF is and is not, and interpreted it as a personal attack against atheists! No, the JREF is not an atheist organisation. Nor is it a gay organisation. It also isn't a beard organisation, a male organisation, or a stamp-collecting organisation. It is a skeptical organisation, and anyone with a mind for science and critical thinking is welcome.

[popscythe]

"Hey thread, how you doin'?"
"Pretty good, I've landed some lunkers today!"
"Well, keep up the good work, I suppose."
"Have a good'n!"
-My conversation with the thread, on the banks of the river in which it was trolling

[ravdin]

Aw, crap. I guess I'll have to go to the leather bar and find myself a date!

[gnome]

Dglas: Please read dasmiller's post carefully.

I remember buying Snyders pretzels. It was Snyders of Berlin, and the bag had a big notice that said "Not associated with Snyders of Hannover." They didn't feel the urge to add "Not associated with Campbell's Soups" and "Not associated with Frito-Lay" etc etc, and yet, I didn't think that their uneven lack-of-association notice implied either a condemnation of Snyders of Hannover or a connection to Campbells. They were simply clarifying a common point of confusion.

And so it is here. I can understand why many would assume that JREF is an atheist organization, so it makes sense to be clear that it's not. I can't see why many would assume that it's a gay organization, or a feminist organization, etc, hence the lack of comparable policy statements.

This is what you have missed with your attempted analogy.

[dglas]

dglas,
I think you're taking an accident of wording and drawing it out into a complex philosophy.

An "accident of wording." You think the wording is accidental? Really?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yees. Let me put this in context

A foundation named after an atheist ( James Randi ) with a forum full of mostly atheists and ran by an atheist is verrry unlikely to be discriminatory against atheists.

Evidence to the contrary cannot be a weird interpretation of a sentence - it's not even really much of a basis for a weak claim

[Alan]

An "accident of wording." You think the wording is accidental? Really?
Do you think that James Randi doesn't like atheists?

[zooterkin]

An "accident of wording." You think the wording is accidental? Really?

Do you not see the difference between "not an atheist organisation" and "an organisation which does not welcome atheists"? You appear to be taking the former to mean the latter.

[JihadJane]

Skepticism can lead to atheism.
Or anti-paranormalism.
Or anti-scientific-scamism.
There's many directions skepticism can lead a person.
This site does that, provides a forum to discuss all manner of woo.
Religions are a subset of woo, but not the only such.


How does the wielding of demeaning, excluding baby language fit into JREF’s warm embrace of theists et al?

[dglas]

Ok, I peeked.

Dglas, if all that was put up there were the words "JREF is not an atheist organization", then I agree, it could have been worded better. That said, don't jerk people around -- people don't like being jerked around.

Do you see the people in this thread who are doing everything except addressing the point? This is something that, as you probably noted, has been the knee-jerk response in previous threads to me as well. Some think they are being clever, and aren't. Some clearly have the defending the faith mentality, but think they don't. Some are just reflexively defensive, unheeding of what they are defending. One wonders what it would take to cause an idea to seep into the hardened grey matter - and then, when someone does something to try to make a point - because every other way of making the point has fallen on deliberately deaf ears - it is then dismissed as "jerking people around, or playing a game of "gotcha."

In short order, I am actually going to have to accuse Doubt of being unable, or unwilling, to read. Why? Because in a recent post he ignores the evidence in this thread, just so he can mindlessly spew the word "FAIL." Anything, anything at all, but actually consider the point. Meanwhile, Arthwollipot seems to be in dire need of reminding about verified public opinions towards atheists - is it possible he is unaware of this? It would seem unlikely, but he's clutching at straws - even resorting to the Unrelentingly Stupid tactic of spouting "paranoid!" Anything, anything at all but actually consider the point. You, and a few others, want to depict this thread as a mere exercise in trollish games of "gotcha." Anything, anything at all except actually considering the point. Others try to disingenuously obfuscate and derail the topic with mindless quips and jokes. Anything, anything at all but actually consider the point. I won't even go into the known "bait and report troll" responding in this thread.

I created a thread where evidence for interpretation of exclusionary statements could be presented, and my detractors and attackers were only too willing to provide it for me. Well, I'm now pointing at the responses as evidence. And the modern "skeptics" still refuse to even consider the point. Anything, anything at all...

It's almost as if critical faculties have been ground to dust by reflexive entrenchment. I feel like I'm among zombies here. Is this the future of skepticism? People unwilling or incapable of even considering alternative viewpoints? Is the vision of skepticism just people who can wield finely honed, skeptical tools of argumentation (or even worse, dishonesty in the name of skepticism) to barricade indefensible entrenchment? Whatever happened to skepticism as a way of thinking permitting one to learn and grow? There is precious little evidence of it in the accusations and vilifying I've received in this thread.

How can one hope to combat the tools and weapons of bigotry if one refuses, dogmatically, to recognize them - even when we've seen the same tools used in recent history with respect to other groups, and the evidence is put before your faces with a simple substitution? We recognize them sometimes, when we feel like it, but not others, as if what matters most is who is being targeted. Talk about missing the point and refusing to learn anything.

Before you accuse me of jerking people around, you might want to consider that I tried to use other methods to hold this discussion, only to be jerked around by others wielding specious nonsense. What does it take? Apparently, it takes this - probably more...

[dglas]

FAIL!

Sorry, but the only way you can see the JREF statement about not being an atheist organization as anti-atheist is if you choose to see the world in a black and white context. That would be if the JREF is not an atheist organization than it is anti-atheist. Fortunately, the world does not fit into those boxes you have selected for it. Not being an atheist organization does not imply the opposite to a normal thinking adult. You have chosen an interpretation that is not what the JREF intended and not what the average person reading it would take it to mean.

This was a stupid stunt on your part based on a flawed assumption.

Please tell me you rehearsed the delivery of this in front of mirror for few hours. I'd like to think you got a full measure of smug satisfaction from spewing the internet meme, "FAIL!" It's the malicious little pleasures that count, right? Are you sure there isn't a picture you wanted to post with it?

As promised earlier....

Are you incapable of reading or just unwilling? The average person does understand negative, exclusionary language. The evidence is there; you just refuse to look at it. I invite you to try again.

Dawkins was definitely on target about needing to develop consciousness raising within the atheist community.

[dglas]

Do you think that James Randi doesn't like atheists?

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations. Some theists and deists near to him have convinced him that the best way to get more money is to tactically distance his organization from an unpopular and reviled group. This is based on arguments I have heard put forward about how to get theistic people to donate to the organization. Donors, of course, want their interests recognized...

One would hate to think the JREF will be accepting donation from Sylvia Browne, in exchange for certain clarifications of policy.

But this is a separate (although related) issue.

Really, do you think this exercise, the JREF, is about who James Randi does not like? Granted there's a history with some other skeptical organizations that suggest he may be prone to such things, but I do not think this is the case in this instance. I, personally, would like to think that any organization referring to itself as advocating skeptical inquiry would be about that, rather than who someone does or does not like. How about you?

[dglas]

As promised...

Arthwollipot. May I remind you of the verifiable (and verified!) public sentiment towards atheists, since you seemingly, have forgotten about that? Please feel free to Google "atheist public opinion." You needed to be reminded of this?

I wonder how many other discredited and publicly reviled groups have had to put up with accusations of paranoia for expressing concern about being discredited in the language of the day. Just about every one, I suspect. I will give that childish "paranoia" ploy no further credit. It is a Unrelentingly Stupid tactic unworthy of an honest individual.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations. Some theists and deists near to him have convinced him that the best way to get more money is to tactically distance his organization from an unpopular and reviled group. This is based on arguments I have heard put forward about how to get theistic people to donate to the organization. Donors, of course, want their interests recognized...

This is all assuming your argument is true :

(Please correct me if this is NOT your argument flow)
> P1. The general people hate atheists (Or, in proper form Most people in the general audience are people who discriminate against athiests)
> P2. JREF says it is not an atheist organization (Organization JREF is not an atheist organization)
> P3. Only people who would discriminate against atheists would say that
> P4 (C1) Therefore, JREF discriminates against atheists
> C: Therefore, JREF hates atheists.

And then your rebuttal argument:
P1. Anyone who disagrees with me is blind (This argument seems FAMILAR)
P2. People are disagreeing with me
C. Therefore they are blind

The flaws in this are blantly obvious, but I will just say that C does not need to follow, and P4 and P3 are very weak premises that do not hold up.



One would hate to think the JREF will be accepting donation from Sylvia Browne, in exchange for certain clarifications of policy.

But this is a separate (although related) issue.

Really, do you think this exercise, the JREF, is about who James Randi does not like? Granted there's a history with some other skeptical organizations that suggest he may be prone to such things, but I do not think this is the case in this instance. I, personally, would like to think that any organization referring to itself as advocating skeptical inquiry would be about that, rather than who someone does or does not like. How about you?

And yay leading question + assumptions.

[PingOfPong]

This thread is so gay.

[arthwollipot]

Is this one of those situations where the laughing dog is considered appropriate?

I'm sorry dglas, but your contention is utterly ridiculous. That's about all I can say about it. Although with the help of Thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.com) I might be able to find a few crunchy synonyms.

Absurd, antic, bizarre, comic, comical, contemptible, daffy, derisory, droll, fantastic, farcical, foolheaded, foolish, gelastic, goofy, grotesque, harebrained, hilarious, impossible, incredible, jerky, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, nutty, outrageous, preposterous, risible, sappy, silly, slaphappy, unbelievable, wacky.

All of those work. I rather like "slaphappy" myself. And ooh - "gelastic". I'm not familiar with that word.

Ge*las"tic\ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gelastic), a. [Gr. ? inclined to laugh, from ? to laugh.] Pertaining to laughter; used in laughing. "Gelastic muscles." --Sir T. Browne. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

Interesting. There you go, dglas. You have been educational after all. Thanks.

[not daSkeptic]

This thread is so gay.

Now say it again only this time do an impression of Margaret Cho's mother. :p

[Geek Goddess]

And yet you think it is defensible to issue a policy statement that it is not an atheist organization. Please do feel free to get back to me when you have made up your mind.

I am very interested in promoting skepticism, critical thinking and science. You are failing, deliberately or otherwise, to recognize it. There is a point to this exercise, and it is not to score points. It is to demonstrate an error and hopefully see it dealt with.

That you are oblivious to the error, and wield unthinking assumptions and mischaracterizations as a smoke screen for your obliviousness, is your failure, not mine.

Can you show me where I said it was defensible?

I'm not in error. This is an opinion I've formed based on YOUR writings. It I am 'oblivious' as you say, perhaps it is in your faulty communication. Or is everyone here wrong but you?

[arthwollipot]

The only guy marching in step...

[PingOfPong]

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations. Some theists and deists near to him have convinced him that the best way to get more money is to tactically distance his organization from an unpopular and reviled group.

I just took another look at this. Are you really going to start trying to draw up conspiracy theories? Speculative accusations in the absence of evidence is just about the opposite of critical thinking. So, do you have any hard evidence for that statement?

By the way, even assuming that JREF is moving in a direction you don't like, it's really presumptuous of you to expect the JREF to take the same attitudes as yourself. Who the eff are you? I'm an atheist and I'm still happy with what the JREF is doing. I can't see any problems with Randi's statement or the general mission of JREF. It seems like you want to act offended in order to have some power over everyone.

[Alan]

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations. Some theists and deists near to him have convinced him that the best way to get more money is to tactically distance his organization from an unpopular and reviled group. This is based on arguments I have heard put forward about how to get theistic people to donate to the organization. Donors, of course, want their interests recognized...

One would hate to think the JREF will be accepting donation from Sylvia Browne, in exchange for certain clarifications of policy.

But this is a separate (although related) issue.

Really, do you think this exercise, the JREF, is about who James Randi does not like? Granted there's a history with some other skeptical organizations that suggest he may be prone to such things, but I do not think this is the case in this instance. I, personally, would like to think that any organization referring to itself as advocating skeptical inquiry would be about that, rather than who someone does or does not like. How about you?
Some theists and deists are hoodwinking the now-corrupted-by-greed James Randi to let people like Sylvia Browne change the policies and aims of the JREF?

EDIT: I wonder if they were reptilians.

[Belz...]

There absolutely is, and I have been trying to point it out since the JREF issued that hateful statement: "The JREF is not an atheist organization." It is profoundly sad that it took such a pointed parody to prove it, since the people committing the tragic error could not be reasoned with - their minds closed to any discussion.

It is profoundly unfortunate that the people, enlightened and sensitive to issues of discrimination, could not be caused to see the tragic error they were making.

I am not saying the JREF should decree itself an atheist organization. I am saying the JREF should not specifically point at atheists and loudly proclaim, "Not us!" This is what it has done.

So in other words you wasted a perfectly good thread for nothing ? The JREF is not an atheist organisation. This is true. And because many people would be put off if it were, it's not unreasonable to expect that they would specify that. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it.

[Belz...]

Well, if that's your impression, I doubt very much if I can sway you from it.

Since this is probably the first time we have an exchange, I find your lack of faith quite unnerving. I, however, have some evidence.

A troll is a person who posts comments in order to get to people's feelings, yes ? A reaction is certainly what you were aiming at, and I'd wager you were aware of what that reaction would be, namely that people would disagree with you and joke around about it. Also, considering the relative importance of the issue at hand, I find it difficult to accept that this thread is meant to somehow educate or promote critical thought.

That's why I said Troll. I'm willing to change my mind, but you're not off to a great start.

Is this a failing on my part or on yours?

See above.

[Belz...]

Please tell me you rehearsed the delivery of this in front of mirror for few hours.

If you're looking for a way to make people think you're not being a troll or simply playing devil's advocate for the hell of it (devil, hell, get it ?), then this is not the way.

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations.

Ah! Evil money. I'd like to point out that atheists have money, too.

[Belz...]

All of those work. I rather like "slaphappy" myself. And ooh - "gelastic". I'm not familiar with that word.

Ge*las"tic\ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gelastic), a. [Gr. ? inclined to laugh, from ? to laugh.] Pertaining to laughter; used in laughing. "Gelastic muscles." --Sir T. Browne. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

Interesting. There you go, dglas. You have been educational after all. Thanks.

Somehow I expected you to say "there you go, dgelas". I suppose that would've been wrong :D

[arthwollipot]

Somehow I expected you to say "there you go, dgelas". I suppose that would've been wrong :DI wouldn't stoop so low. :whistling

[cj.23]

Honestly? I think James Randi likes donations. Some theists and deists near to him have convinced him that the best way to get more money is to tactically distance his organization from an unpopular and reviled group. This is based on arguments I have heard put forward about how to get theistic people to donate to the organization. Donors, of course, want their interests recognized...

I'm a theist who supports the JREF and will happily donate when I get money. And I don't give a poodles arse if it's a gay, atheist or a 'Neofascist Furry Zoophiles for a Better Wednesday' group as long as it promotes critical thinking, provide a haven for rational discussion and lively rows, and remains a good place to openly and freely talk about stuff.

I have criticized Randi from exactly the opposite perspective - for a failure in critical thinking when promoting a book by an Atheist Press and misrepresenting the opinions of the experts who derided they hypothesis put forward in the book he promoted in the JREF video as religiously inspired kookery. In short i thought the JREF was too atheist sure. But my problem was errors of fact, and misrepresentation of the archaeological mainstream - things we can all do. The fact James is an atheist is completely irrelevant. Martin Gardner, godfather of scepticism, is not, being a fideist. Shermer is as far as I know agnostic. Th editor of the UK Catholic Herald recently wrote an excellent little sceptical book. And so forth..

What do you want the JREF to do? Throw out all us religious believers? Say God does not exist? How can you change the forum to make it more atheist friendly? I'm a big fan of the Dawkins forum - if you want an atheist forum post there as well perhaps (and say a big 'hi' from Jerome for me)? Except you would not like it because i give them money and time when I can as well? This is a sceptical forum - scepticism and atheism are clearly not synonymous?

And where are atheists unpopular and reviled? Where I live they seem to be the vast majority,every girl I have ever dated ahas been an atheist and almost all my friends are: but maybe you live in a fundamentalist state where free speech is not allowed, and are persecuted for your lack of belief? If so you have my support, and I'll do what I can to fight for your liberty of conscience.

If the JREF turns gay that is fine by me. And if it turns atheist that is fine by me. I'll still post, still send money (as I support the British Humanist Association for their grass roots work on secular funerals) because you know not all of us want to re-mould the world in our own image, and force others to conform to our own belief patterns. And a gay JREF might be fun - I think I'd make a pretty good Bear even if straight, and I can just imagine Randi et all in Tom of Finland pictures, and the horror at TAM where the gay skins get mistaken for nazi's. Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Transvestite, all add variety to the JREF, and don't moan about being persecuted by what the four or five theistic posters here?

So has Randi actually taken money from the Pope?Taken something else from the Pope? :) What money has changed hands? Give me the facts then :)

Sorry for immoderate rant. Irritated. :(
cj x

[Doubt]

Please tell me you rehearsed the delivery of this in front of mirror for few hours. I'd like to think you got a full measure of smug satisfaction from spewing the internet meme, "FAIL!" It's the malicious little pleasures that count, right? Are you sure there isn't a picture you wanted to post with it?

As promised earlier....

Are you incapable of reading or just unwilling? The average person does understand negative, exclusionary language. The evidence is there; you just refuse to look at it. I invite you to try again.

Dawkins was definitely on target about needing to develop consciousness raising within the atheist community.

I have read it. More than once. You have made faulty assumptions. Your error and no one else.

[arthwollipot]

Sorry for immoderate rant.Don't apologise. Your "rant" is appreciated.

[Lothian]

I, personally, would like to think that any organization referring to itself as advocating skeptical inquiry would be about that, rather than who someone does or does not like. How about you?I agree. However skeptical inquiry is about the journey not the destination. The JREF is not about destinations. Atheism is a destination and the JREF is therefore not an Atheist organisation. Many people following a skeptical journey will end up at Atheism but the destination is not important.

If you read Randi's comments in the past you will understand that the JREF is not anti-paranormal. Randi has said it would be great if people did have paranormal powers and he would be delighted if humans could do what some people claim they can do. If someone can prove they can talk to the dead or move objects with their mind the JREF would not be against them.

The JREF is interested in the process of pushing the boundary’s of science. It is not interested in where those boundaries end up.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, you might not be a homophobe but you seem to be a troll, however.
No, he is not a troll. Dglas has previously been a very friendly and lively participant here. I agree in part with him, by agreeing that listing all of the things JREF is not is rather pointless. Simply present what JREF is, and go from there.

I respectfully disagree with his conclusion, for the simple reason that IIRC the "The JREF is an Atheist Organization" charge has been levied against the JREF, and so I think someone felt it necessary to answer that false charge. The label of Skeptic, capital S, is commonly a close relation to Atheist, particularly if you go back a few centuries and see Skeptic used in just such a context: skeptical of the Church's various positions and statements, and a societal/political foe of the church. That historical association in finite contexts leads some in the current Christian advocacy community to state, IMO erroneously, that Skeptic necessarily means Atheist.

It doesn't, though often the two go hand in hand.

The JREF's stated mission is to spread critical thinking, and the Foundation wishes to erect a pretty big tent. In order to reach as far as possible, it needs to counter misinformation. JREF thus may need to answer the inaccurate charge of being "An Atheist Organization," as such characterization has the potential, if it sticks, to reduce the Foundation's reach to some of its desired audience. Given the way that 24/7 connected information and rumor flow actually happen, dglas' rant over a matter of principle fails to take sufficient account of that reality: the environment in which JREF attempts to achieve its mission.

Some false charges one does not dignify, and others one responds to. The JREF needs to sometimes fire a shot in the information age battles over image, perception, rumor, and misinformation. See also charges of fraud in re the million. Such rumors and charges must be countered for the benefit of the JREF and its stated mission.

I do not not recall seeing any charge that JREF is a gay organization, and thus find no need for the Foundation to make any counter, or disclaimer, to such a claim.

DR

[LostAngeles]

I'm a theist who supports the JREF and will happily donate when I get money. And I don't give a poodles arse if it's a gay, atheist or a 'Neofascist Furry Zoophiles for a Better Wednesday' group as long as it promotes critical thinking, provide a haven for rational discussion and lively rows, and remains a good place to openly and freely talk about stuff.

I have criticized Randi from exactly the opposite perspective - for a failure in critical thinking when promoting a book by an Atheist Press and misrepresenting the opinions of the experts who derided they hypothesis put forward in the book he promoted in the JREF video as religiously inspired kookery. In short i thought the JREF was too atheist sure. But my problem was errors of fact, and misrepresentation of the archaeological mainstream - things we can all do. The fact James is an atheist is completely irrelevant. Martin Gardner, godfather of scepticism, is not, being a fideist. Shermer is as far as I know agnostic. Th editor of the UK Catholic Herald recently wrote an excellent little sceptical book. And so forth..

What do you want the JREF to do? Throw out all us religious believers? Say God does not exist? How can you change the forum to make it more atheist friendly? I'm a big fan of the Dawkins forum - if you want an atheist forum post there as well perhaps (and say a big 'hi' from Jerome for me)? Except you would not like it because i give them money and time when I can as well? This is a sceptical forum - scepticism and atheism are clearly not synonymous?

And where are atheists unpopular and reviled? Where I live they seem to be the vast majority,every girl I have ever dated ahas been an atheist and almost all my friends are: but maybe you live in a fundamentalist state where free speech is not allowed, and are persecuted for your lack of belief? If so you have my support, and I'll do what I can to fight for your liberty of conscience.

If the JREF turns gay that is fine by me. And if it turns atheist that is fine by me. I'll still post, still send money (as I support the British Humanist Association for their grass roots work on secular funerals) because you know not all of us want to re-mould the world in our own image, and force others to conform to our own belief patterns. And a gay JREF might be fun - I think I'd make a pretty good Bear even if straight, and I can just imagine Randi et all in Tom of Finland pictures, and the horror at TAM where the gay skins get mistaken for nazi's. Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Transvestite, all add variety to the JREF, and don't moan about being persecuted by what the four or five theistic posters here?

So has Randi actually taken money from the Pope?Taken something else from the Pope? :) What money has changed hands? Give me the facts then :)

Sorry for immoderate rant. Irritated. :(
cj x

No, he is not a troll. Dglas has previously been a very friendly and lively participant here. I agree in part with him, by agreeing that listing all of the things JREF is not is rather pointless. Simply present what JREF is, and go from there.

I respectfully disagree with his conclusion, for the simple reason that IIRC the "The JREF is an Atheist Organization" charge has been levied against the JREF, and so I think someone felt it necessary to answer that false charge. The label of Skeptic, capital S, is commonly a close relation to Atheist, particularly if you go back a few centuries and see Skeptic used in just such a context: skeptical of the Church's various positions and statements, and a societal/political foe of the church. That historical association in finite contexts leads some in the current Christian advocacy community to state, IMO erroneously, that Skeptic necessarily means Atheist.

It doesn't, though often the two go hand in hand.

The JREF's stated mission is to spread critical thinking, and the Foundation wishes to erect a pretty big tent. In order to reach as far as possible, it needs to counter misinformation. JREF thus may need to answer the inaccurate charge of being "An Atheist Organization," as such characterization has the potential, if it sticks, to reduce the Foundation's reach to some of its desired audience. Given the way that 24/7 connected information and rumor flow actually happen, dglas' rant over a matter of principle fails to take sufficient account of that reality: the environment in which JREF attempts to achieve its mission.

Some false charges one does not dignify, and others one responds to. The JREF needs to sometimes fire a shot in the information age battles over image, perception, rumor, and misinformation. See also charges of fraud in re the million. Such rumors and charges must be countered for the benefit of the JREF and its stated mission.

I do not not recall seeing any charge that JREF is a gay organization, and thus find no need for the Foundation to make any counter, or disclaimer, to such a claim.

DR

These.

[Darat]

...snip....

I do not not recall seeing any charge that JREF is a gay organization, and thus find no need for the Foundation to make any counter, or disclaimer, to such a claim.

DR

That apparently isn't a good enough explanation:

Yes there is and that is no one seems to be asking it "Is it a gay rights organisation" or "Is it a women's rights organisation". I suspect that if people were asking it those questions it would respond in the same way as it does to the question "Is it an atheist organisation".

[Symbol]

"Is JREF a Gay Organization?" (which I thought wouldn't get past a page) has somehow morphed into "Is JREF a Theist Organization?"

*tries to unscramble brain*

[Darat]

"Is JREF a Gay Organization?" (which I thought wouldn't get past a page) has somehow morphed into "Is JREF a Theist Organization?"

*tries to uscramble brain*

See this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159636 - apparently because the JREF has now employed someone who is known to be gay it is fine to use their sexuality to try and discredit the JREF.

[Symbol]

I got that part.

I just struggled with the leap to accusations of theism AND atheism, and some of the arguments for both.

What part of "critical thinking" don't people understand?

[Pure Argent]

Actually, my name comes from the Hyperion books, where The Shrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shrike) is the monster and anti-hero of the novel. It is known for impaling people on a massive tree made of metal, whose branches are massive thorns. It is named after the "Shrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrike)" bird which impales insects and small animals on the thorns of a tree.
(wikipedia)

I knew there had to be at least one other person out there who loved that character. The Shrike was, quite possibly, the coolest angel of death-type character ever made.

[I Ratant]

How does the wielding of demeaning, excluding baby language fit into JREF’s warm embrace of theists et al?
.
The "warm embrace" is like that in any kitchen. :)

[I Ratant]

I got that part.

I just struggled with the leap to accusations of theism AND atheism, and some of the arguments for both.

What part of "critical thinking" don't people understand?
.
The "thinking" part.
Everyone finds it dead simple :) to be critical.

[zooterkin]

How does the wielding of demeaning, excluding baby language fit into JREF’s warm embrace of theists et al?

If it's the use of "woo", or even "woo-woo", you object to, then you'll have to take it up with Randi, it's one of his phrases.

[cj.23]

.
The "thinking" part.
Everyone finds it dead simple :) to be critical.

Nominated for sheer wit pith and exactitude :)

cj x

[cj.23]

I don't understand how the "is not a" constitutes a big sign saying "atheists are not welcome." However as there might be some loonies out there who are confused, shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization" and then everyone can be happy? :) You could just say something positive like " is an organization dedicated to the search for truth" which precludes definite end beliefs. Or take a leaf from the Society for Psychical Research "Membership does not imply acceptance of any particular opinion concerning the nature or reality of the phenomena examined, and the JREF holds no corporate views." :)

cj x

[Darat]

I don't understand how the "is not a" constitutes a big sign saying "atheists are not welcome." However as there might be some loonies out there who are confused, shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization" and then everyone can be happy? :) You could just say something positive like " is an organization dedicated to the search for truth" which precludes definite end beliefs. Or take a leaf from the Society for Psychical Research "Membership does not imply acceptance of any particular opinion concerning the nature or reality of the phenomena examined, and the JREF holds no corporate views." :)

cj x

Especially when Randi has never been afraid to state via the JREF his personal views on matters of faith and religion - I quoted this passage by Randi in the original thread (it's from 2000).


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...

Yet we are to suppose that (somehow) Randi has been "got at" by theist because he is concerned about donations from those theists and therefore he states the JREF is not an atheist organisation. Good job these alleged theists have never read what Randi has actually published, eh?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How else could we explain the OPer even knowing that Groethe is gay? Either DJ is on some kind of homophobe watchlist or this guy is a huge fan of DJ's. I smell the former. I'm a regular listener of Point of Inquiry and had no idea DJ was gay - not even any "gaydar" suspicions.

I only met him in person a few weeks ago, but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge. At least it was to me. I've never heard his podcast, I'm not a huge fan, and I've never seen a homophobe watchlist. But somehow I knew.

[Darat]

As they say - it takes one to know one.

[cj.23]

Yet we are to suppose that (somehow) Randi has been "got at" by theist because he is concerned about donations from those theists and therefore he states the JREF is not an atheist organisation. Good job these alleged theists have never read what Randi has actually published, eh?

Or that he appears on The American Atheist Press website? :) It's all part of the conspiracy! :) The thing is is we are a crypto-religious organisation, what faith are we actually receiving all this money from? My bet is it's the Church of the Subgenius, controlled by the Discordians, who are run by the Servants of Cthulhu who answer to the Boy Sprouts. But I could be wrong...

Still if any atheist members out there do feel oppressed by my hard core religious fundamentalism, do say. I know you all shake when Doc, Kathy and I enter the forum? Jokes aside, I have no idea who believes what, and don't much care. It's the thinking that matters, the debate, the inquiry - not what God you learned to pray to or not in kindergarten...

cj x

[The Central Scrutinizer]

On the other hand, I was really drunk and my memory from that night is pretty piecemeal.

Good. I'm off the hook. :relieved:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why isn't the JREF a bearded organization?

If it's a gay organization, wouldn't they need a beard from time to time?

[Darth Rotor]

That apparently isn't a good enough explanation:

Actually, yours was a fine explanation, but since I was on a roll, and not achieving pith as you did, I thought I'd complete my thoughts in that post to describe why I disagreed with dglas (whose input I miss, we've had some fun in the past) and end up in violent :) agreement with you. (But you outpithed me in this non pithing contest).

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As they say - it takes one to know one.

Dammit!!!! I'm NOT GAY!!! :mad:

(But Tobias is)

[Darth Rotor]

You pretend to be participants in an "educational foundation." Show some acuity and make an effort.
See Francesca R's avatar for some acuity. ;)













(francesca used to call herself acuity, and her avatar has a few quick pics of her in it)

DR

[JihadJane]

If it's the use of "woo", or even "woo-woo", you object to, then you'll have to take it up with Randi, it's one of his phrases.


I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between "Everyone's welcome" and demeaning, playground sneers.

[Lothian]

As they say - it takes one to know one.

By the way is the new president bloke gay?
..

[zooterkin]

Why isn't the JREF a bearded organization?

At TAM London, the common theme was lack of hair, what with Phil Plait, Richard Wiseman, Randi himself (via weblink), not to mention George Hrab.

So, this DJ Grothe; hirsute or coot?

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not objecting. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between "Everyone's welcome" and demeaning, playground sneers.
Its {JREF's} aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information

Policy statement:
The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. 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.

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.

To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions. This prize money is held in a special account which cannot be accessed for any purpose other than the awarding of the prize.
Clear? You will note that nowhere does atheism, nor lack thereof, appear.

Now, about JREF indulging in demeaning, playground sneers -- where is your evidence?

DR

[Arthur Denton]

Or, we could say, pointless--like the question.

I have never understood the fascination some people have with trying to position people's private lives as somehow relevent to their job duties. I neither know, nor care, what Phil Plait or James Randi's taste in music are; what colors they prefer; whether they are left- or right- handed; or what their ethnic heritage is. Such issues are immaterial to the JREF and its activities.

I just wanted to show what I feel like about it.

[Cynic]

The sneers are in the content, of course, from the posters here (myself included), from the contributors to Swift (Randi included), and from many, if not all, of the other organizations closely associated with the JREF.

There's nothing that can be done about that -- a decidedly atheist bent is a general consequence of applied skepticism. We can only hope for a civil tone at the official, seminar, and Swift-level contributors.

[Penamunde]

Lets have a parade........

This thread is a waste of disk space........Server Delete.....I Say

[aggle-rithm]

Or, we could say, pointless--like the question.

I have never understood the fascination some people have with trying to position people's private lives as somehow relevent to their job duties. I neither know, nor care, what Phil Plait or James Randi's taste in music are; what colors they prefer; whether they are left- or right- handed; or what their ethnic heritage is. Such issues are immaterial to the JREF and its activities.

Wait a minute...is there a possibility that Randi is left-handed? Because if that's true, then I'm ditching all this skeptic nonsense and becoming a Druid!

How disillusioning.

[Darth Rotor]

The sneers are in the content, of course, from the posters here (myself included), from the contributors to Swift (Randi included), and from many, if not all, of the other organizations closely associated with the JREF.
OK
There's nothing that can be done about that -- a decidedly atheist bent is a general consequence of applied skepticism. We can only hope for a civil tone at the official, seminar, and Swift-level contributors.
Aye.

[Cynic]

One wonders what it would take to cause an idea to seep into the hardened grey matter - and then, when someone does something to try to make a point - because every other way of making the point has fallen on deliberately deaf ears - it is then dismissed as "jerking people around, or playing a game of "gotcha."

...snip...

I created a thread where evidence for interpretation of exclusionary statements could be presented, and my detractors and attackers were only too willing to provide it for me. Well, I'm now pointing at the responses as evidence. And the modern "skeptics" still refuse to even consider the point. Anything, anything at all...

...snip...

How can one hope to combat the tools and weapons of bigotry if one refuses, dogmatically, to recognize them - even when we've seen the same tools used in recent history with respect to other groups, and the evidence is put before your faces with a simple substitution? We recognize them sometimes, when we feel like it, but not others, as if what matters most is who is being targeted. Talk about missing the point and refusing to learn anything.

Before you accuse me of jerking people around, you might want to consider that I tried to use other methods to hold this discussion, only to be jerked around by others wielding specious nonsense. What does it take? Apparently, it takes this - probably more...


I didn't read those threads -- started here, which has served as my first impression of you and your point. And in the immortal words of Sargent Hulka, our Big Toe: "Lighten up, Francis."

First impressions are important. First impressions are in fact partly the basis of your complaint about explicitly stating that the JREF is not an atheist organization. (A statement I have been unable to find, by the way.) A statement like that makes a certain impression, even if that impression would be instantly dispelled if the person who read it stuck around for any length of time. Worse, what does a statement like that imply about its own management's opinion of the JREF membership and community? It's like walking into a 7-11 with a big "American Owned and Operated" sign on the door, right? Yes, Dglas, I get you.

First impressions aren't everything though. People on this forum who I've read or interacted sufficiently enough to get a good read on their characters have vouched for yours in this very thread and, for the moment, that's good enough for me. From where I sit, it seems as if there are plently of people who are hearing your point just fine, but find it insufficient in relation to other factors also in play that you seem not to recognize. I expect from their perspectives, it is you who have the deaf ears. If the mission of the JREF is to reach as many people as possible as an educational resource, they need to mind public relations aspects very carefully.

The JREF has acquired -- and for good reason -- the reputation as an atheist organization and that ought to be addressed. I completely agree with you that such action, if it must be explicit, should take the form of an all-inclusive welcoming. As I've said elsewhere, the "enemies" of skeptism aren't interested in proving anything themselves, but are interesting in using doubt against us, protecting their flock from taking science and skepticism too seriously. Can there be any other explanation for the likes of Ray Comfort and Answers In Genesis, stating the same thoroughly disproven crap over and over again? They, and of course more mainstream targets of the JREF like Sylvia and Mr. Spoon-Bender seek to discredit us with accusations of being just a bunch of filthy atheists.

And you know, that works. I think the solution is to front ourselves as being as reasonable, polite, and inclusive as possible. But that's hard to sustain with our close ties to people like Penn Jillette. I love Penn, I really do, but damn, "polite to the religious" and "Penn Jillette" don't belong in the same sentence without "not" in it. The JREF has a well-deserved image problem and the fact is, there are a lot of people who are either asking if it is an atheist organization or making the claim outright. When a skeptical organization is asked a direct question or faced with a direct claim, it doesn't help to be evasive about the answer.

As a skeptic I'm sure you can appreciate that when it appears that everyone is against something you're saying or your approach to saying it, simple parsimony requires that you at least take time to consider that you might have the wrong approach. It's certainly ludacris to anyone who participates in these forums to suggest that atheists are scorned. On the other hand, I except a lot of people here don't realize that the Forum is not JREF itself, per say, and are not necessarily taking into account how the JREF itself appears to outsiders.

Anyway, your point is taken and your passion is appreciated. But I hope by now that you realize a more statemanlike approach might have worked better. When all you do is restate your position while failing to acknowlege the merits of other viewpoints, no one is going to listen. And if no one is listening, you're wasting your time.

[arthwollipot]

How else could we explain the OPer even knowing that Groethe is gay? Either DJ is on some kind of homophobe watchlist or this guy is a huge fan of DJ's. I smell the former. I'm a regular listener of Point of Inquiry and had no idea DJ was gay - not even any "gaydar" suspicions.He's mentioned it at least once on PoI - I don't recall the exact episode but it was in the form of "it's a situation that I, as a gay man, feel strongly about". Also, as I mentioned before, I talked about it with him quite openly on my own podcast. It's not exactly a secret.

[Riayn]

I think the OP is trying to look for discrimination where there is none. Saying that JREF is not an atheist organisation in no way means that it doesn't want to be associated with atheists, but simply that its primary directive is not to promote atheism. As an atheist I have no problem with this. If I am looking for an organisation that promotes atheism, I would join an atheist organisation. I would not expect JREF to fulfill that role for me. I am a lesbian but I don't expect JREF to promote gay rights. I would go to a gay rights organisation for that. However, that doesn't mean because I am a lesbian that I am not welcome to be part of the JREF community.

Personally, I was not aware that JREF had a statement saying it was not an atheist organisation. Is this a new statement that has just been released in the past few days? If not, why is the OP getting upset about it now? Is it because with the introduction of a gay president he could suddenly make "shocking" statements about JREF producing a statement saying it was not a gay organisation to somehow back up his outrage about the atheist statement? Why not post about it earlier when we had a straight president and demand to know why JREF hasn't issued a statement saying that it wasn't a heterosexual organisation?

[Darat]

...snip.... Is this a new statement that has just been released in the past few days? If not, why is the OP getting upset about it now? Is it because with the introduction of a gay president he could suddenly make "shocking" statements about JREF producing a statement saying it was not a gay organisation to somehow back up his outrage about the atheist statement? Why not post about it earlier when we had a straight president and demand to know why JREF hasn't issued a statement saying that it wasn't a heterosexual organisation?

It's not a new statement, this was a recent(ish) SWIFT blog entry that re-stated it: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/650-dennys-discount-discriminiation.html , that caused some discussion and Jeff followed it up with this republished Randi SWIFT column: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home/36-swift/653-randi-on-religion-and-the-jref.html , this is teh second republished SWIFT column that Jeff mentioned: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home/36-swift/654-one-voice-of-the-jref.html

[Shrike]

I knew there had to be at least one other person out there who loved that character. The Shrike was, quite possibly, the coolest angel of death-type character ever made.
It is.
It was just when googling for images that I found out it's also a rather cute bird :(

[zooterkin]

It is.
It was just when googling for images that I found out it's also a rather cute bird :(

If you find impaling insects and small animals on the thorns of a tree cute ;)

[Undodog]

I wouldn't say the JREF is gay but it's definately curious.

[Arthur Denton]

I wouldn't say the JREF is gay but it's definately curious.

About what?

[Darat]

The paranormal, the supernatural, the scam artists and so on.

[Alan]

It's psy-curious.

[Lothian]

It's psy-curious.Very good.

[Shrike]

If you find impaling insects and small animals on the thorns of a tree cute ;)
Yeah, OK. I just found that out a couple of days ago.
Come on, I'm a macho heterosexual male, I can't be associating with tiny birds :)

[Belz...]

Very good.

Nice variation on your avatar, btw.

[Geek Goddess]

Sorry for immoderate rant.Don't apologise. Your "rant" is appreciated.

I want to know where to sign up for the 'Neofascist Furry Zoophiles for a Better Wednesday' thing

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I thought this was a parody thread, but I found that it isn't.


So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

Isn't your analogy fatally flawed because Randi's gay?

[Checkmite]

Personally, I was not aware that JREF had a statement saying it was not an atheist organisation. Is this a new statement that has just been released in the past few days? If not, why is the OP getting upset about it now? Is it because with the introduction of a gay president he could suddenly make "shocking" statements about JREF producing a statement saying it was not a gay organisation to somehow back up his outrage about the atheist statement? Why not post about it earlier when we had a straight president and demand to know why JREF hasn't issued a statement saying that it wasn't a heterosexual organisation?

Umm, Dglas has already posted that he has tried multiple times in the past to bring up this discussion, but nobody wanted to play along. He -has- posted about it before, or tried to.

Dglas's problem with the statement is quite simple. Imagine a clothing boutique that develops a reputation for serving only black people, trying to balance its reputation and expand its customer base by officially stating that "we're not a store for African-Americans". Boy, can that be taken the wrong way! This is what dglas, as an atheist, feels the "we are not an atheist organization" statement is the equivalent of. What the analagous store really meant to say, of course, was "we're not a store for only African-Americans"; they just really worded their announcement badly. Perhaps the way the JREF should word its statement is something along the lines of "we are not an exclusively-atheist organization".

As an aside, I believe the reason the JREF is constantly asked if it's an atheist organization isn't only because of Randi's own point of view, but the point of fact that something like 90% of its membership - certainly just about all who actively and publicly talk about their own religious viewpoint - are atheists.

[cj.23]

As an aside, I believe the reason the JREF is constantly asked if it's an atheist organization isn't only because of Randi's own point of view, but the point of fact that something like 90% of its membership - certainly just about all who actively and publicly talk about their own religious viewpoint - are atheists.


You mean full JREF members - only money had precluded me doing so this year so far. Time to join. What about Beth? And there are loads of agnostics? Why must everyone ignore them? "Won't somebody think of the agnostics!!!" :)

cj x

[zooterkin]

Dglas's problem with the statement is quite simple. Imagine a clothing boutique that develops a reputation for serving only black people, trying to balance its reputation and expand its customer base by officially stating that "we're not a store for African-Americans". Boy, can that be taken the wrong way! This is what dglas, as an atheist, feels the "we are not an atheist organization" statement is the equivalent of. What the analagous store really meant to say, of course, was "we're not a store for only African-Americans"; they just really worded their announcement badly. Perhaps the way the JREF should word its statement is something along the lines of "we are not an exclusively-atheist organization".

I agree that's what he seems to be saying, and I did ask him for clarification, but he has not replied yet. However, I don't think that position really holds any water. If the statement had been, "The JREF is not an organisation for atheists", that would be analogous to your "not a store for African-Americans". But they didn't say that; in what they actually did say, the "atheist" applies to the organisation, not the individual members. It would appear his problem is in understanding English. Perhaps there is some ambiguity, in which case a quick review of the facts (Randi being atheist, for one) would surely make the intention clear. I don't understand dglas's apparently extreme reaction.

[Jeff Wagg]

The JREF isn't a clothing boutique.

We are often confused with organizations such as Atheist Alliance International and American Atheists which are organizations FOR atheists, by definition. We are not one of those.

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission. If you conclude that there isn't, which is what most of our membership has done, that is also fine. We're not excluding anyone with the statement "the JREF is not an atheist organization."

I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.

[Doubt]

The JREF isn't a clothing boutique.

We are often confused with organizations such as Atheist Alliance International and American Atheists which are organizations FOR atheists, by definition. We are not one of those.

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission. If you conclude that there isn't, which is what most of our membership has done, that is also fine. We're not excluding anyone with the statement "the JREF is not an atheist organization."

I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.

I object to your statement on the grounds that "everyone" excludes nowhere man from the Beatles song.

[Cavemonster]

"The JREF is not an Atheist Organization"

Might be a poor choice of words, if they were printed by themselves on a sign, if they were the sole content of a press release, or if they were in any way presented on their own by the JREF with no additional content.

That's not the case. There has been no posting from the JREF including this phrase that did not also go on to explain it's meaning, that the JREF includes both theists and atheists.

[remirol]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


:dl:

[kuroyume0161]

"The JREF is not an Atheist Organization"

Might be a poor choice of words, if they were printed by themselves on a sign, if they were the sole content of a press release, or if they were in any way presented on their own by the JREF with no additional content.

That's not the case. There has been no posting from the JREF including this phrase that did not also go on to explain it's meaning, that the JREF includes both theists and atheists.

Exactly. Context is everything. Singling out the statement, thereby removing context, is where this particular argument started as an offshoot. This is why my 'fallacy flag' went up (not the other starting with 'ph'). ;) So, James Randi, as president and atheist, would make JREF an 'atheist organization' and Grothe, as president and gay, would make JREF a 'gay organization'. Non-sequitur.

In context, the statement is saying (without need for more context): "The JREF is not an organization only for atheists." I think that this correction was already made by another poster. Unless you are into pedantics and tearing apart sentences like a lawyer looking for loopholes, that is a quite clear statement. Otherwise, you might want to look into a cynic organization. :D

[Belz...]

The JREF isn't a clothing boutique.

We are often confused with organizations such as Atheist Alliance International and American Atheists which are organizations FOR atheists, by definition. We are not one of those.

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission. If you conclude that there isn't, which is what most of our membership has done, that is also fine. We're not excluding anyone with the statement "the JREF is not an atheist organization."

I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.

Actually, it's quite clear. Except to some.

[monoman]

dglas, I think you miss the point.

The statement is like a body building organisation saying they are not a gay organisation. They want the straights pumping iron too.
It makes it more inclusive. The straights grease up their pecks, don speedos, pump iron, start hanging out with other body builders, meet up in the pub, learn a few techniques.....wait...you're right....GAYREF!!!!!*

*I know that wasn't your point, but my serious point stands.

[Cynic]

"The JREF is not an Atheist Organization"

Might be a poor choice of words, if they were printed by themselves on a sign, if they were the sole content of a press release, or if they were in any way presented on their own by the JREF with no additional content.

That's not the case. There has been no posting from the JREF including this phrase that did not also go on to explain it's meaning, that the JREF includes both theists and atheists.

Given the nature of the people most concerned about whether the JREF is an atheist organization, maybe it should be a a little more quote-mine proof. ;)

[rjh01]

I think saying "The JREF is not an organization only for atheists" can mean that it is primary aimed at atheists. this is not correct. No matter what you say people can take it out of context and say it means something other than what you mean it to say.

[Cavemonster]

Given the nature of the people most concerned about whether the JREF is an atheist organization, maybe it should be a a little more quote-mine proof. ;)

Eh, ideally, but for people looking to quote mine and take things out of context, nothing is really safe.

Example:
I could take the text from this (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html) page about the foundation. And publish this quote.

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote ... paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

* Creating a new generation of ... demons...

* Demonstrating to the public and the media, ... paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

* Supporting ... paranormal claims ... by publishing ... a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

* Assisting those who ... attack... people.

To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any ... parapsychological frauds... Located in Fort Lauderdale.

[arthwollipot]

I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.It's obvious to almost everyone.

[Jeff Corey]

And now for some show tunes! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XVU_KbGuqI

[Furcifer]

Yes, it's decidedly gay and not a moment too soon. This place could use a hair cut.

Just curious, is the US a black organization now?

[The Atheist]

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

What a load of utter rubbish.

What "tools of science" lead one to theism?

[The Atheist]

Hey, Obviousman's joined the forum as twins!

Actually, it's quite clear. Except to some.

It's obvious to almost everyone.

Since I expect the chances of Wagg answering my question are roughly absolute zero, I'll throw it over to you two.

Which tools of science lead to theism?

[Cynic]

Which tools of science lead to theism?


I believe these are the tools you're looking for. ;)

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

[Cynic]

Eh, ideally, but for people looking to quote mine and take things out of context, nothing is really safe.

True, but there's no reasont to make it easy for them. Ellipses are usually a clear sign that maybe there's more to it. If the sentence begins with a capital letter and ends in a period with no hint in the middle, it appears unambiguous and can be seen to stand on its own. Simply including "is for theists, atheists, and everyone in between" (or whatever) fixes that. Plus, positive statements are almost always better than negative ones when you're trying to promote something.

[Piscivore]

Yes, it's decidedly gay and not a moment too soon. This place could use a hair cut.

Just curious, is the US a black organization now?

No, but if you say "The US is not a whites-only nation" you're totally discriminating against Caucasians.

[The Atheist]

I believe these are the tools you're looking for. ;)

No, not even close, actually.

Aside from the obverwhelmingly obvious fact that you're making a category error confusing scientists with science, a list of clowns who are creationists but have a PhD in a scientific discipline just proves that people with PhDs can be as insane as the next person.

One PhD guy, with a Nobel Prize no less, believes that AIDS doesn't exist, while others are full-on 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

You've made no attempt to answer the question and instead post gibberish. Surprising lack of cynicism with an over-abundance of apologetics.

[zooterkin]

No, not even close, actually.

Aside from the obverwhelmingly obvious fact that you're making a category error confusing scientists with science, a list of clowns who are creationists but have a PhD in a scientific discipline just proves that people with PhDs can be as insane as the next person.

One PhD guy, with a Nobel Prize no less, believes that AIDS doesn't exist, while others are full-on 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

You've made no attempt to answer the question and instead post gibberish. Surprising lack of cynicism with an over-abundance of apologetics.

I don't know; they sound like a bunch of tools to me.

[KoihimeNakamura]

The Atheist: People who choose not to reject NOMA, or people who are not strict positivists/empircists, for two general groups.

[Cavemonster]

What "tools of science" lead one to theism?

An excellent question.
Reading this forum, you've doubtless come upon maybe one or two threads with disagreement in them. In quite a few of these discussions, posters hold mutually exclusive positions as to the true answer to a given question.

At least one of them must be wrong.

Does it follow that they then could not have used science and logic and thus have no place here? No. You can come to an incorrect opinion by using logic imperfectly, or by using logic perfectly starting with insufficient or incorrect information. It's even often the case that NO ONE, on any side of an issue has enough information to arrive at a correct conclusion through rigorous logic.

As Penn like to say "Everybody got a gris gris". There's no one among us whose every belief is correct and uninfluenced by emotion. Everybody's illogical about something. There are even forum members who came here originally because they believed they had paranormal powers, should they have been excluded because they came to an imperfect conclusion?

And of course, you and I, as good skeptics know that even though our best examinations of the evidence and lack thereof lead us to lack a belief in a god, there is no reason to be closed to the possibility that other people have been exposed to evidence that we have not.

[The Fool]

The JREF isn't a clothing boutique.

We are often confused with organizations such as Atheist Alliance International and American Atheists which are organizations FOR atheists, by definition. We are not one of those.

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission. If you conclude that there isn't, which is what most of our membership has done, that is also fine. We're not excluding anyone with the statement "the JREF is not an atheist organization."

I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.
yes...whatever....but what I am most interested in is if you are gay.

[dglas]

"How else could we explain the OPer even knowing that Groethe is gay?"

He's in my friends list on Facebook. Not as "exciting" as you were looking for, I know, but there it is.

[dglas]

Is this one of those situations where the laughing dog is considered appropriate?

I'm sorry dglas, but your contention is utterly ridiculous. That's about all I can say about it.

<mindless stuff snipped out of courtesy for the reader>

Interesting. There you go, dglas. You have been educational after all. Thanks.

Ahh. Good. Good riddance then, if that is all you have to offer. Thank you for being an example of the open-minded skeptic for us all.

[The Fool]

Ahh. Good. Good riddance then, if that is all you have to offer. Thank you for being an example of the open-minded skeptic for us all.

hang on, before you get all twisted.

Are you Gay? I need to know if I need to flag this thread as a "gay thread"

Seems to me we need a policy statement from you publicly confirming or refuting this.

[dglas]

Since this is probably the first time we have an exchange, I find your lack of faith quite unnerving. I, however, have some evidence.

A troll is a person who posts comments in order to get to people's feelings, yes ? A reaction is certainly what you were aiming at, and I'd wager you were aware of what that reaction would be, namely that people would disagree with you and joke around about it. Also, considering the relative importance of the issue at hand, I find it difficult to accept that this thread is meant to somehow educate or promote critical thought.

That's why I said Troll. I'm willing to change my mind, but you're not off to a great start.


And I think you are using a contrived usage of "troll" in order to dismiss a point without considering it. One thing a troll doe sis post to get at one's feelings, but so do satirists, and those promoting a viewpoint, and those attempting to make a point to deliberately oblivious people.

"...considering the relative importance of the issue at hand,"

You, at least, recognize some importance to the issue? Well, that's a first tentative step.

You'll find, if you care to actually look, that prior to declaration at issue by the JREF, that I was a frequent and supportive poster at the JREF forums. I also had a paid membership for a year. But if it just easier for you to spew "troll!" then all I can do is wish you luck on your continued development.

[The Fool]

I want to know if all the people who have posted to this thread are Gay. I don't know how else I am supposed to decide how I should proceed until I know this....

ok line up...gay/not gay?

I probably should state my own situation. I am not gay but have been soundly rogered by a few guys who are.

[Lothian]

I probably should state my own situation. I am not gay but have been soundly rogered by a few guys who are.So when last week you said you conquered your very own Brokeback was that a euphemism or did you really go up a mountain?

[dglas]

I agree. However skeptical inquiry is about the journey not the destination. The JREF is not about destinations. Atheism is a destination and the JREF is therefore not an Atheist organisation. Many people following a skeptical journey will end up at Atheism but the destination is not important.

If you read Randi's comments in the past you will understand that the JREF is not anti-paranormal. Randi has said it would be great if people did have paranormal powers and he would be delighted if humans could do what some people claim they can do. If someone can prove they can talk to the dead or move objects with their mind the JREF would not be against them.

The JREF is interested in the process of pushing the boundary’s of science. It is not interested in where those boundaries end up.

Well, whether atheism is a destination or not depends upon what one's definition of it is, but that aside, for the sake of consistency, if we are to view atheism as a destination, then we must view theism as a destination. So, again we end up asking why there is a disclaimer about one and not the other.

Where is the JREF public policy statement that it is not a theist organization?
Surely there is no more and no less content in that than in the "is not an atheist organization" statement. If it is all so innocent as assumed by some (those who would paint laughing dogs as open explorations :D ), why the need for it? Why not include theism in a "not our business" statement? We wouldn't want to suggest one destination when we eschew others from simple omission - especially if the understood claim is that destinations are not the purpose.

I have read and even appreciated a fair bit of Randi's work, actually. This is why I recoiled so dramatically from that awful statement, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

There are a number of ways of understand the MDC - open exploration (as you depict it here), satire, rhetorical weapon, etc. Ever wonder why it is presented as a challenge rather than an offer? To be honest, it is not open exploration to request scientific experimental evidence from people whose ideas are based on innately unverifiable/refutable "effects." This is not to say I do not favour science (I've written lengthy posts in the past about my recommendation of science as the most wildly successful tool humanity has ever crafted - some will say "trolling for science," I suppose :rolleyes: ) - so, please let's stay on topic here.

A wording that indicated atheism/theism was not the business of the JREF would have suited me perfectly, but to point specifically at one, atheists, and loudly proclaim "not us." Unacceptable.

Using your own reasoning, the JREF's statement cuts off a destination. Unfortunately, with the simplistic dichotomous understanding of theism/atheism, that means promoting the alternative. This is not an understanding I necessarily hold, but it is held by many. If the JREF is not about destinations....

[not daSkeptic]

Those who ascribed homophobia or bigotry to me prove the point that the JREF's statement "The JREF is not an atheist organization" is, in fact, a phobic and bigoted statement that arises from a bias against atheists quite akin to prejudice - which is what I have been saying since that prejudiced statement was issued.

I think things would have been far more productive had this been phrased in the form of a question. If you really thought there was a significant difference in the way people were treating your statement versus the JREF's statement, it would have been better to simply ask why that is. The fact you did not do this suggests you do not care about the reasons. It suggests you had already made up your mind and were just looking for an excuse to attack. It thus seems rather hypocritical to accuse others of being closed-minded.

[The Fool]

Well, whether atheism is a destination or not depends upon what one's definition of it is, but that aside, for the sake of consistency, if we are to view atheism as a destination, then we must view theism as a destination. So, again we end up asking why there is a disclaimer about one and not the other.

Where is the JREF public policy statement that it is not a theist organization?
Surely there is no more and no less content in that than in the "is not an atheist organization" statement. If it is all so innocent as assumed by some (those who would paint laughing dogs as open explorations :D ), why the need for it? Why not include theism in a "not our business" statement? We wouldn't want to suggest one destination when we eschew others from simple omission - especially if the understood claim is that destinations are not the purpose.

I have read and even appreciated a fair bit of Randi's work, actually. This is why I recoiled so dramatically from that awful statement, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

There are a number of ways of understand the MDC - open exploration (as you depict it here), satire, rhetorical weapon, etc. Ever wonder why it is presented as a challenge rather than an offer? To be honest, it is not open exploration to request scientific experimental evidence from people whose ideas are based on innately unverifiable/refutable "effects." This is not to say I do not favour science (I've written lengthy posts in the past about my recommendation of science as the most wildly successful tool humanity has ever crafted - some will say "trolling for science," I suppose :rolleyes: ) - so, please let's stay on topic here.

A wording that indicated atheism/theism was not the business of the JREF would have suited me perfectly, but to point specifically at one, atheists, and loudly proclaim "not us." Unacceptable.

Using your own reasoning, the JREF's statement cuts off a destination. Unfortunately, with the simplistic dichotomous understanding of theism/atheism, that means promoting the alternative. This is not an understanding I necessarily hold, but it is held by many. If the JREF is not about destinations....
so why the fascination about who does what, with which and to whom?

[dglas]

"Is JREF a Gay Organization?" (which I thought wouldn't get past a page) has somehow morphed into "Is JREF a Theist Organization?"

*tries to unscramble brain*

Well, just to help, it has always been about the JREF's statement that "The JREF is not an atheist organization." The OP's purpose was to show the "argument form's" flaw by substituting other content. Many people were claiming that the statement doesn't really have any content, or at the very least, that the content is not negative. My purpose was to show that there is content and negative connotation, the statement's form.

Apparently, it is okay to say things with negative connotations about atheists, whereas it is not about gays. That is what this thread has provided evidence to support. The angry "you are a homophobe" posts are the evidence. Scientific skeptics presumably want the evidence - there it is.

Does that help?

[Lothian]

Well, whether atheism is a destination or not depends upon what one's definition of it is, but that aside, for the sake of consistency, if we are to view atheism as a destination, then we must view theism as a destination. So, again we end up asking why there is a disclaimer about one and not the other.

Where is the JREF public policy statement that it is not a theist organization?
Surely there is no more and no less content in that than in the "is not an atheist organization" statement. If it is all so innocent as assumed by some (those who would paint laughing dogs as open explorations :D ), why the need for it? Why not include theism in a "not our business" statement? We wouldn't want to suggest one destination when we eschew others from simple omission - especially if the understood claim is that destinations are not the purpose.Is there a mis-perception that the JREF might be a theist organisation?

I have read and even appreciated a fair bit of Randi's work, actually. This is why I recoiled so dramatically from that awful statement, "The JREF is not an atheist organization." What is so awful about the truth? Do you understand that the JREF is not an atheist organization?

There are a number of ways of understand the MDC - open exploration (as you depict it here), satire, rhetorical weapon, etc. Ever wonder why it is presented as a challenge rather than an offer? To be honest, it is not open exploration to request scientific experimental evidence from people whose ideas are based on innately unverifiable/refutable "effects." This is not to say I do not favour science (I've written lengthy posts in the past about my recommendation of science as the most wildly successful tool humanity has ever crafted - some will say "trolling for science," I suppose :rolleyes: ) - so, please let's stay on topic here. I thought the topic was whether the JREF was an organisation for friends of Dorothy.


A wording that indicated atheism/theism was not the business of the JREF would have suited me perfectly, but to point specifically at one, atheists, and loudly proclaim "not us." Unacceptable.Remind me what was the question?


Using your own reasoning, the JREF's statement cuts off a destination. Unfortunately, with the simplistic dichotomous understanding of theism/atheism, that means promoting the alternative. This is not an understanding I necessarily hold, but it is held by many. If the JREF is not about destinations....No. The JREF statement is silent on destinations.

[Cavemonster]

dglas,

Can you link to where you've read the statement that offends you so much?
I've never seen it made except in context of a longer explanation that makes the meaning quite clear.

[dglas]

I don't understand how the "is not a" constitutes a big sign saying "atheists are not welcome." However as there might be some loonies out there who are confused, shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization" and then everyone can be happy? :) You could just say something positive like " is an organization dedicated to the search for truth" which precludes definite end beliefs. Or take a leaf from the Society for Psychical Research "Membership does not imply acceptance of any particular opinion concerning the nature or reality of the phenomena examined, and the JREF holds no corporate views." :)

cj x

Leaving the unbecoming "loonies" snarkiness aside.

"...shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization""

That would be an interesting experiment actually. Needs to be a little more specific though. Some will claim that "religion" does not necessarily mean "theistic."

[dglas]

I think the OP is trying to look for discrimination where there is none. Saying that JREF is not an atheist organisation in no way means that it doesn't want to be associated with atheists, but simply that its primary directive is not to promote atheism. As an atheist I have no problem with this. If I am looking for an organisation that promotes atheism, I would join an atheist organisation. I would not expect JREF to fulfill that role for me. I am a lesbian but I don't expect JREF to promote gay rights. I would go to a gay rights organisation for that. However, that doesn't mean because I am a lesbian that I am not welcome to be part of the JREF community.

Personally, I was not aware that JREF had a statement saying it was not an atheist organisation. Is this a new statement that has just been released in the past few days? If not, why is the OP getting upset about it now? Is it because with the introduction of a gay president he could suddenly make "shocking" statements about JREF producing a statement saying it was not a gay organisation to somehow back up his outrage about the atheist statement? Why not post about it earlier when we had a straight president and demand to know why JREF hasn't issued a statement saying that it wasn't a heterosexual organisation?

In effect, I did. It wasn't one of the specific examples I chose (although I did cite gays, so maybe one could give me the benefit of the doubt there), but the meaning was the same.

Now, really. If there was an official statement by the JREF, "The JREF is not a lesbian organization" with no other such disclaimers, would you really think that was perfectly innocent? Really? I wonder how many times women, and lesbian women, have had to face accusations that, "I think [you are] trying to look for discrimination where there is none." Does it still sound perfectly innocent to you?

[dglas]

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence.

Well now. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

[dglas]

hang on, before you get all twisted.

Are you Gay? I need to know if I need to flag this thread as a "gay thread"

Seems to me we need a policy statement from you publicly confirming or refuting this.

God, I wish I were!

[Lothian]

Well now. That wasn't so hard, now was it?No, I don't know why you didn't get it first time.

[Alan]

In effect, I did. It wasn't one of the specific examples I chose (although I did cite gays, so maybe one could give me the benefit of the doubt there), but the meaning was the same.

Now, really. If there was an official statement by the JREF, "The JREF is not a lesbian organization" with no other such disclaimers, would you really think that was perfectly innocent? Really? I wonder how many times women, and lesbian women, have had to face accusations that, "I think [you are] trying to look for discrimination where there is none." Does it still sound perfectly innocent to you?
Let's say people kept on thinking that "JREF" was actually "LOTL" and someone from the JREF cleared up that confusion by stating that it is not a lesbian organisation. If anyone took that to mean "LESBIANS ARE NOT WELCOME", or anything of that type, they would be as wrong as you are here.

[Belz...]

Which tools of science lead to theism?

None. Why ?

[Belz...]

And I think you are using a contrived usage of "troll" in order to dismiss a point without considering it. One thing a troll doe sis post to get at one's feelings, but so do satirists, and those promoting a viewpoint, and those attempting to make a point to deliberately oblivious people.

The JREF is not a satirist organisation.

Ahem. I mean, if you open a new thread with a serious subject just to get people all riled up then by definition you are a troll. I didn't make it up. Still, perhaps I'm wrong and you didn't do it to do that and therefore aren't that, but so far that seems to be that.

"...considering the relative importance of the issue at hand,"

You, at least, recognize some importance to the issue? Well, that's a first tentative step.

Actually, it was implied that the importance of the issue at hand was LOW.

You'll find, if you care to actually look, that prior to declaration at issue by the JREF, that I was a frequent and supportive poster at the JREF forums. I also had a paid membership for a year. But if it just easier for you to spew "troll!" then all I can do is wish you luck on your continued development.

The two aren't mutually-exclusive.

[arthwollipot]

Since I expect the chances of Wagg answering my question are roughly absolute zero, I'll throw it over to you two.

Which tools of science lead to theism?What the hell are you asking me for? I'm as atheist as you are. And anyway, it is quite beside the point.

Ahh. Good. Good riddance then, if that is all you have to offer. Thank you for being an example of the open-minded skeptic for us all.Well I'm sorry. I think your thesis is ludicrous and paranoid, and I have outlined the reasons why. If that's what you consider "all" I have to offer, then please permit me to offer more:

Insisting that you are right and everyone else participating in the discussion is wrong is the very definition of dogmatic, in my opinion. You accuse me of not being open-minded, yet you have utterly refused to acknowledge that anyone else posting in this thread has any kind of a point. You've even got a statment from Jeff, which is about as official a position as you're going to get, saying that you have completely misinterpreted the JREF's intent.

In case you hadn't noticed, the JREF already receives a lot of flak and bad press simply because of the MDC and because of Randi himself and the things he's said and done. Being perceived as "not an atheist organisation" or "not a gay organisation" is not going to change that.

Currently there is evidence that two people think that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" is a problem - you, and The Atheist. There is also evidence that quite a few more people (including atheists such as myself) do not think that it is a problem. You have received a clarification from Jeff about the intent of the statement - and that's about as official as you're going to get unless Randi, Phil or DJ come along and make a statement.

So what are you going to do now?

[Geek Goddess]

Most of the executives at my company are atheists. However, our logo, website, mission statement (if we had one, which we don't) doesn't say 'we are not an atheist organization' because that is not our function.

The board and employees of JREF are largely atheist, to my knowledge. The JREF, as an organization, does not have a function of promoting or representing atheism. There are plenty of orgs that do that, as Jeff pointed out. Yes, skepticism generally leads to atheism or agnosticism.* I don't have a problem with the JREF stating 'this is not an organization for the promotion of atheism'.

I think it's more important to educate people about the process of critical thinking, and then leading on from there. The more educated and secure people become, the more likely they are to abandon their supernatural and pseudoscientific beliefs, regardless of what they are.

I know there are no gods, but I'd rather get someone into the fold by picking at the edges of their weird beliefs, rather than getting into their face right off the bat and perhaps losing the opportunity to bring them to reason.




*So does attending seminary.

[The Atheist]

I don't know; they sound like a bunch of tools to me.

That's about the sensiblest comment in the entire thread!

An excellent question.

Pity you couldn't think of an excellent answer.

You did post some very nice prose, but none of it showed how using the tools of science can lead to theism, which is what was posted by Wagg.

None. Why ?

Well, you agreed with Wagg's statement, so I expected you to be able explain which tools he meant because it sounds like gibberish to me.

People can use faith to lead to god, but I only know one theist who will swear that scientific tools lead to theism and he ain't here.

He's also wrong.

What the hell are you asking me for? I'm as atheist as you are. And anyway, it is quite beside the point.

No, it's not beside the point at all, in fact, the very opposite, it is the point.

Wagg gave an explanation of why JREF is not an atheist organisation and claimed that the "tools of science" can lead to theism.

Since you agreed with him fully, like Belz, I expected you to be able to justify your agreement with the statement.

So far, the pair of you are batting zero.

Care to try now? Or was your agreement with Wagg just hand-waving?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I want to know if all the people who have posted to this thread are Gay.

I am not gay, but everyone else is.

[Cynic]

No, not even close, actually.

Aside from the obverwhelmingly obvious fact that you're making a category error confusing scientists with science, a list of clowns who are creationists but have a PhD in a scientific discipline just proves that people with PhDs can be as insane as the next person.

One PhD guy, with a Nobel Prize no less, believes that AIDS doesn't exist, while others are full-on 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

You've made no attempt to answer the question and instead post gibberish. Surprising lack of cynicism with an over-abundance of apologetics.

Do you have no sense of humor at all? I was calling the scientists in that list tools. Sheesh!

[The Atheist]

Do you have no sense of humor at all? I was calling the scientists in that list tools. Sheesh!


Ok, I'll give you that one.

Mea culpa for not spotting it, although I'll say in my defence that lists of idiots get thrown at me so often as a means of making an argument that I missed it.

[Jeff Wagg]

What a load of utter rubbish.

What "tools of science" lead one to theism?

Ask Martin Gardner.

[The Atheist]

Ask Martin Gardner.

Sorry, but that's not an answer.

You made the statement.

Would you like to see it again?

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

I've even bolded it for you.

I did predict you wouldn't answer the question, and you haven't. When I hear Martin Gardner make the same statement, I'll ask him, but it was you who posted it, and you are an official of JREF making an official statement.

Now it's over to you to justify it.

Off you go, there's a good chap.

[Jeff Wagg]

Sorry, but that's not an answer.

You made the statement.

Would you like to see it again?



I've even bolded it for you.

I did predict you wouldn't answer the question, and you haven't. When I hear Martin Gardner make the same statement, I'll ask him, but it was you who posted it, and you are an official of JREF making an official statement.

Now it's over to you to justify it.

Off you go, there's a good chap.

Martin Gardner is a skeptic and a theist. Therefor, I know someone can be a skeptic and a theist. I know other people who are skeptics and theists as well. How they reconcile their beliefs is not something I'm privy to, but I don't have to be to make the statement I made.

I can't use the tools of science to conclude that there's a deity, and I'll bet you can't either. But others can. That's their business, and quite beyond the business of the JREF. We're about questions, not answers.

[James in New York]

I don't think he would say that the tools of science lead him to theism.

Martin Gardner admits that the atheist arguments are best.

He just doesn't want to die. He's a theist because he wants immortality because he finds it consoling.

It's possible he might say that the tools of science lead him to realize his finitude. Hence his theism.

[The Atheist]

Martin Gardner is a skeptic and a theist.

Unfortunately, nobody asked that question. There are plenty of christians on this very board who combine skepticism and theism, but that's not what your statement said.

I can't use the tools of science to conclude that there's a deity, and I'll bet you can't either. But others can. That's their business, and quite beyond the business of the JREF. We're about questions, not answers.

Very nice swerve, why don't you just admit your statement was bunkum?

You said, and I'll repeat it again:

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".

Now you're avoiding the subject by saying it's not JREF's business. Well, if the business of JREF one minute is using the tools of science, and the next not, then you've painted yourself neatly into a blind corner.

Watching you yet again make a foolish statement which you are unable to defend, but refuse to retract, is hilarious.

[zooterkin]

That's about the sensiblest comment in the entire thread!



To be fair, I was only pointing out what I thought Cynic meant in the first place.

[The Atheist]

To be fair, I was only pointing out what I thought Cynic meant in the first place.

Yes, I see that now, so I've deducted the 10 points you got and awarded then to Cynic.

[dasmiller]

You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".


Wagg's statement began with "If you conclude", I take it that you interpret "if" to be unequivocal?

[Jeff Wagg]

Unfortunately, nobody asked that question. There are plenty of christians on this very board who combine skepticism and theism, but that's not what your statement said.



Very nice swerve, why don't you just admit your statement was bunkum?

You said, and I'll repeat it again:



You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".

Now you're avoiding the subject by saying it's not JREF's business. Well, if the business of JREF one minute is using the tools of science, and the next not, then you've painted yourself neatly into a blind corner.

Watching you yet again make a foolish statement which you are unable to defend, but refuse to retract, is hilarious.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to be any clearer.

[The Atheist]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to be any clearer.

"I was wrong". "My statement was incorrect". Doesn't seem too hard.

Anyway, in the lack of an answer from you or the groupies who swallowed it whole without thinking, I'll just leave it as another of those unanswered questions.

[KoihimeNakamura]

"I was wrong". "My statement was incorrect". Doesn't seem too hard.

Anyway, in the lack of an answer from you or the groupies who swallowed it whole without thinking, I'll just leave it as another of those unanswered questions.


1. More seriously - he wasn't wrong.
P1. All people who are skeptics are people who use tools of science to reach a conclusion
P2. Some people who are skeptics are people who are have reached a conclusion of theism
C. Some people who use tools of science are people who have reached a conclusion of theism

(Also, I note that while he supported his position, you didn't, merely attacking the arguer and attempting to poison the well. Please stop that. It just makes you like pointlessly aggressive.)

To answer the orignal statements:

You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".

Now you're avoiding the subject by saying it's not JREF's business. Well, if the business of JREF one minute is using the tools of science, and the next not, then you've painted yourself neatly into a blind corner.


I'm pretty sure that the specific steps are not the JREF's business unless it is in the habit of dictating what people should think. Do you practice thoughtcrime, citizen?

[quixotecoyote]

1. More seriously - he wasn't wrong.
P1. All people who are skeptics are people who use tools of science to reach a conclusion
P2. Some people who are skeptics are people who are have reached a conclusion of theism
C. Some people who use tools of science are people who have reached a conclusion of theism



You forgot P3: It is possible to use tools of science to reach a conclusion of theism.

[Cynic]

You forgot P3: It is possible to use tools of science to reach a conclusion of theism.

Well, it's possible to misuse the tools of science to reach a conclusion of theism. Nothing can reach the conclusion of theism honestly, only indetermination.

ETA: Yes, yes, nothing can reach the conclusion that there absolutely is no god either honestly either. Or at least that would be the case if anyone would ever properly define it.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I wanted to stay well away from P3. It's a weak premise that's unstated but I didn't think it was honestly neccesary given the logic. (Also: time limited, running out to work. Maybe I'll think on it at work..)

[quixotecoyote]

I wanted to stay well away from P3. It's a weak premise that's unstated but I didn't think it was honestly neccesary given the logic. (Also: time limited, running out to work. Maybe I'll think on it at work..)

I agree that it was weak and unstated, but it's also central to the argument.

[arthwollipot]

No, it's not beside the point at all, in fact, the very opposite, it is the point.

Wagg gave an explanation of why JREF is not an atheist organisation and claimed that the "tools of science" can lead to theism.

Since you agreed with him fully, like Belz, I expected you to be able to justify your agreement with the statement.

So far, the pair of you are batting zero.

Care to try now? Or was your agreement with Wagg just hand-waving?Bullet points.


Jeff did not unequivocally say that the tools of science lead one to theism. That is a strawman that you have leapt upon like an enthusiastic puppy. He said that the organisation is open to anyone who wants to use the tools of science regardless of the conclusion that brings them to.
I did not - even once - say that I agreed with Jeff on this or any other matter. That is another strawman and a misrepresentation of my position. I was posting my own opinion, and as part of that opinion happened to mention that Jeff had provided a clarification to dglas. I did not once post anything that stated whether I agree or disagree with him.

My position is clear: I do not believe that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" discriminates against atheists, and I have previously outlined the reasons why. By his own testimony that was not Jeff's intent when making the statement, and it is demonstrably not the position of the JREF management, most of whom - including Randi, Phil, DJ and Jeff - are atheists themselves. Whether Jeff believes that the tools of science can lead one to theism or not, or whether he even said that, is completely beside the point. I am not interested in making lists of scientists who are also theists.

It is unfortunately true that almost any statement anyone makes for any purpose can be misinterpreted. We take that risk every time we open our mouths. This is not a good reason to refrain from making statements, especially when one represents an organisation of some kind.

Okay - you and dglas believe that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" is open to misinterpretation and was ill-advised. Yes, we get that. But it's too late. The statement has been made, for better or for worse.

Now, if you would like to discuss this matter rationally and with attention to the points that people are really making (rather than the points that you think people are making) then I am more than happy to do so. But doing so involves actually paying attention to what people say - especially to the things that they say about what they're saying.

[kittynh]

pfffffttttttttt!!!!!!

go on, I dare you, Randi says it's ok and it's his sandbox.

[kittynh]

seriously if Randi says we are a platypus organization then I'm grafting on flippers and a bill.

[Hokulele]

I wasn't aware I had to agree with everything said by James Randi, Phil Plaitt, DJ Groethe, and Jeff Wagg in order to participate in the JREF. :confused:



(Not addressed specifically to you, kitty.)

[TSR]

seriously if Randi says we are a platypus organization then I'm grafting on flippers and a bill.

.
<considers kittyh with flipppers>

I'm sorry, what were we talking about -- I got distracted....
.

[Jeff Corey]

seriously if Randi says we are a platypus organization then I'm grafting on flippers and a bill.
Don't forget the ovipositor! Or the show tunes!

[Belz...]

Well, you agreed with Wagg's statement, so I expected you to be able explain which tools he meant because it sounds like gibberish to me.

I agreed with Jeff's statement that it wasn't hard to understand.

People can use faith to lead to god, but I only know one theist who will swear that scientific tools lead to theism and he ain't here.

He's also wrong.

Actually, people have used science to reach false conclusions on innumerable occasions.

[Geek Goddess]

You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".

Now you're avoiding the subject by saying it's not JREF's business. Well, if the business of JREF one minute is using the tools of science, and the next not, then you've painted yourself neatly into a blind corner.

Watching you yet again make a foolish statement which you are unable to defend, but refuse to retract, is hilarious.

"I was wrong". "My statement was incorrect". Doesn't seem too hard.

Anyway, in the lack of an answer from you or the groupies who swallowed it whole without thinking, I'll just leave it as another of those unanswered questions.
But he did answer you, more than once, as did several other people. You just don't like the answer.

He did not state the science can lead to theism. He said if someone uses the tools of science and proves theism, that is compatible with the JREF's mission.

Doesn't mean that it will ever happen. You seem to want to score points and go back into your little hole and pretend that you've made some great observation that no one can refute. But no one intended the meaning that you've subscribed to them. Bogus.

[dglas]

Let it be known, from this point forward, in perpetuity, that anyone disagreeing with Geek Goddes will never, ever have a real point, but will only be "trying to score points." So say we all.

Thus endeth the lesson.

:rolleyes:

[Geek Goddess]

Let it be known, from this point forward, in perpetuity, that anyone disagreeing with Geek Goddes will never, ever have a real point, but will only be "trying to score points." So say we all.

Thus endeth the lesson.

:rolleyes:

The laughing dog icon is a bit overused.

[Hawk one]

Let it be known, from this point forward, in perpetuity, that anyone disagreeing with Geek Goddes will never, ever have a real point, but will only be "trying to score points." So say we all.

Thus endeth the lesson.

:rolleyes:
Breach of Rule 12 removed.

[remirol]

Doesn't mean that it will ever happen. You seem to want to score points and go back into your little hole and pretend that you've made some great observation that no one can refute. But no one intended the meaning that you've subscribed to them. Bogus.

The advantage of the Internet is that it allows many people from different countries and walks of life to gather and discuss many different issues; and the advantage of many forums (such as this) is that they allow people to present many different viewpoints... they can be a soapbox for those who might not otherwise have one.

The problem with the Internet is that it lets people write out huge long-winded rhetorical posts that are mostly a bunch of bollocks based on some erroneous assumptions, and then having penned their Epistle for the Ages(tm), they feel compelled to defend it with ever-increasing degrees of irrationality -- regardless of the multitude of equally rational responses presented pointing out both the B.C.* of said posts and the erroneity** of said assumptions. It also allows such authors, protected safely behind their keyboards, to casually dismiss those responses, as in the end nothing that matters personally to said author is involved.

The biggest difference is that in verbal, face-to-face discussions, when one states an erroneous assumption, one is often interrupted by someone who wishes to correct the assumption. This, while it seems rude at first glance, is actually a huge face-saver, as it allows one to correct one's original errors and reformulate one's profound statement to take into account said corrected assumptions... and thus actually be _less_ likely to feel the need to defend it so dogmatically. (In theory, at least.)

I suggest the thread originator would be better served by writing fewer walls of text outlining and repeating his position (we all understand it, we're really kind of sharp cookies), and reading the responses in this thread more.

:dl:

OK, sorry. Almost got through all that with a straight face. Just can't take teh Interwebs (sic) that seriously, ya know? :D



* Bollocks Content
** Of course it's a word. I said so.

[Marduk]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay organization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.


Reposted here in a new thread for greater visibility, rather than just being buried, deep in another thread. I posted the above to my Facebook status recently - the results were, shall we say, interesting...
are you interested ?
wanna give me a reacharound ?
:D

[The Atheist]

Jeff did not unequivocally say that the tools of science lead one to theism.

Unfortunately for your defence of him, nor did I say that he had. He said it can.

He said that the organisation is open to anyone who wants to use the tools of science regardless of the conclusion that brings them to.

So, misuse of the tools of science is acceptable to JREF.

What then of homeopathy, telekinesis and telepathy, all of which have plenty of mis-used science behind them?

To me, "use of science" means using it correctly, and using only those parts which are demonstrably correct.

I did not once post anything that stated whether I agree or disagree with him.

Really?

This is n ot an agreement?


I feel this is kind of obvious, but I guess it's not.
It's obvious to almost everyone.

What would you call it then?

My position is clear: I do not believe that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" discriminates against atheists,!

Bravo!

Nor do I as it happens. What was that you were saying about strawmen?

Whether Jeff believes that the tools of science can lead one to theism or not, or whether he even said that, is completely beside the point.

Exactly the opposite in fact - that was my only point.

Okay - you and dglas believe that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" is open to misinterpretation and was ill-advised.

No wonder you mentioned strawmen, did you get a special on them for volume?

Where have I said anything about misinterpretation of that statement?

Now, if you would like to discuss this matter rationally and with attention to the points that people are really making (rather than the points that you think people are making) then I am more than happy to do so. But doing so involves actually paying attention to what people say - especially to the things that they say about what they're saying.

:dl:

That's pretty funny in the context of your post.

I agreed with Jeff's statement that it wasn't hard to understand.

But you're not going to bother explaining why you agree with it. That'e fine.

[QUOTE=Belz...;5407095]Actually, people have used science to reach false conclusions on innumerable occasions.

Very good.

Although in my book, that makes it not science. Just like 1+4=99 isn't maths.

But he did answer you, more than once, as did several other people. You just don't like the answer.

Nope, he has not answered the question at any stage. He has obfuscated, used red herrings and outright changed the subject, but nowhere has he answered the question.

Shall I re-post his quote again?

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

Since you've joined in, and you're so sure of yourself, maybe you could point to where the answer to the question; "What tools of science lead to theism?" for me.

Thanks.

He did not state the science can lead to theism. He said if someone uses the tools of science and proves theism, that is compatible with the JREF's mission.

:dl:

Oh that is just a classic piece! Do go back and read what you wrote.

Doesn't mean that it will ever happen. You seem to want to score points and go back into your little hole and pretend that you've made some great observation that no one can refute. But no one intended the meaning that you've subscribed to them. Bogus.

Gosh, that sounds seriously like attacking the arguer and not the argument.

You wouldn't do that would you?

[KoihimeNakamura]

And that answers the question: In The Atheist's world, you can in fact practice thought crime.

[Marduk]

And that answers the question: In The Atheist's world, you can in fact practice thought crime.

I practice thought crime in this world, every day, don't you ?
:D

[MikeSun5]

what I've noticed lurking on this thread:

dglas is upset that the JREF felt the need to add a disclaimer to combat a common misconception, yet his posts contain multiple disclaimers to combat the common viewpoints that he's a troll, bigot, or a homophobe... :boggled:


And speaking of being gay, am I the only one that sees that The Atheist has a huge crush on Jeff Wagg? I can empathize -- I used to harp on this girl's every word in 5th grade, it was crazy. Don't let the rejections deter you, man. It'll pay off. I'm sure you've cracked harder eggs than Mr. Wagg. :D

[specious_reasons]

He's in my friends list on Facebook. Not as "exciting" as you were looking for, I know, but there it is.

DJ is totally going to unfriend you now.

[Belgian thought]

Leaving the unbecoming "loonies" snarkiness aside.

"...shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization""

That would be an interesting experiment actually. Needs to be a little more specific though. Some will claim that "religion" does not necessarily mean "theistic."


How about?
"JREF - An organization that says - NO! to "Woo Woo",
but Yes! to "Hi", "Hello" and "Hoo-hoo!" "

[Mercutio]

Unfortunately for your defence of him, nor did I say that he had. He said it can.
That is, after all, a more correct position. Because it clearly can.

The tools of science require one to follow the evidence, no? They do not, however, provide the evidence. Evidence, of course, comes from the environment a given person is in. Variability being part of reality, it is conceivable, perhaps inevitable, that a given person, let alone a person whose environment is steeped in religion will not encounter the same evidence as any other given person. Indeed, it is conceivable, perhaps inevitable, that the preponderance of the evidence may be overwhelmingly convincing (depending on one's decision criteria) and utterly at odds with another person's.

We see this more commonly in less-explored areas of science, where theories compete and cultures surround each. As a behaviorist, I find it astonishing that so many generations of cognitive psychologists (let alone the other scientists who are not as close to the evidence) can conclude that we have a causal mind... and yet I see threads here, and arguments in the literature (for a given definition of "the literature", but there are certainly enough publications that a subculture can insulate itself well, and any given member be honestly convinced of the "evidence"), that dismiss behaviorism as reductionist, and assert boldly a causal mind, magic as that must be.

It is a part of science, and a strength of science, that competing cultures may arise. No one picks apart a paradigm like its opposition. We would like to think we can do it ourselves, but we are human; we defend our paradigms, we defend our pet theories, we defend our beliefs. It is a very good thing that a scientific community is big enough to foster some strong strains of iconoclasts and, frankly, outright kooks. In the long run, it is a strength. In the short run (and, in science, a short run can last for generations, depending on the question), yes, absolutely, the tools of science can lead to belief.

As for the alleged thread topic... just as in science, one person's experience (in this case, mine) may be accurate or inaccurate, but the only thing one can do is to follow that evidence. I have dear friends I know are straight, dear friends I know are gay, dear friends I have no clue about (nor care)... in my personal experience, if I were hanging from a cliff, overhanging punji sticks guarded by deadly sharks with guns and bad attitudes, and I had to choose one person to pull me up through sheer strength of character, and could only choose one adjective to pick that person... my friends who happen to be gay are clearly the group to choose to give me the best chance of living. If my experience is any evidence (see how I tied the whole post together? nice, eh?), I can only hope Grothe is gay, for JREF's best interest.