Civility Out?

[MLynn]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

[Kiless]

I'd like to see the context that was snipped.

"...I happened to meet the leader of that same Christian Coalition, in the rival TV station to the BBC in Manchester. "

Did this particular Christian Coalition happen to do something particuarly rude in order to prompt this response?

(NB - this is coming from a person who has been educated in a Catholic University, has worked for Muslims, Anglicans, Methodists and currently teaches students from a wide range of cultural beliefs.... we're not all 'bad'!!)

[Hal Bidlack]

I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.
I'm very interested in people's thoughts on this subject. I've been told I can be a believer and a skeptic, and then there are others who say I can't be a skeptic if I am a believer of some type. I sure don't know. Your talk might be very helpful.

[Kiless]

Context.

I know Dawkins is a bit of a grumpy bugger (at least, he wasn't very forthcoming to me!) but we don't have enough information from the snippet of that speech to see what rationalisation he has for his rude response.

[MLynn]

Not a problem at all, I think context is important.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

Actually, I believe that there are manipulators who depend on politeness and civility to get away with their scams.

Going though the motions of being friendly toward them seems to me to serve their needs (if by nothing more than implying some level of acceptance), more than anything else.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by MLynn
Not a problem at all, I think context is important.

Sorry, MLynn, I edited my post as the tone came across poorly. :(

[MLynn]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Actually, I believe that there are manipulators who depend on politeness and civility to get away with their scams.

Going though the motions of being friendly toward them seems to me to serve their needs (if by nothing more than implying some level of acceptance), more than anything else.
I guess I'm naive as I've forgotten that some people are manipulative types and probably need a verbal slap on the side of the head.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all. Emphatically, a non-atheist can be a skeptic. Hal, you know all about Thomas Paine, I'm sure, who was both a skeptic and and ardent deist. "The Age of Reason" is a profoundly religious work, yet it is also one of the finest examples of skeptical thought ever composed.

In addition, I have encountered some individuals who incorporate skepticism into their Christian faith. They apply the repeated Biblical admonition, "Be not deceived," and use skeptical principles to separate what is good from what is hogwash. Some of them adopt a sensible view that "Any matter in the Bible that is at odds with historical fact or with scientific evidence, or that attributes any morally repugnant attribute to the Almighty (1) cannot be taken literally and (2) is of doubtful inspiration." These folks tend to be rather quiet, as they are well aware that many of the loudmouthed thumpers today would consider them not to be Christian.

As for a refusal to shake hands, my feelings are two-fold. First, courtesy is for everyone. Second, let the other guy be the first to cause injury. In other words, civility should be the norm, but if the other guy is rude, then he's "dishing it out" and he'd better be able to "take it" in return.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

We can treat people with respect by not shouting them down when they speak, or throwing things at them, or spitting on them...in all sorts of ways.

If that person has truly earned a higher level of respect (which can be done even by those with whom we may disagree on some points), we can show it by smiling broadly, applauding their words, etc.

But how does that get us to the notion that a social gesture of friendliness like a handshake is any sort of sincere showing of respect?
Especially if it is an empty gesture not backed up by anyreal feeling of friendship toward a particular person.

[Francois Tremblay]

As Sam Harris says in his book "The End of Faith", religious liberalism is more dangerous than fundamentalism, because it provides an atmosphere of enforced tolerence within which extremism is not exposed and indeed encouraged.

To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks.

We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks. Ojection: assumes facts not in evidence. That said believer is immoral and religion is immoral. And as erroneously belief doesn't make one irrational it is very possible to be a religious believer and be rational.

Walt

[jj]

Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

There's some on each side, MLynn, there's some on each side. I think we need a lot more information.

[SixSixSix]

Time for someone to play the Devil's Advocate, and I have the perfect forum name...

First off - agreed about the rudeness factor; generally there's no excuse for that. I agree with Kiless that Professor Dawkins can occasionally come off as abrupt or rude; I believe generally this is not malicious (I noticed it at TAM3 when getting my books signed; he wasn't exactly chatty like say Phil Plait or Michael Shermer were).

But back to the "can you be a skeptic and still be a believer?" I'd like to bring up something that the late Douglas Adams pointed out - for some reason, in our society, we cordone off certain subjects. If you tell me that South Africa is a better cricket team than Australia, I'll think you're wrong but we can have a civil discussion regarding the merits of each side. However, if you tell me you need to start working at 4am and leave at 3pm for the next 2 weeks because of something an arguably mythical figure supposedly told you to do a couple of millenia ago, I'm supposed to simply accept that.

Why is this?

I do not respect people's religious beliefs - tolerate, sure, but I respect them no less than I respect people's opinions regarding whether the world is round or flat, or whether we actually landed on the Moon or not. There is no more evidence for religious beliefs than the most whacked out New Age woo-woo nonsense.

Thought experiment: let us suppose that a speaker was proposing to say at TAM how the fact that he believed in alien abductions/ghosts/Bigfoot/pick-your-favourite-nonsense was in no way in contradiction to the assertion that he was skeptical: would this be OK? If not, and yet belief in a deity is OK, what's the difference?

From one perspective, all religious people are skeptics. Christians, for example, are skeptical of the existence of Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Brahma, and so on - even fundamentalist Christians fit this mold. But if you cast the net that wide, you're going to find a hard time defining something that isn't skeptical.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
...

But back to the "can you be a skeptic and still be a believer?" I'd like to bring up something that the late Douglas Adams pointed out - for some reason, in our society, we cordone off certain subjects. If you tell me that South Africa is a better cricket team than Australia, I'll think you're wrong but we can have a civil discussion regarding the merits of each side. However, if you tell me you need to start working at 4am and leave at 3pm for the next 2 weeks because of something an arguably mythical figure supposedly told you to do a couple of millenia ago, I'm supposed to simply accept that.

Why is this? Well what affect does his belief in the superiority of a sports team have on you? You compare this to a religion enforcing behaviour on people. It is right not to be civil to believers who use religion to demand others bend to their "need" or to justify bigotry. Dawkins argues in one essay (in a Devil's Chaplain, forget which essay) that society has erroneously given the magisterium of morality to religion. Religion is unfairly given a seat at any moral debate (cloning for example) when it has not justified any expertise in morality.

This is a far cry though from many Christians. Many don't belief they have a monopoly on morality. They are not all moral absolutists. Because specifics of 'the leader of that same Christian Coalition' aren't given in the commentary we can't judge Dawkins unfairly. However, your example I don't think is typical of religious believers.
Originally posted by SixSixSix
...

Thought experiment: let us suppose that a speaker was proposing to say at TAM how the fact that he believed in alien abductions/ghosts/Bigfoot/pick-your-favourite-nonsense was in no way in contradiction to the assertion that he was skeptical: would this be OK? If not, and yet belief in a deity is OK, what's the difference?
If someone had several hallucinatory experiences, I would expect them become believers for a time. Said experiences are very real to the person and even skeptics have a hard time piecing together a dramatic event. I would expect said skeptic to eventually, given the time to reflect, to see the experience for what it was.

And again, I think a lot of these experiences are much different from religious belief. Many such beliefs involve very profound difficult questions, and many don't involve physical manifestations that test in the same way as abductions/ghosts/bigfoot would.

Originally posted by SixSixSix

From one perspective, all religious people are skeptics. Christians, for example, are skeptical of the existence of Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Brahma, and so on - even fundamentalist Christians fit this mold. But if you cast the net that wide, you're going to find a hard time defining something that isn't skeptical. I would suggest that fundamentalist Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Odin, ... Different from being skeptical, where disbelief is based on questioning of evidence rather than dogma.

Walt

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

It's very simple.


Do you claim that there are phenomena found in nature that are only attributable to (insert your deity here)?
Do you claim evidence of any paranormal phenomenon?
Do you claim to have a paranormal ability?


If you can answer no to all questions, then you can speak.

If you can't answer no to all questions, then you won't have time to speak, because I'll demand to see that evidence at TAM4...and I won't let you off the hook until you show me! :D

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Well what affect does his belief in the superiority of a sports team have on you?


Haven't met many Australians, have you? :)


You compare this to a religion enforcing behaviour on people.

...

This is a far cry though from many Christians.

If you're arguing that most Christians would allow me to discuss their beliefs in a deity with the same tone that I could discuss which cricket team was better, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

If you're not arguing that, then you're agreeing that religion is somehow a taboo subject - and my point was to agree with Douglas Adams/Richard Dawkins in questioning why that was.


If someone had several hallucinatory experiences, I would expect them become believers for a time. Said experiences are very real to the person and even skeptics have a hard time piecing together a dramatic event. I would expect said skeptic to eventually, given the time to reflect, to see the experience for what it was.

I think you would find most people that are "true believers" in alien abductions, New Age, et al would be quite offended to hear you describe them as the process of hallucinations. It also begs the question of whether or not it's OK to describe people who have deep religious experiences as hallucinating.


And again, I think a lot of these experiences are much different from religious belief. Many such beliefs involve very profound difficult questions, and many don't involve physical manifestations that test in the same way as abductions/ghosts/bigfoot would.

I disagree with you there. If aliens really were abducting humans, or if it really were possible to have some affect on the world after death, I suggest these would be very profound and important facts that would revolutionise the way we see the world. On the other hand, whether or not there is a God has very little affect on most people's daily lives - it may mean no more than having to get up early on Sunday mornings instead of sleeping in.

Philosophical questions are very profound by definition, yet it is entirely permissible and encouraged to disagree with and debate philosophy (dating right back to Socrates). Why the special treatment for religion? Why is it OK for me to deride your Kantian ethics, but not OK for me to say that it's silly to believe in a supernatural wish granting entity?


I would suggest that fundamentalist Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Odin, ... Different from being skeptical, where disbelief is based on questioning of evidence rather than dogma.

I believe that to be a matter of semantics only.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
Haven't met many Australians, have you? :)
I see, I should pretend your example was about hockey teams. Then I'll understand the importance.
Originally posted by SixSixSix
If you're arguing that most Christians would allow me to discuss their beliefs in a deity with the same tone that I could discuss which cricket team was better, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

If you're not arguing that, then you're agreeing that religion is somehow a taboo subject - and my point was to agree with Douglas Adams/Richard Dawkins in questioning why that was.
I wouldn't expect the same tone. But possibly the same tone you might use to discuss how to raise children or more touchy political subject. And again, only with those who are skeptical believers. I have been able to express to very devout Christians that I thought certain concepts of god were morally repugnant, but I didn't use the same tone with which I point out that the Montreal Canadians aint worth the time to run the Zamboni around the rink.

I agree the questioning of religion is taboo, especially in public. With respect to the original post I disagree with the withheld handshake unless something more damning can be attributing to the object of Dawkins contempt. (I should note that I don't believe that Dawkins would refer to the man as an irrational bigot without cause, based on the little I've read and my impression of him at TAM).
Originally posted by SixSixSix
I think you would find most people that are "true believers" in alien abductions, New Age, et al would be quite offended to hear you describe them as the process of hallucinations. It also begs the question of whether or not it's OK to describe people who have deep religious experiences as hallucinating.I didn't mean to imply the religious are necessarily hallucinating, I was talking specifically about aliens, ghosts etc. Those religious people who do hallucinate may later come to realize it wasn't a religious experience one they hear the phenomenon described to them, provided they are skeptics.

Originally posted by SixSixSix
I disagree with you there. If aliens really were abducting humans, or if it really were possible to have some affect on the world after death, I suggest these would be very profound and important facts that would revolutionise the way we see the world. On the other hand, whether or not there is a God has very little affect on most people's daily lives - it may mean no more than having to get up early on Sunday mornings instead of sleeping in.
Point Taken.
Originally posted by SixSixSix
I believe that to be a matter of semantics only. I disagree, but that may be because of ambiguity in the word skeptic. I sometimes use it interchangably with critical thinker, which I shouldn't. There is a big difference between a Christian who has 'no other gods before [the god of abraham]' and someone who doubts Shiva on physical/historic grounds.

Walt

[SixSixSix]

That's the problem with arguing on this board - it so rarely degenerates into flame wars. :)

It is true that some other subjects are taboo of course - child rearing and politics are both good examples - but neither politics nor child rearing generally deal with supernatural activities (OK, that's arguable - at least with politics). Religion appears to be the only example that comes to mind of a taboo subject involving the supernatural. Certainly telling an alien abductee that he's nuts and/or confusing sleep paralysis with his experiences will not make you seem sympathetic to the believer, but non-believers aren't likely to take you to task for questioning his beliefs. Yet there are many people - atheists as well as Christians - that feel it is inappropriate for me to question religious beliefs.

I'm coming across as a very angry spit-at-the-world atheist here; I'm really not. Some of my best friends would regard themselves as Christians - I have no problem tolerating their beliefs, and I'm actually too cynical to believe that I can change them through reasoned discourse, so I generally just let the subject drop when it arises - I am a product of the same social conditioning everyone else is, but I'm rational enough to see that there appears to be no reason other than tradition for this taboo.

I find it just barely possible to believe that there was no particular cause for Professor Dawkins reaction. He wrote some very inflammatory things after September 11 (which is probably the Devil's Chaplain essay you are referring to), and he was a supporter of the Brights movement that couldn't see (by his own admission) any fault with the fact that the name implied superiority. He's a brilliant man, and a great writer, and I'm proud to own signed copies of all his books... but I'm not necessarily sure that he can't have the odd off day.

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
And as erroneously belief doesn't make one irrational it is very possible to be a religious believer and be rational.

It is also possible for all the particles of my body to move one foot to the right simultaneously. I'd say the probability is about the same.

In about six years of discussing with and debating Christians, I have met one intellectually honest believer. She's probably an atheist now, Providence willing.

[Darat]

(Quick caveat – don’t know the background about the person Dawkins was responding to so I can’t comment if in that situation I agree or disagree with his actions and comments.)

This is a subject that has been on my mind for the last week or so triggered by another thread here (see: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54539 ) in that thread I attempted to argue why I don’t attend religious ceremonies of friends and family (albeit poorly). I stopped participating because after having my decision described as “atheist fundyism�, “attitudes such as you describe that give atheists a bad rep�, “more about your ego than anything else� and even perhaps a suggestion that I am an “atheist bigot� I thought I should again look at my reasons, and that I should talk to some of my friends (especially the religious ones) about this issue and it has led to some interesting comments and debates.

What I saw in that thread that was more evidence for a belief I have and that is for some reason religious beliefs are treated differently then other non-evidence based beliefs. Let me create a hypothetical scenario:

A Ku Klux Klan leader stands up and says that whilst he has nothing personally against black people and that they shouldn’t as individuals be treated any different to other people but it is wrong and there should be laws against a black person marrying a white person as that is unnatural.

Would the same level of objection be raised if Dawkins had refused to shake the Ku Klux Klan leader’s hand and called him, to his face, an irrational bigot?

A Christian leader stands up and says that whilst he has nothing personally against homosexual people and that they shouldn’t as individuals be treated any different to other people but it is wrong and there should be laws against homosexual people getting married as that is unnatural.

Why shouldn’t that Christian leader be called to his face, an irrational bigot and Dawkin refuse to shake his hand?

If someone is a bigot (in the common usage of the word) then why should they be given a “free ride� simply because their bigotry stems from their religious beliefs? To me that seems inconsistent. What would be wrong (in my opinion) is to generalise to the extent of saying “all Christians are bigots�, some are of course but some aren’t. It is not wrong however to accuse the leaders of certain Christian faiths of bigotry and to state that their religion is bigoted, if that is the case.

I think the modern concept of pluralism in society has gone slightly awry – respect for an individual’s right to hold a belief is expected to be extended to a respect for the belief they hold. Whilst I respect a person’s right to hold a bigoted belief I do not necessarily respect the person that holds a belief that is bigoted, and I will not for the sake of “politeness� disguise or hide the fact that I find what they say they stand for repugnant. That does not mean I will go out of my way to be rude to that person or actively do or say anything if I consider it inappropriate at time but that will not be based on a mistaken understanding of what politeness and civility should be about. Politeness and civility is not about ignoring strong disagreements, it is not about disguising feelings, it is a way of expressing those opinions in such a way to ensure we can communicate strong disagreements with one another. If politeness and civility is used to disguise or avoid strong disagreements it is just hypocrisy.

Religious bigotry, religious intolerance and so on are no different from racial intolerance, misogyny and all the other ways we as humans separate “us� from “them�. To treat it as somehow different is wrong.


(As a slight aside I do still hold you can have religious beliefs and accurately describe yourself as being “sceptical�.)

[Beady]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality.

To condemn without dialogue is to condemn without evidence. It is the act of a bigot.

By what morality and rationality do you prejudge an entire class of people? And by what right do you pronounce yourself to be rational and moral enough to sit in judgment?

We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

Now I find this *really* scary. To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

Neo-nazism and flat-earthers depend upon pseudoscience, which disguises itself as rationality. Religion quite honestly states that faith is preferred to reason, which openly shows itself to be superstition.

[sphenisc]

People shouldn't be called 'irrational bigots' because a) it's irrational and b) it's bigoted.
a) Telling an irrational person they're irrational serves no useful purpose as they are therefore incapable of drawing any rational deductions from that information, thus the acto f telling them is irrational.
b) bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
Anyone who describes someone else as a bigot in a manner designed to offend and, for example, awards prizes to those who share their worldview satisfy the definition of bigot.

Cheers and may your (God/or otherwise) go with you.

P.S. I miss Dave Allen

[Hal Bidlack]

well, this thread, I'm afraid, kind of confirms my concerns. So time ago, at, I guess in hindsight, the highpoint of my relationship with JREF and this forum, I penned a guest commentary when the computer ate Mr Randi's, on this subject. My sense is that since then, the willingness to be civil (note I did not say tolerate) has dropped significantly. Indeed, it has now become fashionable to condemn roughly, to dismiss with a haughty superiority.

I guess I'm old fashioned. I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect. I'm odd that way. Certainly I’ve had moments I’m not proud of when I’ve failed to live up to that creed, but I respectfully offer that I’ve put up with some quite personal and vicious attacks back in the day with reasonably good grace.

I was the MC for TAM2 (way back when I was respectable) and was running around with the microphone during a panel discussion. Penn called people who are not atheists "brain dead retards." I replied that I was one of them, and he laughed. In all my private dealings with Penn, he has been relentlessly kind, funny, and accepting. He was being, I think, theatrical in his manner when he made that comment. Perhaps some of the comments above are the same?

But I confess that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the JREF and the more active (vocal?) members of the skeptical movement are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence that there is a single correct view, and that that MUST include atheism. I had a serious falling out with JREF about a year ago, and a recent effort at rapprochement appears to have failed. I feel the words of my commentary ring quite hollow now.

Frankly, I'm not sure what I believe. I know that when my wife was diagnosed, I prayed. I was also sure that it would do nothing, as I don't believe there is a God that changes the laws of the universe for one person's needs. But I found the act of praying comforting. I can honestly answer Claus's questions with no's, but I also have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that there is something greater than myself out there. I also fully accept that this may be self-delusion. But regardless, I hold this apostasy, and thus I must be shunned, it would appear.

sorry, I'm rambling, but I'm just very depressed that something that has been such an important part of my life, the skeptical movement, appears to be being pulled back from my grasp with voices saying "you are not worthy." (Apologies to mike meyers). Must one, to be a proper skeptic, insist that all who differ are just stupid? Is the answer to fundamentalist intolerance to greet it with equal intolerance? Am I (metaphorically) worthless to the skeptical movement because I’m not completely sure there is nothing out there? Can I not be trusted to evaluate dowsers, cold readers, and such?

On a more pragmatic level, it seems silly to me for a movement to insist that 95% of the potential donor base is nuts. But that's another discussion. Based on the comments of Francois Tremblay, 666, and such above, I should withdraw from this conversation, I'm not one of the "good" people who know the right truth. I’m very down over this discussion. I won’t decide right now, but I think the only thing that makes sense is to withdraw from TAM4 while I still have a spot of dignity. Ironically, the draft schedule had me following Professor Dawkins. I best not go, he wouldn’t want to be seen shaking my hand, after all...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

…snip…

I guess I'm old fashioned. I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect. I'm odd that way. Certainly I’ve had moments I’m not proud of when I’ve failed to live up to that creed, but I respectfully offer that I’ve put up with some quite personal and vicious attacks back in the day with reasonably good grace.


I was always brought up that the default position is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, which is to say to assume nothing bad and if possible err on assuming the best but I was also brought up with the idea that respect has to be earned. Over the years I have often questioned the former but I have always held respect is something that has to be earned, not given.

Whilst it is possible to be civil to someone you don’t respect I do think that it is wrong to use that civility to avoid an issue.


Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

…snip…

I was the MC for TAM2 (way back when I was respectable) and was running around with the microphone during a panel discussion. Penn called people who are not atheists "brain dead retards." I replied that I was one of them, and he laughed. In all my private dealings with Penn, he has been relentlessly kind, funny, and accepting. He was being, I think, theatrical in his manner when he made that comment. Perhaps some of the comments above are the same?


That was discussed at length here and I’m not sure what I posted then but I’ve always believed that having religious faith does not preclude someone from also being sceptical. I even believe it is possible to come to the conclusion using “critical thinking� based on personal evidence that God exists, it is just not evidence I can accept. (And I believe there is contrary evidence for all the common definitions of “God� or “Gods� that I know people use. Also from experience I think on examination flaws in the reasoning can often be exposed, but just using critical thinking and being sceptical does not guarantee your conclusion is right.)

So I totally disagree with Penn’s remark as a generalisation.


Originally posted by Hal Bidlack


But I confess that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the JREF and the more active (vocal?) members of the skeptical movement are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence that there is a single correct view, and that that MUST include atheism. I had a serious falling out with JREF about a year ago, and a recent effort at rapprochement appears to have failed. I feel the words of my commentary ring quite hollow now.


Apparently I am an “active member� of the sceptical community because I now admin this forum (or so I’ve been told by others) and I would never state there is only one right view and that it must include anything never mind atheism. Indeed not so long ago I sent this in a PM to a friend

� I do have to say I think one of the worse things for promoting the idea of critical thinking and scepticism in general is to start considering it a "movement", that’s one of the reasons I didn’t like the idea of “brights�. But of course I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do our best to promote the idea and tools of critical thinking and scepticism since I believe they can help people make their life better and prevent a lot of harm it’s just a “movement� is the antithesis of sceptical thought. As soon as we start making “declarative� statements of certainty we stop being sceptical – don’t we? “


Originally posted by Hal Bidlack


Frankly, I'm not sure what I believe.


Now that’s a movement I could join the - “I dunno� club!

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

I know that when my wife was diagnosed, I prayed. I was also sure that it would do nothing, as I don't believe there is a God that changes the laws of the universe for one person's needs. But I found the act of praying comforting. I can honestly answer Claus's questions with no's, but I also have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that there is something greater than myself out there. I also fully accept that this may be self-delusion. But regardless, I hold this apostasy, and thus I must be shunned, it would appear.


And yes I can raise arguments like “it is a false comfort�, that those are “just states of the mind� and so on however that would to me, ignore what is part of being human i.e. we are not logical creatures in the sense of consciously always electing to use logic to make our decisions, often we do not know why we believe what we do beyond a “it feels right�.

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

sorry, I'm rambling, but I'm just very depressed that something that has been such an important part of my life, the skeptical movement, appears to be being pulled back from my grasp with voices saying "you are not worthy." (Apologies to mike meyers). Must one, to be a proper skeptic, insist that all who differ are just stupid? Is the answer to fundamentalist intolerance to greet it with equal intolerance? Am I (metaphorically) worthless to the skeptical movement because I’m not completely sure there is nothing out there? Can I not be trusted to evaluate dowsers, cold readers, and such?


I think my view is obviously a “of course not�. The key point is (in my opinion) acknowledging that some of your beliefs (like mine) are based not on evidence but are as I’ve often described them “leaps of faith�, we all make leaps of faith including the most fundamental - believing something other then “I “exists. Where I believe the problems arise is when we don’t acknowledge those leaps of faith as being founded on no evidence and also when we refuse to re-evaluate those leaps of faith. In other words once someone starts to say they “KNOW THE TRUTH� watch out.


Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

On a more pragmatic level, it seems silly to me for a movement to insist that 95% of the potential donor base is nuts. But that's another discussion. Based on the comments of Francois Tremblay, 666, and such above, I should withdraw from this conversation, I'm not one of the "good" people who know the right truth. I’m very down over this discussion. I won’t decide right now, but I think the only thing that makes sense is to withdraw from TAM4 while I still have a spot of dignity. Ironically, the draft schedule had me following Professor Dawkins. I best not go, he wouldn’t want to be seen shaking my hand, after all...

I suggest you carefully consider that, after all from what’s been posted here we don’t know the full details of what happened with Dawkins and the Christian Leader. Plus somehow I do not think you are going to be saying that your “leap of faith� means that you know (for instance) marriage between “races� is wrong and should be prohibited. I suspect that whilst Dawkins might consider you irrational ;) he would not consider you an “irrational bigot�.

[JamesM]

Darat noted:
Would the same level of objection be raised if Dawkins had refused to shake the Ku Klux Klan leader’s hand and called him, to his face, an irrational bigot?
Good point. But while I agree that the context of the original Dawkins quote is important, the context in which it was presented in the commentary seemed pretty obvious. It looked rude to me.

It reminds me of the supposed furore over Prince Charles' handshake "gaffe" with Mugabe at the Pope's funeral. Yeah, handshakes are symbolic, but really, so what? If you don't shake someone's hand, you look like an ill-mannered oik, and your opponent is still a fundamentalist bigot/African dictator.

I am an atheist and my response to the Dawkins anecdote was "how boorish". If the point of the commentaries are to cheer the already confirmed skeptical and JREF members, then perhaps this particular item did a good job (although it did nothing for me).

If they're designed to advocate for skepticism to a disinterested outsider, I would hardly be pointing to this as a shining example. I might add, I joined this forum after doing a websearch on some skeptical item, finding the commentaries and then reading through every single one (was probably supposed to be writing my thesis at the time, I expect).

This is minor, to be sure. But the cumulative effect could have some bearing on whether somewhat cash-strapped JREF members (like me) decide to renew their membership.

[BillyJoe]

Hal,

I think you should go to TAM4 - for the sake of the scepticism!

I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect.Nice to hear from you once again. :)

You are entirely correct in your attitude, in my opinion.
I haven't been as deeply disenchanted as yourself probably because I have never regarded scepticism as a movement, but more of as a way of life. The Bright movement for me was a great big laugh. That well known sceptics could have taken this so seriously, to me, was completely amazing.

In any case, giving offense is completely counterproductive. I have a sceptical outlook and it makes me cringe when I hear prominent sceptics carry on like that. I can just imagine the response of someone who has a religious outlook! I think this has happened only out of frustration and egging each other on. Why are they on a mission to convert in any case. I thought religions worked this way. Simply explain your point of view and let it lead where it may.

Life is not about getting your favourite "ideology" up. It is people who are important. There will never be a time when scepticism is the outlook of everyone on this Earth. In fact, it will probably always be in a minority - especially if those prominent sceptics keep carrying on the way that they have. Everyone is a unique person and it much more interesting to find out how the other person ticks than to persuade them of your own views.

I have a sceptical outlook but I couldn't care less if the world contained no other sceptics than myself. Why do people feel it is so important to spread the word? To repeat, it is people that matter not "ideology". So let's get off our high horse and mingle with the populace.

regards,
BillyJoe

[crimresearch]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how refusing to engage in an unctuous ritual equates to intolerance for whole groups of people.

[thatguywhojuggles]

(In response to whether Christians can be skeptics....)

All men are created skeptical, just some are created more skeptical than others.

[Hutch]

Hal, please come. As a lukewarm Deist (whatever that is, I'll figure it out by the next TAM ;) ), I would be most interested in hearing you speak.

I think what we see is that while all of us who are part of the Skeptical movement (to include religious folks like MLynn) tend to agree on most things in the 'paranormal', such as ESP, UFO's, remote viewing, dowsing, anti-vax, homeopathy, et. al., are items worthy of skepticism because they do not stand the light when their testable claims are put through rigorous testing. The whole schism (if that is what it is) deals with religious beliefs--and that is where the ground gets thorny, so to speak.

Some religious-based claims are testable (see the relatively civil conversation in the paranormal section we are having with a Young Earth Creationist), while others depend solely on faith (no way to prove an undetectable God didn't say "Let there be physics" circa 20B years ago) that is by purview not part of the Skeptics world. And I think there are some skeptics that ignore that and would encompass faith as something to be weighed and tested and if not meeting their requirements to be cast out. And they would be wrong--IMHO as always.

As for Randi and Dawkins comments--well, they are older men, they have been in the trenches for a long time, they have been smeared and abused by many 'religious' folks for a long time, and it might be that the veneer of civility that we all have (but in how thick a layer--how far are we really from the Huns, Mongols, Vandals, et. al.?) has been more than slightly eroded. Or maybe they are just grumpy by nature--nothing wrong with that, I could depress a hyena most days. :D

OK, I've probably rambled enough--but the basic though remains--come and speak. I think we'll listen. Respectfully--but skeptically.

[bouch]

Originally written by Francois Tremblay
To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks.

What is it about ALL religion that makes it immoral?

I guess that if someone believes there is a god, then they should give up being sceptical and believe in homeopathy, alien abductions, yellow bamboo, etc?

]Originally written by Francois Tremblay
We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

Wow. I'm just staggered here. Your assertion is that neo-nazis are more moral than anyone who subscribes to any religion. That's a truly frightening statement.

[Francois Tremblay]

I guess that if someone believes there is a god, then they should give up being sceptical and believe in homeopathy, alien abductions, yellow bamboo, etc?

Belief in a god is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in Jesus is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in miracles is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that a man can be brought back from the dead after three days, without medical technology, and then rocket to the sky, is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that there was a worldwide flood is an extraordinary claim.
etc etc

Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Beady
I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

I'm not sure if you think you're contradicting me or not, but I agree absolutely. There is a huge difference between eccentricity and the refusal to acknowledge reality and moral responsibility (which is what religion is). I'm not sure I would call other skeptics bigots just for not making the difference, though.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Beady
I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.
Francois Tremblay is to athiesm as 1inchrist is to Christianity...

Stupid id forever. Ignorance is curable.

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by rwguinn
Francois Tremblay is to athiesm as 1inchrist is to Christianity...

Stupid id forever. Ignorance is curable.


Ad hominems are curable too. Physician, heal thyself.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense. Can I clarify something? Are you saying that as well as containing matter and energy, the universe also contains abstract moral absolutes?

If you're not saying that, could you clarify what you mean by "evil", "good", "moral" and "amoral"?

Rolfe.

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Can I clarify something? Are you saying that as well as containing matter and energy, the universe also contains abstract moral absolutes?

No.


If you're not saying that, could you clarify what you mean by "evil", "good", "moral" and "amoral"?

AFAIK, this is not specifically a thread about morality. So I'll just say that I mean by it what most people mean - good as actions which are compatible with our objective values, and evil as the opposite. For more on moral objectivity and its basis, see The Case for Objective Morality (http://www.strongatheism.net/philosophy/objectivemorality.html).

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
So I'll just say that I mean by it what most people mean - good as actions which are compatible with our objective values, and evil as the opposite.I will read your link, thank you. However, in the mean time, can you explain why what you said in that sentence does not essentially equate to "good = selfishness"?

Rolfe.

[Francois Tremblay]

"can you explain why what you said in that sentence does not essentially equate to "good = selfishness"?"

It does essentially equate to selfishness. We are all individuals with individual values. We form societies and cooperate because our values are best effected when we help each other.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
It does essentially equate to selfishness. We are all individuals with individual values. We form societies and cooperate because our values are best effected when we help each other. I see a lot of problems there; to start with, how one regards situations in which one's own interests and those of the larger community are in conflict. And situations where what one might want to do in pursuit of one's own interests cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be detrimental to the interests of the larger community, but would nevertheless be viewed in the sense of "what most people mean" as immoral. (Perhaps you wouldn't recognise any situation as being in the latter category?)

Nevertheless, I agree this isn't really on topic for this thread, and I should probably read the link you provided before going into any further detail.

Rolfe.

[SixSixSix]

A few random shots...

Hal, if you refuse to go because of anything I've said, you're foolish. I'm harmless - we obviously disagree on the whole religion thing, but that doesn't mean I'll be packing heat to silence the unbeliever - as skeptics, we ought to be above that sort of intolerance. (I repeat - I tolerate any sort of religious belief, I just don't respect it).

Secondly, I wouldn't take to heart anything Penn said. He strikes me as having a very volatile personality - very much larger than life, and not necessarily consistent from one moment to the next. Surprisingly, from his stage persona, I found him to be one of the least approachable celebrities at TAM3 - and even after seeing P&T at the Rio, Teller was chattier while signing autographs and the like. (Not to say I don't remain a Penn fan, of course - but I've never really mastered the art of unreasoning idolisation).

However... I still remain true to my basic premise. Belief in an overarching "higher power", however you wish to name it, is not fundamentally a different order of belief than those who claim we're being visited by aliens or that crystals can harmonise your life. It is a belief without evidence (if you have evidence, present it) and therefore completely under the purview of skepticism. In effect, the question devolves to "Can I call myself a skeptic if there's something that I accept without skepticism?"

And again, I reiterate that if you cast the net wide enough, everyone is skeptical in that case. So I tend towards "no" as my answer to that question. At the very least you know that hard-line atheists are going be present at TAM4, and if their attitudes make you uncomfortable... well, you need to be prepared for that.

[bouch]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
There is a huge difference between eccentricity and the refusal to acknowledge reality and moral responsibility (which is what religion is). I'm not sure I would call other skeptics bigots just for not making the difference, though.

Can you define what you mean by "moral responsibility", and how religion refuses to acknowledge it?

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by bouch
Can you define what you mean by "moral responsibility", and how religion refuses to acknowledge it?

He may be referring to the oft-mentioned attack on atheists that goes along the lines, "If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in punishment for your sins - so why would you be moral?"

To which I, as an atheist, reply, "If you're telling me that the only reason you don't kill, steal, and so forth is because you think you will be punished for it, then logically you will do these things if you think you can get away with it. Therefore - please occupy a different country to me."

I should point out that I don't think most Christians believe atheists are necessarily immoral - but that seems likely what was being referred to.

[Francois Tremblay]

SixSixSix partially nailed it on the head.

* As SixSixSix said, Christianity is based on submission to God's will, not on facts of reality. This entails total moral subjectivism and denial of principles. This is what we observe in history : Christianity drops moral principles because they become subjectively unacceptable for the whole of society, not because they are judged bad.

* Christian reward is based on salvation, which means : replacing moral judgment by divine sanction. Thus there is absolutely no incentive for a Christian to be moral. In fact, Christians routinely argue that our moral autonomy is useless and that we must submit our judgment to God.

* Anyone who seriously believes that all the evil and suffering in the world was caused by a good being is morally corrupt and untrustworthy.

[SixSixSix]

To be fair: we do not see Christians as a whole abandoning moral principles; we see individuals who happen to be Christian doing so (eg many televangelists, the Spanish Inquisition which nobody expects, since surprise is their main weapon - surprise and fear: their two main weapons are surprise and fear, and rutheless efficiency...).

Whether or not a Christian that chooses to be moral despite god rather than because of him is technically still a Christian is another debate. I would describe the majority of Christians today in Australia (at least) as closet atheists - they live their lives pretty much identically to an atheist, but they occasionally go to to church (weddings, christenings) and would say that they believe in god if asked. Most agnostics are like this. For some reason the word atheist is a label that some find unappealing.

This is possibly because some people think atheists are themselves fanatics, in that there is no clear evidence that disproves a god. However, this is really not true; firstly, few things can be conclusively disproven and in any case the nature of the claim is sufficiently extraordinary as to place the burden of proof on the claimant rather than the skeptic; secondly, if incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God, Thor, Zeus, or Shiva were ever presented the vast majority of atheists would immediately "convert" (at least to belief, if not worship). Godlessness is not a religion.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Actually, I believe that there are manipulators who depend on politeness and civility to get away with their scams.

http://www.exchristian.org/Stories/0011.html

[Boo]

After reading through this thread I am dismayed by what appears to be to varying degrees of antagonism that is espoused towards anyone that disagrees with the 'sceptical must be atheistic' outlook. Like others that have posted here I was taught, regardless of belief or lack there of, people are to be treated with respect and courtesy. We can discuss something and may try to convince someone of our point of view, we can state that we feel the other is wrong about something, we can agree to disagree BUT it is rude to insist that one way is the only way or is superior and to castigate or otherwise disrespect an individual because you do not agree with them.

We all have choices we can make as to how we deal with individuals that do not hold our viewpoint. One person stated that they choose to no longer attend when invited to religious events by family and friends. Personally I disagree with that choice, it is not one I would make. I choose to attend those types of events out of respect and courtesy to those closest to me. When it is time to perform certain acts, such as kneelng or standing with heads bowed, I will instead sit quietly or stand with my head up and eyes open. There are some people whose religious beliefs do not allow for them to participate in the pledge of allegiance or stand when the US flag is displayed, which is the common custom, instead they sit quietly. They do not refuse to attend events where custom calls for these things to happen nor do they insist that they not happen or that others around them behave and act as they do.


I see nothing contradictory about being a deist, theist, agnostic and scepticism. Could this be an individual that is truly sceptical by seeking evidence of their belief or perhaps someone that finds solace and comfort in the community and ritual of religion? Why should we scorn and display such blatant rudeness towards them when they have done nothing to deserve such treatment accept disagree with our viepoints? Granted their are some people that deserve to be scorned and ignored because of their own disrespectful and rude behavior.

We become angry and defensive when we, as sceptics and atheists, are generally reviled and treated rudely. Why do so many of us then turn around and behave the same way?


I agree that individual respect is something that must be earned that does not mean that I cannot be courteous and polite to someone. I was once called upon to transport a young lady that had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident involving a group of christian youths on a field trip. We were being flown by military transpot in a Blackhawk helicopter to a trauma center in another state. I had stabilized her injuries and was continuing to monitor her condition. She was awake, aware and very scared. She asked me if I would say the Lord's Prayer and 23rd Psalm with her. I held her hand and recited both with her, this aided in keeping her calm and allowed for smoother transport and treatment. (Trust me a military helicopter is one place you do not want a hysterical patient.) My job description is basically to provide aid and comfort to the sick and injured. My view was that I was performing my job, personal feelings don't come into it. For the record my job also allows for me to perform extreme unction (last rights), hear final confession and baptise. What purpose would it have served if I told her 'No. I don't believe in religion and I won't pray with you.' It cost me nothing to show respect and courteousness to her beliefs.


So often I hear atheists castigate christians for not living up to the tenets of their religion. Perhaps if we displayed the courtesy, respect and civility of those tenets they might be more inclined to do so as well.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you and turn the other cheek.



This is nothing more than my point of view, you are of course free to disagree or agree with what you wish.



Boo

[crimresearch]

To the narrow issue of religiosity and skepticism, I agree that it is quite possible for someone to be a skeptic, a good scientist, an effective researcher, *and* to decide for themselves what religious feelings, beliefs, and observances they wish to enjoy.

I really don't see the difference on a basic level between that , and the suspenson of disbelief that is required for a skeptic to be a Star Trek geek, a gamer, a sports fan, etc.

People are capable of functioning in paradoxical ways.

B U T ( Big but...), religion isn't a singular proposal either...and on other levels it is the 'gateway drug' to superstition, intolerance, and most especially *acting* on that intolerance.

I haven't read too many reports of people being harmed by violent Star Trek geeks. Can't say the same about religious (and other) fundies.

So perhaps some skeptics equate being too nice to 'believers' with letting down of one's guard, or at least consorting with the enemy?

[Ian Osborne]

This...

[Penn and Teller] have the courage to give offence. I don't mean that giving offence is in itself a virtue. But I do deplore a tendency, in the nice liberal circles in which most of us move, to feel that people have a right not to be offended, even if what they say is highly offensive...

...seems to my mind to be right on the money, but was there anything 'highly offensive' about the individual Dawkins was rude to? If I had the misfortune to meet Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com) I would rather spit in his face than shake his hand, but he's a very extreme example. To call someone 'an irrational bigot' purely because he believes in God is also 'highly offensive'.

I remember after TAM, Shanek started a thread about how Penn's remark that people who believe in a deity are 'f- retards' really bothered him, and he got a lot of support for his position. I agree that groups with a shared viewpoint should avoid turning into cliques where people who fail to agree on everything are made unwelcome, but perhaps scepticism isn't quite as far down this road as certain threads and commentary pieces would indicate. :)

[crimresearch]

Just to clarify, was Penn really making a total comparison between all deists and his derogatory term?

Or was he referring to the area where the set of all believers intersects with the set of all 'f****n retards'?

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Boo
After reading through this thread I am dismayed by what appears to be to varying degrees of antagonism that is espoused towards anyone that disagrees with the 'sceptical must be atheistic' outlook. Like others that have posted here I was taught, regardless of belief or lack there of, people are to be treated with respect and courtesy.

Wrong. People who claim that the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being do not deserve respect. At best, they deserve to be ignored as lunatics. Christianity is inherently offensive to any reasonable person.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Wrong. People who claim that the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being do not deserve respect. At best, they deserve to be ignored as lunatics. Christianity is inherently offensive to any reasonable person.

That depends on the definition of "Christian" doesn't it?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Darat
That depends on the definition of "Christian" doesn't it?

No, it depends on the attitudes and opinions of the individual Christian in question. Once again, do we even know if the guy Dawkins was talking to holds opinions such as 'the Holocaust and the recent tsunami were ordained by an all-good being'? Even if he did, whether Dawkins' own attitude was very helpful is open to question.

[jj]

Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

There is some major context missing.

I don't think that it is necessary to be an atheist to be a skeptic. I think that it is necessary to admit that one's religious belief is not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith.

I'm surprised a bit at the hurt feelings here, really. Having dealt a few times with members of at least one "Christian Coalition" (it may have been a coalition, but it had little to do with the religion I was raised in), I can see Dawkins' reaction, if there is previous history. I can, however, also see that under misquoted circumstanes, at the very least, it makes him look offensive and unnecessarily confrontational.

I want to know a lot more about the context than I can find in this thread.

I think, though, that the general issue is simple. Faith does not necessarily impede a skeptic, unless s/he fails to apply it to their own belief system.

One who says "I believe this", who does not dispute evidence in hand, and who can show that their belief is consonant with evidence, is offering nothing contradictory. Such a person can be disagreed with, but not told they are wrong, and I personally think it is quite unnecessarily rude to question such a person's beliefs.

One who says "YHWH said we have to do this, so everybody ***" on the other hand, is trying to use their belief as claim to fact, and now they are fully subject to examination and dispute.

[BillyJoe]

Boo,

I think you are correct to put people before dogma. Good on you. And good on you for reciting those words to your injured and scared patient to calm her fears.

Like yourself, I also attend religious ceremonies if invited by family and friends. I see no point in being religious in my scepticism - to dogmatically refuse to have anything to do with religion.

However I disagree with your disagreement about "'sceptical must be atheistic". I think to be sceptical regarding religion is to be atheistic, and to be religious is to be not sceptical regarding religion. Which is not to say you can't be sceptical in other aspects of your life.

BJ


PS: I think that is Hal's view (last paragraph)

[slimshady2357]

Hal,

I hope you’ve not finished reading this thread, because there are many people saying they think sceptical does not have to equal atheistic. And I would like to add my voice to that crowd as well.

And then there is at least one other person who has just said that even though they do believe being sceptical about religion means being atheistic, they don’t condone the derision and disrespect towards people who are not atheistic.

In regards to Deism in particular, I think that jj was right on when he said: originally posted by jj

I don't think that it is necessary to be an atheist to be a skeptic. I think that it is necessary to admit that one's religious belief is not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith.

Personally, I think that someone could be a skeptic and yet have experiences that bring them to a belief in something, especially when it’s a tentative belief, one that is recognized as � … not subject to proof, and is not a testable fact, but rather is an item of faith�. I agree with Darat when he said: Originally posted by Darat

I even believe it is possible to come to the conclusion using “critical thinking� based on personal evidence that God exists, it is just not evidence I can accept.

When it comes to specific beliefs about God, such as are often believed by, say, Christians, I think testability is what matters. Can these beliefs be tested? Do you claim there is evidence for these beliefs? Can we think of evidence that would support or undermine these beliefs? Is any such evidence available? Etc….

I do think there are some religious beliefs which one cannot hold and still call oneself a sceptic (in that area). These are testable claims, things like “The Earth was created in 7 days�. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen you make any such claims, and I don’t think Deism in general makes any such claims.

I won’t be at TAM4, but I think you should still speak there. So far, at least in this thread, there are far more people who agree with me than disagree. I hope you notice them as well.

Be a sceptic, don’t ignore the evidence!! :D

Adam

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Belief in a god is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in Jesus is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in miracles is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that a man can be brought back from the dead after three days, without medical technology, and then rocket to the sky, is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that there was a worldwide flood is an extraordinary claim.
etc etc

Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense.

Have you surveyed all of space and time?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice..

[T'ai Chi]

Considering Dawkins or Randi an expert on a religious topic is like considering Billy Graham an expert on science.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by jzs
Have you surveyed all of space and time?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice..

So we should believe in invisible pink unicorns as well?

[Brian]

Love the religious, hate the religion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
So we should believe in invisible pink unicorns as well?

It looks like SixSixSix doesn't understand what "A simple Yes or No will suffice." means.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by jzs
It looks like SixSixSix doesn't understand what "A simple Yes or No will suffice." means.

I understand just fine. I just don't agree with the straw man you have created.

[viscousmemories]

I think doubt is at the heart of skepticism, and that when someone makes a definitive statement like "Anyone who believes X is not a skeptic", they are making an implicit claim that X cannot be true. To me, that unjustified certainty seems more contrary to skepticism than religious belief.

[SixSixSix]

So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.

If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well. At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?

There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.
I didn't say skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements, but making definitive statements about things you cannot prove (the non-existence of God, for example) doesn't strike me as compatible with skepticism.

If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well. At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?
Are you suggesting that skeptic means "One who doesn't believe in god, alien abductions, flat Earth, bigfoot, crystal power, whatever"?

There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.
Then I assume you can prove god(s) don't exist?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
I understand just fine. I just don't agree with the straw man you have created.

You're the one talking about "invisible pink unicorns", fool.

Francois Tremblay said

"To believe in any of these is to abandon logic."

However, you abandon logic each time your are convinced these things don't exist since no one has surveyed all of space and time, you just don't know.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I didn't say skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements, but making definitive statements about things you cannot prove (the non-existence of God, for example) doesn't strike me as compatible with skepticism.

I say that believing in something that you have no evidence for is not compatible with skepticism.


Are you suggesting that skeptic means "One who doesn't believe in god, alien abductions, flat Earth, bigfoot, crystal power, whatever"?

No, it means not believing in things that you have no evidence for.


Then I assume you can prove god(s) don't exist?

Of course not. But I cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist either.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by jzs
You're the one talking about "invisible pink unicorns", fool.

Francois Tremblay said

"To believe in any of these is to abandon logic."

However, you abandon logic each time your are convinced these things don't exist since no one has surveyed all of space and time, you just don't know.
I am convinced these things do not exist. I am skeptical of their existence, since there is no evidence for it. I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary.

[deBergerac]

I would love to get into this discussion but I have too litle time at the moment.

Sufice to say that I think Hal should give his talk at TAM4 because we are many who think that you can have irrational beleives and still be a sceptic aslong as your beleives do not conflict with what can be tested.
(You can beleive in pink unicorns if you like but if you claim they can be seen or otherwise detected you have a testable calim.)

And concerning civility I think that it is impossible not to try the matter from case to case. Some people you do not want to be civil to but I fail to see how that could be true for every religious person.

But I do agree that one needs to be frank about differeces in opinion and not be too political correct.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
I say that believing in something that you have no evidence for is not compatible with skepticism.

No, it means not believing in things that you have no evidence for.
Where are you getting that definition of skepticism from?

Of course not. But I cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist either.
Then how can you conclude that a skeptic can't believe in god(s)?

[viscousmemories]

Oh and on-topic... (sorry MLynn):
Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8
I don't think it's reasonable to conclude, based on that clip, that atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. It depends entirely on the circumstances, but yes if I had the opportunity to meet Fred Phelps, if I said anything to him at all it would be to call him an evil, intolerant bigot. That has nothing to do with his religious belief and everything to do with his aggressive, vicious anti-human words and deeds.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Where are you getting that definition of skepticism from?

What's your definition, then?


Then how can you conclude that a skeptic can't believe in god(s)?
If you have evidence for such a claim, apply for the million dollars. If you do not, then it is appropriate to be skeptical about it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
What's your definition, then?
Well here are some from dictionary.com:
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
None of those strikes me as necessarily incompatible with belief in god(s).

If you have evidence for such a claim, apply for the million dollars. If you do not, then it is appropriate to be skeptical about it.
Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's entirely possible to be skeptical yet believe. For example, I have met theists who claim that they completely believe in God but would cease believing if introduced to solid empirical evidence of his non-existence. How is that not skeptical?

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Well here are some from dictionary.com:

None of those strikes me as necessarily incompatible with belief in god(s).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.


Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's entirely possible to be skeptical yet believe. For example, I have met theists who claim that they completely believe in God but would cease believing if introduced to solid empirical evidence of his non-existence. How is that not skeptical?
If I replaced the terms "theist" and "believe in God" with "psychic" and "believe in telepathy", we have a skeptic who is a psychic. Since it difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, such a person (by your definition) can still call themselves a skeptic. Reducto ad absurdem for any or all strange beliefs.

I think once we are able to start calling someone who believes in UFOs, alien abductions, telepathy, spirits, ghosts, and so forth a skeptic (because there has never been solid empirical evidence of the non-existence of any of these - and it is likely there never will be), we are using the word in a very different sense.

Of course you can argue that belief in a god is different to believing in these things. If that is your position, then can you explain to me in what sense it is different?

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
If I replaced the terms "theist" and "believe in God" with "psychic" and "believe in telepathy", we have a skeptic who is a psychic. Since it difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, such a person (by your definition) can still call themselves a skeptic. Reducto ad absurdem for any or all strange beliefs.
As far as I know there isn't any Skeptic's Council that makes determinations about who can and can't call themselves a skeptic. I mean there's no certifications or anything that I'm aware of. So sure, if someone approaches information with doubt and uncertainty yet happens to believe that they can speak to the dead, I don't see any reason why they can't call themselves a skeptic.

I think once we are able to start calling someone who believes in UFOs, alien abductions, telepathy, spirits, ghosts, and so forth a skeptic (because there has never been solid empirical evidence of the non-existence of any of these - and it is likely there never will be), we are using the word in a very different sense.
As I think someone said earlier, (or maybe I read it elsewhere) there's a difference between simply holding a belief and asserting it as fact. If someone claims to have powers that defy natural laws, that's scientifically testable. But if someone professes a belief that a god created the universe, that's not. I don't think "holds a belief in things that can't be falsified" == "not a skeptic", otherwise anyone who believes that their Mother loves them is not a skeptic.

[SixSixSix]

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

Fair enough - if someone simply claims a belief that is not falsifiable, I agree that they shouldn't be "kicked out of the club", as it were.

Now, I don't agree that most religions are in fact not falsifiable, but that's a separate issue.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary.

I guess Martin Gardner is illogical. Who knew.

I think people do have evidence. It happens to be the same evidence that you have for a natural world. You and they just interpret that evidence differently.

I personally don't care how convinced you are. Reality is what counts. And since you, nor I or anyone, has surveyed all of space and time, we don't know, and no level of "convinced" can change that fact.

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by jzs
I guess Martin Gardner is illogical. Who knew.

Appeal to authority? :)


I think people do have evidence. It happens to be the same evidence that you have for a natural world. You and they just interpret that evidence differently.

It is possible to argue that the natural world is produced by god, and is therefore evidence of his existence. This claim is not falsifiable, as long as it does not include any attributes that would be inconsistent with it not being produced by a god - at that point, we have something that can be tested.

Of course it is possible to substitute "Zeus", "Odin", or "Brahma" for "god" in the above paragraph. It is also possible to substitute "invisible pink unicorns". Make of that what you will.


I personally don't care how convinced you are. Reality is what counts. And since you, nor I or anyone, has surveyed all of space and time, we don't know, and no level of "convinced" can change that fact.
Of course we don't know. But we seem to have a situation that does not require such a god. Why create unnecessary postulates?

I note here that it is far easier to prove the existence than the non-existence of such a god. It is interesting that the defence here appears to require me to take on the latter task while the challenger ducks the former.

[BillyJoe]

I think the problem is the definition of scepticism.



A practical definition of scepticism is:
Belief in those things for which there is evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.
As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence (eg God).

By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist.

Of course, that also depends on the definition of atheist.
If atheist is defined as someone who believes God does not exist, then no rational person is an atheist. To believe that God does not exist is to have evidence that He does not exist. And there is no such evidence.
If atheist is defined as someone who does not believe God exists (quite different from believes God does not exist), then sceptics are atheists because there is no proof that God exists.



However, others have a slightly different definition for scepticism.
For them, scepticism applies only to those things for which it is possible to obtain evidence (in which case, the above definition applies). For things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence, they feel they are free to choose to believe or disbelieve.
This, I believe ( :( ), is Hal's view.
In other words, Hal is a sceptic where evidence is possible but, where evidence for or against is not possible, he feels free to believe or disbelieve. He chooses to believe in God, acknowledging all along that there is no evidence for (but also not against) his belief.



Don't know if this helps anyone,

BillyJoe


edit: to underline the difference

[Darat]

Originally posted by viscousmemories


...snip... That has nothing to do with his religious belief and everything to do with his aggressive, vicious anti-human words and deeds.

But those are (at least part) his religious beliefs, and if it his religion that (in his opinion) leads to those words and deeds then you would be challenging his religious beliefs and in his view I am sure he would consider you had attacked his religious views.

[crimresearch]

"By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist."

Only if we include in the definition that a skeptic can never willingly suspend their disbelief.

Which would mean that no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan, or a romantic, or enjoy a movie, or roleplaying games, or anything else that depends upon the acceptance of something for which there is no proof.

[BillyJoe]

CS,

Originally posted by crimresearch
[BillyJoe:] "By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist."

Only if we include in the definition that a skeptic can never willingly suspend their disbelief.

Which would mean that no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan, or a romantic, or enjoy a movie, or roleplaying games, or anything else that depends upon the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. What exactly are you accepting as true without proof when you are a sci-fi fan, when you are romantic, when you enjoy a movie, or when you do a bit of role playing?

BJ

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
Appeal to authority? :)


you said

"I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary. "

So you must believe Martin Gardner illogical, going by your own statement.

Again, a simple Yes or No will suffice.

[SixSixSix]

Appeal to authority is a poor form of argument.

Anyway, I don't know Martin Gardner from a bar of soap, so how should I know whether or not he's illogical?

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
A practical definition of scepticism is:
Belief in those things for which there is evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.
As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence (eg God).
I think you are conflating evidence and proof. Someone's personal experience with Jesus is evidence to them, and so they cannot be said to believe without evidence. And taken like that, I've never met anyone who believes in God without evidence and I can't imagine a thing for which it would be impossible to obtain evidence. But I agree that it is impossible to prove, for example, a non-interventionist deity.

Similarly, I have a lot of evidence that my Mother loves me, but I cannot prove it. Nevertheless I still believe she does, and I say I'm still a skeptic.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Darat
But those are (at least part) his religious beliefs, and if it his religion that (in his opinion) leads to those words and deeds then you would be challenging his religious beliefs and in his view I am sure he would consider you had attacked his religious views.
I imagine he probably would feel that way, but given the truth of the accusation hurting his feelings wouldn't really bother me.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
Appeal to authority is a poor form of argument.

Anyway, I don't know Martin Gardner from a bar of soap, so how should I know whether or not he's illogical?

Like nailing jelly to a wall..

[BillyJoe]

VM,

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I think you are conflating evidence and proof.I am using the word "evidence" in its scientific sense. Two essential features of scientific evidence are objectivity and reproducibility. Your first two examples (see below) are subjective experiences (call it evidence if you like), not objective and reproducible evidence.....

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Someone's personal experience with Jesus is evidence to them, and so they cannot be said to believe without evidence.
Originally posted by viscousmemories
And taken like that, I've never met anyone who believes in God without evidence and I can't imagine a thing for which it would be impossible to obtain evidence.

And your third example (see below) suggests that you require evidence of a thing to amount to proof of that thing (in the sense of 100% incontrovertible proof). So I wonder who is conflating the two? Scientific evidence rarely, if ever, provides proof (100% incontrovertible proof). If this was the case I could have dispensed with the word "believe" in my definition.

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Similarly, I have a lot of evidence that my Mother loves me, but I cannot prove it. Nevertheless I still believe she does, and I say I'm still a skeptic. There could be a lot of objective evidence that your mother loves you, and if there is sufficient evidence then you, and anyone else observing you and your mother, could believe that your mother loves you.

BJ

[dann]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.
Is that a bad thing, SixSixSix? Do you want to monopolise the term? The discussion is in danger of deteriorating into the boring question: Who is entitled to call him-/herself a skeptic?
What is the problem if, say, an astrologer or a fancied psychic writes a brilliant article criticizing christianity? Or if a devout christian writes an essay repudiating dowsing?
I've seen examples of christians in my country writing excellent articles about faith healers, and I don't see the problem. I once reviewed a Danish collection of skeptical essays, some of them written by christians, some by atheists. Christianity was a problem in only one article claiming that Jesus was a skeptic. The other articles all pointed out that the beliefs held by the superstitious did not agree with reality, and not that they disagreed with christianity.
The point is the idea, the thought, the argument, the evidence and not the people espousing it. Hal Bidlack may have had a hard time coming to terms with the death of his wife. Emotional bonds don't simply stop existing because a loved one does, and sometimes people may seek consolation in religion for a while until they are able to accept as a fact something that is emotionally unbearable.
If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well.
Well, as long as they are right in the middle of practising their religion - "relieving their spiritual nature", is how Marx referred to it, I think - they are not being skeptical. A few minutes later they may be - in particular when they are looking at the other guy's beliefs. That may not be very consistent, but at least they are not woowoos round the clock.
At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?
No, we haven't. Unless you want the concept to be almost racist, pertaining not to the thoughts people have, but instead to their inherent qualities as individuals unblemished by impure thoughts.
There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.
Religion is an example of abandoning skepticism! I totally agree, and religion should be criticized. Limiting skepticism to the miracles used by religions as 'proof' seems like treating smallpox with makeup. On the other hand, people make many kinds of mistakes, some of them very consistent and sometimes with dire consequences.
Personally I found Hal Bidlack's prancing around in a US airforce uniform at TAM2, urging people to applaud the soldiers stationed in Iraq, much more disconcerting than his objections to Penn's dislike of religion. The risk of having to experience that again would keep me away from TAM4.
Besides, he appears to be much more skeptical of his belief in a god than of his belief in the just cause of his employer.

There is really no point in arguing with people who say, I believe in this, not because it seems to be true for the following reasons, but because it makes me feel better!

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
VM,

I am using the word "evidence" in its scientific sense. Two essential features of scientific evidence are objectivity and reproducibility. Your first two examples (see below) are subjective experiences (call it evidence if you like), not objective and reproducible evidence.....
Okay, so just to be clear I will amend your original statement to include that clarification:

Originally posted by BillyJoe

A practical definition of scepticism is:

Belief in those things for which there is objective and reproducible evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.

As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no objective and reproducible evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain objective and reproducible evidence (eg God).
Now with that modification, I really don't see how your definition of skepticism differs from naturalism. Would you agree?

And your third example (see below) suggests that you require evidence of a thing to amount to proof of that thing (in the sense of 100% incontrovertible proof). So I wonder who is conflating the two? Scientific evidence rarely, if ever, provides proof (100% incontrovertible proof). If this was the case I could have dispensed with the word "believe" in my definition.
That's pretty much what I meant. That we all believe things we can't 100% prove, and that skepticism only demands a doubtful and critical approach to evidence, not that we only believe things we can prove scientifically.

There could be a lot of objective evidence that your mother loves you, and if there is sufficient evidence then you, and anyone else observing you and your mother, could believe that your mother loves you.
I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence in this case. What are some examples of objective evidence that my Mother loves me?

[BillyJoe]

VM,

Originally posted by viscousmemories
....I really don't see how your definition of skepticism differs from naturalism. Would you agree? What you are saying is that I am mixing philosophy in with the science in my definition of scepticism?
Perhpas you are right.

Originally posted by viscousmemories
That's pretty much what I meant. That we all believe things we can't 100% prove, and that skepticism only demands a doubtful and critical approach to evidence, not that we only believe things we can prove scientifically. Seems like we pretty much agree.
But what would you say is the purpose of having a "doubtful and critical approach to evidence". Isn't it to decide what you will believe about the world (with the proviso, of course, that you will revise your beliefs as new evidence comes to light)? Do you exclude "belief" from your definition of scepticism?

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence in this case. What are some examples of objective evidence that my Mother loves me? I think, for example, that if your mother was observed to provide for you in every way she could, to look out for you, to help you out in times of need, to kiss you gently, to hug you warmly, to speak of you to others in a very positive light, then I would say that your mother objectively loves you with a probability of about 99.9% (she might turn out to be a robot - which, perhaps, might make the judgement call a little more difficult ;) )

BJ

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
CS,

What exactly are you accepting as true without proof when you are a sci-fi fan, when you are romantic, when you enjoy a movie, or when you do a bit of role playing?

BJ

How many sci-fi or movie plots are there? Superpowers, sound in outer space, dinosaurs and people together, honest politicians...whatever.

Romance...that love is meant to be, instead of brain chemistry?

RPGs...
Well doesn't the name pretty much say it? You are assuming for the purposes of the game that you are a wizard, etc.

And in the case of religion, peolple can certainly find a denomination that allows them to accept that they are religious..which could range from sitting still for an hour, to singing a few songs, to eacting a crcker and some wine/

What makes the first groups worthy of retaining their skeptical credentials, when *they* suspend disbelief, but not the last?

Because being a Star Trek geek is 'cool' and religion isn't?

[rwguinn]

Back on topic...
I don't know the origin of it, but I read it in a RA Heinlein story:
Courtesy and manners are the lubricant that keeps civilization working smoothly.

we seem to have lost that, somehow. I certainly don't agree with everyone, but I can be courteous to them--until at some point, they lose the right to that courtesy. That point is entirely up to me and my opinion.

I have always treated respect like a bank account. Everyone is assumed to have a certain amount built up when I meet them. Some add to that. Many reduce the ballance to zero shortly after opening their mouths.

Demanding proof for every statement, both factual and opinion, is just being an (rule8). Not being able to tell the difference reduces the respect account.

[BillyJoe]

CS,

Originally posted by crimresearch
Because being a Star Trek geek is 'cool' and religion isn't? You are not accepting sci-fi as true without proof, you are pretending that it is true.

BJ

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
CS,

You are not accepting sci-fi as true without proof, you are pretending that it is true.

BJ

A willing suspension of disbelief for some, an alter ego for others.

And is everyone in love just pretending? Or do they believe without proof?

In any case, how could we demonstrate that some people in religious settings are not doing the same things?

[Kopji]

Living with reason, compassion, responsibility, and using negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences is a better way than being obnoxious.

That said, the Christian Coalition is primarily a political organization. They make a poor example of 'mistreatment' of believers by skeptics.


Procrustes’ Bed (Greek Mythology)
Procrustes was a robber of Attica, who placed all who fell into his hands upon an iron bed. If they were longer than the bed, he cut off the redundant part; if shorter, he stretched them till they fitted it. Any attempt to reduce men to one standard, one way of thinking, or one way of acting, is called placing them on Procrustes’ bed, and the person who makes the attempt is called Procrustes.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/13673.html

[BillyJoe]

CS,

Originally posted by crimresearch
A willing suspension of disbelief for some, an alter ego for others. You said....
"no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan"
Now, if you mean, by "alter ego", that those persons truly believe in the science fiction then they are not just science fiction fans. And, no, they are not being sceptical either.

Originally posted by crimresearch
And is everyone in love just pretending? Or do they believe without proof?Well, certainly you can remain sceptical even in matters such as these. Is "love at first sight", for example, really love. Can you really love someone who you have only just met and about whom you know almost nothing. Over the long term, however, quite a large amount of evidence could accumulate (not that you think of it as evidence). On the other hand perhaps it was all just a thirst for sex and a willing and available body. It might take a considerable amount of time for you to realize this is the case especially if you thirst for love as well.

Originally posted by crimresearch
In any case, how could we demonstrate that some people in religious settings are not doing the same things? In fact I do that from time to time if I am invited by friends to a wedding, baptism, or funeral. The thing is I know what I am doing and I am doing it out of respect for those who invited me. You don't have to be a rude or inconsiderate just because you a sceptic. And it doesn't make you any less of a sceptic either.

BJ

[crimresearch]

OK, but that is your approach to attending a service...

The blanket definition for all skeptics as never being religious presupposes that everyone who is religious believes without proof...

Or it assumes that skeptics never believe anything without proof.

And I doubt that either skeptics or the religious among us are all that monolithic in their views.
So I leave room for the possibility that someone can be skeptical in their science, their research, their work...and still allow themselves to be, in some manner, religious.

"Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor"
Soren Kierkegaard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by crimresearch
What makes the first groups worthy of retaining their skeptical credentials, when *they* suspend disbelief, but not the last?

Because the first group know they're suspending disbelief, while the second are deluding themselves?

[crimresearch]

Deluding themselves on exactly what?

And would you please supply some authoritative evidence linking whatever beliefs you list, to every single person who is religious?

Because I am talking about the exceptions here...

[BillyJoe]

CS,

Originally posted by crimresearch
The blanket definition for all skeptics as never being religious presupposes that everyone who is religious believes without proof.... We were talking mainly about belief in God, specifically Deism. You would agree, wouldn't you, that this is belief without proof?

Originally posted by crimresearch
.....Or it assumes that skeptics never believe anything without proof.That is the ideal. But that is not to say that we can't catch ourselves out on occasion.

Originally posted by crimresearch
And I doubt that either skeptics or the religious among us are all that monolithic in their views.
So I leave room for the possibility that someone can be skeptical in their science, their research, their work...and still allow themselves to be, in some manner, religious.But you would have to say, wouldn't you, that such a person would be sceptical in all aspects of his life except in his religious belief? Unless you accept the second definition of sceptism where you are free to believe in anything for which there is no evidence for or against.

I believe this is Hal's view but it seems he is no longer following this thread. :(

BJ

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

I'm a proud member of the Skeptic's Society. As for JREF...after a couple of years of membership I don't think I'll renew when the time comes. I'd rather give my limited resources to a cause I feel more in line with.

I seem to grow more tired of the outlook of Randi, P&T and Dawkins each week. They can really come off looking like boorish, mean-spirited asses.

or worse, they can sound eerily similiar to this guy...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050418/D89HG71G0.html

Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.

"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."



yep, nothing like being uncivil to people who don't agree with your views...not that's how a society should run!
:rolleyes:

[crimresearch]

"We were talking mainly about belief in God, specifically Deism. You would agree, wouldn't you, that this is belief without proof?"

I was talking about being religious...and I suspect that some people go through the religious motions without having a firm belief in a deity. And I'm positing that there is room for skeptics among their number.

[Francois Tremblay]

I'll take one Randi or Dawkins over a hundred PC hypocrites. The worth of honesty and outspokenneess to society is incalculable - in all areas. Anyone who thinks they should "tone down" need to take a look at themselves and reconsider their *********** priorities.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
I'll take one Randi or Dawkins over a hundred PC hypocrites. The worth of honesty and outspokenneess to society is incalculable - in all areas. Anyone who thinks they should "tone down" need to take a look at themselves and reconsider their *********** priorities.
I guess it depends on your objectives. If you're trying to win friends and/or influence people, I'd be surprised if that approach was very successful. Speaking for myself, your aggressive tone and insinuation that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a "PC hypocrite" who needs to "reconsider their *********** priorities" completely devalues your input, and I would be very surprised if I'm unique in that. So if that was your strategy to try to persuade me to your viewpoint, you failed. If however you were just venting your spleen for whatever reason, I suppose it works fine.

[crimresearch]

So because he was rude and offputting , you have been turned off to the skeptical message, and now must embrace the paranormal?

;)

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So because he was rude and offputting , you have been turned off to the skeptical message, and now must embrace the paranormal?

;)
The Overlords have not permitted me to respond to that.

[Kiless]

Eh, this might be of interest.

Teller's take on it all (http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/tellerspeaks/telleressaydawkinsaward.html)

[BillyJoe]

It seems the big boys - Randi, Dawkins, Kurtz, Penn and Teller - have declared war and are egging each other on towards a final conflagration. It could be the demise of scepticism - meaning we will have to find a new word. I can't help liking all of these guys - until they start bandying together and carry on about religion. Let's send them a message: stay positive you guys!

BJ

[CFLarsen]

Gardner

It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical. It is nothing more than an attempt of painting a big skeptic in the worst possible light.

Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth. He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs. Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.

However, when it comes to real phenomena, I challenge anyone to point out where he is illogical.

Evidence

People sure have their own evidence - or rather, their own experiences. It is a bit silly to talk about "evidence", when it can't even be checked. If it only exists in your head, then why is it evidence and not merely a thought? A fantasy?

We mustn't forget that people's opinions are not all equal. We have to look at the evidence and argue our case based on that. If that evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, then we are in a position to determine - until contrary evidence arrives - that the phenomenon simply does not exist.

If I can back my opinion with evidence, and you can't, then my opinion wins. Tough tittie, but that's the way it works in science, isn't it? You can't point to science, and then reject the rigorous scrutiny that science demands, by insisting that your evidence is compelling, even when it isn't.

If you want to go against the massive body of evidence that gravity exists (to pick an example), then the onus is on you. We don't start from the same square, because I can show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that gravity does exist.

Likewise, I can also show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Each time we look for evidence of a god, we find nothing. Likewise, each time we look for evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, we find nothing. Evidence of nothing is, in itself, evidence. It's not proof, of course, but that doesn't mean that you can reject the body of evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist, simply because you don't agree.

The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no. Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.

But that doesn't make it so.

[BillyJoe]

Martin Gardner,

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth.What on Earth can "religious truth" be other than an oxymoron?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs. Fair enough. I believe in feeling good.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.Kind of conflicts with the "pursuit of religious truth" don't you think?




CFLarsen,

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no. Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.....But that doesn't make it so. Let's hope Ian doesn't catch wind of this Interesting bit of philosophysing. :D



regards,
BJ

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
What on Earth can "religious truth" be other than an oxymoron?

I suspect that "truth" has a different meaning in religious matters.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Fair enough. I believe in feeling good.

I knew that you would.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Kind of conflicts with the "pursuit of religious truth" don't you think?

Hey, if he feels good about it, and it rings true to him....

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Let's hope Ian doesn't catch wind of this Interesting bit of philosophysing. :D

;)

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical. It is nothing more than an attempt of painting a big skeptic in the worst possible light.
Claus, you do know that this is pure Stalinism, don't you? 'This is a great man, so we should not criticize his lack of logic!'
Martin Gardner is a fideist: "Reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth". Note the qualifier: Religious truth. He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs. Gardner believes in a god that is unknowable, invisible and non-interventionist.
However, when it comes to real phenomena, I challenge anyone to point out where he is illogical.
I suspect that even Karen Boesen may be logical, at least sometimes, when it comes to real phenomena. When it comes to astrology, however, she believes in something that does not exist - and probably not because it makes her feel bad!
People sure have their own evidence - or rather, their own experiences. It is a bit silly to talk about "evidence", when it can't even be checked. If it only exists in your head, then why is it evidence and not merely a thought? A fantasy?
Isn't that the question that you ought to ask Martin Gardner?
We mustn't forget that people's opinions are not all equal. We have to look at the evidence and argue our case based on that. If that evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, then we are in a position to determine - until contrary evidence arrives - that the phenomenon simply does not exist.
Well, they are equal to the extent that you should be equally critical of them - and not distinguish between the good guys, "big skeptics" like Gardner, whose "opinions" should be respected no matter how silly, and the others whose religious ideas should not be respected, not because they are more silly, but because their proponents aren't members of our club!
If I can back my opinion with evidence, and you can't, then my opinion wins.
And, apparently, in the case of Martin Gardner's "He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs", he cannot back his opinion with evidence!!! (And I, for one, don't want him to prove that he actually feels good!) So why maintain that he is a "big skeptic"!? When it comes to his religious beliefs, he isn't!
Give the man a joint or an anti-depressant, if he feels like feeling good. It's probably less detrimental to his sanity than the tricks he is playing with his own mind with his "Reliance on faith". So is the one you are playing with yours when you insist that "It is a gross misrepresentation to simply state that Martin Gardner is illogical."
It is illogical and you ought to respect the fact that it is, instead of playing tricks with your mind because you not only want but also appear to need to distinguish between the good believers and the bad ones!
Tough tittie, but that's the way it works in science, isn't it?
You said it, Claus! So stop making all these exceptions to your own rule just because you find it necessary in order to maintain your respect for big skeptics!
You can't point to science, and then reject the rigorous scrutiny that science demands, by insisting that your evidence is compelling, even when it isn't.
Exept, of course, if it makes you feel better?!
If you want to go against the massive body of evidence that gravity exists (to pick an example), then the onus is on you. We don't start from the same square, because I can show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that gravity does exist.

Likewise, I can also show evidence upon evidence upon evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist.
Isn't that our problem? That you cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist?!
Each time we look for evidence of a god, we find nothing. Likewise, each time we look for evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, we find nothing. Evidence of nothing is, in itself, evidence.
Yes, exactly, evidence .... of nothing!
It's not proof, of course, but that doesn't mean that you can reject the body of evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist, simply because you don't agree.
No, Claus. Lack of evidence that paranormal phenomena do exist!
The question is, can we each claim our own complete reality? The answer is, of course, no.
No, Claus. The answer is, of course, yes! We can claim the existence of anything we please - for instance if it makes us feel better!
Phenomena don't just happen in our heads, there is an objective reality, regardless of what we believe in. It may be evidence to you, and you may argue that it exists to you.
But that doesn't make it so.
That's the rub! We may claim a lot of things, but reality, real phenomena, the things that still exist when we stop believing in them, that's something completely different!

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by MLynn
It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

I'm friends with lots of believers. In fact, I regularly get flirted-at by believers, who mistakenly think that I would give up my integrity just for sex with them.

And I'm with both Eugenie and Penn on this one. I think there very much are what Eugenie calls "moderates" in the world, people who hang onto religious beliefs for every domain where they don't directly contradict scientific findings, and yet who embrace science. But I reserve the right to call special pleading special pleading, and not to condescendingly beat around the bush or euphemize it.

I myself do some things which have no basis in facts---but they don't involve beliefs, merely personal preferences. For example, there's no scientific reasoning behind the fact that I listen to Mahler but not Boyz2Men, it's just what I like. However, I do not profess a belief in the superiority of Mahler, either.

[crimresearch]

"For example, there's no scientific reasoning behind the fact that I listen to Mahler but not Boyz2Men, it's just what I like."

That is soooo weird...

Because acording to my medium, Mahler just adores B2M...
:p

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by jzs
Have you surveyed all of space and time?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice..

For what--the invisible pink unicorn? For N-Rays? For square circles?

Burden-shifting is not a productive argument, neither to advance those hypotheses nor to derrogate atheism (including strong atheism, which, in this case, is philosophically equivalent to the belief that there is no square circle and no invisible pink unicorn).

[Kopji]

It seemed a pretty obvious question I needed to answer early on for me.
After leaving religion with its prophets, holy men and stuff; was I just trading one form of following for another? It would be seductively easy to replace the gurus and pontificating spiritual authorities with new ones who were atheists or scientists or whatever. (Yeah, I have strong antibodies against politicians too).

The same skeptical disbelief that finally flung me from religion also leaves me cold to vocal or noisy atheists who might want to lead me somewhere, even if it is to my benefit.

So this just a website: a forum hosted by a colorful and smart entertainer, dedicated to interesting ideas. Sure. The 'host' sounds a bit like an extremist sometimes :rolleyes: But I compare people like Randi and Dawkins to leaders of the early pioneer treks. They have an honesty and confidence that is nice to see. Leaders in any endeavor have unique qualities that make them good leaders. This is not a call for everyone to be just like them. Me being here does not mean I agree with every word they say.

Having a skeptical attitude (especially in these times) takes a pioneering spirit. We have our covered wagons ready... and destination in mind... but it does not mean we entirely stop longing for the cities and 'civilized' places we came from. It does not mean we suddenly have a new outlook. Does not mean our lives cease to be influenced by those things we've lived with all our lives.

So to me, being here requires an attitude and a journey. The presence of 'believers' like Hal, MLynn, and Gardner (among others) are good company.

[BillyJoe]

Kopji,

Originally posted by Kopji
The same skeptical disbelief that finally flung me from religion also leaves me cold to vocal or noisy atheists who might want to lead me somewhere, even if it is to my benefit.

....being here requires an attitude and a journey. The presence of 'believers' like Hal, MLynn, and Gardner (among others) are good company. I believe we are kindred spirits. :D

(It seems this is the case, but I trust you will understand the smilie ;) )

regards,
BillyJoe

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Claus, you do know that this is pure Stalinism, don't you?

You are not criticizing Joe, are you? Because if you are, there's a place for you and your kind: Gulag! :p ;)

Originally posted by dann
'This is a great man, so we should not criticize his lack of logic!'

I'm not saying that. I am saying that he is criticized for the wrong things.

Originally posted by dann
I suspect that even Karen Boesen may be logical, at least sometimes, when it comes to real phenomena.

I am not so sure...

Originally posted by dann
When it comes to astrology, however, she believes in something that does not exist - and probably not because it makes her feel bad!

I think Karen likes her superstitious beliefs.

Originally posted by dann
Isn't that the question that you ought to ask Martin Gardner?

I don't need to, because he has made his point clear: He doesn't claim evidence.

Originally posted by dann
Well, they are equal to the extent that you should be equally critical of them - and not distinguish between the good guys, "big skeptics" like Gardner, whose "opinions" should be respected no matter how silly, and the others whose religious ideas should not be respected, not because they are more silly, but because their proponents aren't members of our club!

I am probably more critical of the Big Skeptics, mostly because it's a bigger challenge to find errors with those guys. Right now, I think I have caught Geoffrey Dean (ex-astrologer, now a major critic) in making a mistake - but I'm still checking...

Originally posted by dann
And, apparently, in the case of Martin Gardner's "He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs", [b]he cannot back his opinion with evidence!!!

He doesn't claim to.

Originally posted by dann
(And I, for one, don't want him to prove that he actually feels good!)

He's over 80. I would think that decaf is what makes him feel good... ;)

Originally posted by dann
So why maintain that he is a "big skeptic"!? When it comes to his religious beliefs, he isn't!

Give the man a joint or an anti-depressant, if he feels like feeling good.

Come on, he's over 80! Just looking at that would kill the guy!! :D

Originally posted by dann
Isn't that our problem? That you cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist?!

With Santa, I'm not taking any chances. I like getting presents for Xmas...

Originally posted by dann
No, Claus. The answer is, of course, yes! We can claim the existence of anything we please - for instance if it makes us feel better!

I said "complete" reality. That means the objective world as well, e.g. me throwing a brick at you. You'll have a hard time imagining that didn't happen!

Originally posted by dann
That's the rub! We may claim a lot of things, but reality, real phenomena, the things that still exist when we stop believing in them, that's something completely different!

Yes, Philip K. Dick said something like that.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He's over 80. I would think that decaf is what makes him feel good... ;) Sexism!

My sister-in law, who is a nurse in aged-care, relates the story of an 80 year old gentleman who pestered the nurses so much that they decided to take him to a brothel every week.

Seems it took more than decaf to make this gentleman feel good. :)

BJ

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't need to, because he has made his point clear: He doesn't claim evidence.

He doesn't claim to.
Neither does Karen Boesen! (Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)
It does not make it any better when a "big skeptic" says that he believes in something merely because it makes him feel good, fulfilled, in harmony with the universe, whatever. (But it also shouldn't make us question his good arguments in other situations.)
My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)
Originally posted by BillyJoe
My sister-in law, who is a nurse in aged-care, relates the story of an 80 year old gentleman who pestered the nurses so much that they decided to take him to a brothel every week.
Seems it took more than decaf to make this gentleman feel good.

They didn't have a little old lady with the same urges? (BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.)

[Cosmophilosopher]

This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.

I made a post about this serious subject which is derailing the skeptical movement and making a bad situtation worse.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by dann
(BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.) I made the same comment, but apparently he was a kindly old man well-liked by the staff.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.

I made a post about this serious subject which is derailing the skeptical movement and making a bad situtation worse.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

And you were nicely asked for some examples....you were also asked why it was OK for you to engage in the same attack dog tactics that you decry.

How does making a drive by in another thread enoble your position?

[Cosmophilosopher]

For examples, read the newsletter that this thread was started about.
They also talk about how Dawkins insulted one of his opponents, and thinks it is a wonderful thing.
Read this forum for even more examples.

The so-called skeptical movement is degenerating into a farce, based on the influence of a number of people.
Debunking is not skepticism.

Civility when it comes to dealing with the general public is needed.
To reach the general populace takes much more sophisticated communications strategies than insulting people.
As a matter of fact, that type of so-called skeptical debunking, seems to me to be the WORST communication strategy of ANY interest group out there.
At least the religions know how to be fishers of men.
At least the New Agers know how to sell sell sell.

But the psuedo-skeptics? What do they have?
Arrogance?
Insults?
Knee-jerk responses?

The chiropractors have a much better strategy than the skeptics.

Thank goodness there are still some legit scientists out there who have knowledge of how to TEACH and communicate.

[thaiboxerken]

They also talk about how Dawkins insulted one of his opponents, and thinks it is a wonderful thing.

It was appropriate for the situation. Sometimes these moronic bleevers need to be rattled.

Debunking is not skepticism.

But it is a valuable tool to skepticism. It helps uncover nonsense in a way that bleevers can understand.

As a matter of fact, that type of so-called skeptical debunking, seems to me to be the WORST communication strategy of ANY interest group out there.
At least the religions know how to be fishers of men.
At least the New Agers know how to sell sell sell.

The new agers and religions have something that skeptics can't provide. They have nonsense to sell. Religions and new agers' strategy is one of dishonesty and lies. The truth is a hard sell, no matter what the strategy is.


The chiropractors have a much better strategy than the skeptics.

Yes, and so do most con-artists.

Thank goodness there are still some legit scientists out there who have knowledge of how to TEACH and communicate.

There are some legit skeptics that do just the same. Do you never read the commentaries? Does it fly over your head whenever a person writes in and thanks the JREF for opening their eyes?

I think you are just a silly troll.

[Cosmophilosopher]

So Richard Feyman didn't have a beautiful and wondrous explanation of the Universe to share?
Carl Sagan was out to lunch when he told the story of the Cosmos to millions?
Carl Sagan was a troll as he brought the same criticisms i am making?

Einsteins Cosmic Religious Feeling, and ideas weren't uplifting?
Freeman Dyson's speculations are nonsense?

And again, the same lame Ad-Hominem that proves my point, calling someone a "troll".
Is Roger Penrose a troll when he talks about the Platonic Mathematical Cosmos?

My point is that angry, small-minded, arrogant Cynics are very poor representatives of our wonderful universe.
There is no VISION. Just personal insults.
I guess Debunking attracts a certain type of person who thinks they Know-It-All.
Well that's a shame.

So be it.

But that is not legitimate skepticism.
Its not even common decency.
The level of communications is so low they would be fired from working at McDonalds drive-through.

I'll stick with the real Skeptics, Feyman, E.O Wilson, Sagan, and many others who made wonderful contributions to this cause.

The cynics are really not that different from religious fundamentalists, as their thinking is so regimented, inflexible, and Black or White.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Neither does Karen Boesen!

Sure she does. Look at what she writes in her book, and what she said in "A Sense of Deceit".

Originally posted by dann
(Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)

I think it has more to do with ability..... :D

Originally posted by dann
My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)

But, since Gardner doesn't claim evidence, why isn't it merely "taste"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by dann
Neither does Karen Boesen! (Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)
It does not make it any better when a "big skeptic" says that he believes in something merely because it makes him feel good, fulfilled, in harmony with the universe, whatever. (But it also shouldn't make us question his good arguments in other situations.)
My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)

They didn't have a little old lady with the same urges? (BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.)

Isn’t the difference with Boesen and Gardner that Boesen in effect says "A belief in astrology makes me feel good and I can use it in the real world to make decisions" whilst Gardner in effect says "A belief in a god makes me feel good but I can't use it in the real world to make decisions"?

I find those two viewpoints quite different: one is still using reason even for a belief that cannot be proven or for that matter disproved (at least at the moment) whilst the other not only has access to evidence that suggests the belief is wrong but abandons reasoning when applying that belief to the real world. Gardner’s attitude (as far as I have read about it) shows an understanding of what constitutes evidence, the limitations of present knowledge and reasoning, Boesen (from what I have read) not only rejects evidence and reason but wilfully distorts evidence and reason to support her already established beliefs.

[dann]

Originally posted by Darat
Isn’t the difference with Boesen and Gardner that Boesen in effect says "A belief in astrology makes me feel good and I can use it in the real world to make decisions" whilst Gardner in effect says "A belief in a god makes me feel good but I can't use it in the real world to make decisions"?
They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...
I find those two viewpoints quite different: one is still using reason even for a belief that cannot be proven or for that matter disproved (at least at the moment) whilst the other not only has access to evidence that suggests the belief is wrong but abandons reasoning when applying that belief to the real world.
It not only can't be proven, it doesn't even appear to be likely at all. Using your imagination to make up pretty stories that feel good but cannot be disproved may require some kind of reason, but that doesn't make it reasonable. And unlike the willing suspension of disbelief that is required when you read fiction, religion has a completely different attitude to the real world, which is why religious people are so fond of crying Madonnas and other miracles, i.e. fabricated evidence that the religious beliefs pertain to this world too. You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...
Gardner’s attitude (as far as I have read about it) shows an understanding of what constitutes evidence, the limitations of present knowledge and reasoning, Boesen (from what I have read) not only rejects evidence and reason but wilfully distorts evidence and reason to support her already established beliefs.
That's the difference. Gardner has a very good understanding and he is able to distinguish between the times when he feels like using it and the times when it is an obstacle to fabricating the stuff which makes him feel good! Karen Boesen has so much understanding of what constitutes evidence that she is able to distort it, invent it from scratch and demand evidence from her opponents if it seems opportune for her to do so.
(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

[dann]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.
What if I say that you may be right, but it makes me feel good?

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But, since Gardner doesn't claim evidence, why isn't it merely "taste"?
Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good! I don't even doubt that it makes him feel good so I would never think of asking him for evidence.
The point is that he believes in something because it makes him feel good, which is just as stupid as claiming the non-existence of Britney because she doesn't! (Oops, I did it again!)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...

Karen is a good example of a long-term believer who has realized - because it has been explained to her over and over again - that her beliefs simply aren't validated by evidence. The evidence she thought she had is worthless.

She has, in the words of Bob Park, crossed the line from foolishness to fraud. She knows she is a fraud. What separates her from most other frauds is that she doesn't care if people know it.

Originally posted by dann
You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...

You might have struck gold there, mate... ;)

Originally posted by dann
(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

Yes, because there's this evidence thing. Personally, I would love it if Gardner came here to explain, but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be that active anymore.

Originally posted by dann
Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good!

Actually, evidence makes me feel very good. :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by dann
They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...


Well I dealing with what they say their beliefs are, the fact that Boesen is inconsistent given her stated beliefs is interesting but I don’t think needs to be addressed when discussing the difference between different types of beliefs.

Gardner's belief (again from what I've read so I may be totally wrong) does not give him any tools for understanding the world. He does not take the step from an unproven (and I am using proof in the casual sense of the world e.g. I would say my belief that the earth will continue to orbit the sun and rotate resulting in sunrise tomorrow is a "proven belief") belief into the real world. He does not say "because I believe the universe was created therefore the stars should be shown to be 4,500 years old", he states "the belief I have that the universe was created makes me feel good but doesn't give me any way to expand my knowledge of the universe and doesn’t give me any tools for better understanding the universe.

However Boesen does take her unproven beliefs (that presumably make her feel good) and states that they can tell her about the universe. She states her beliefs can predict the world around her, that her unproven beliefs actually reflect reality, and that they give her a tool to expand her knowledge of the universe.

To me this demonstrates a significant difference between the (stated) beliefs of Boesen and Gardner.

Originally posted by dann
It not only can't be proven, it doesn't even appear to be likely at all.


I've no idea about that; I've read a lot of the history of humanity's knowledge and exploration of the world and we seem to have a habit of making declarative statements that prove to be wrong sooner or later.

Originally posted by dann

Using your imagination to make up pretty stories that feel good but cannot be disproved may require some kind of reason, but that doesn't make it reasonable.


I agree, I don’t think Gardner's belief is reasonable given the evidence that he has access to (and I did once read a logical argument that a Member here linked to that demonstrated that given a lack of evidence the logical default position should be disbelief) but my point is not about the reasonableness of a particular belief but an argument that the type of belief illustrated by Boesen is not the same as that stated by Gardner.

Originally posted by dann

And unlike the willing suspension of disbelief that is required when you read fiction, religion has a completely different attitude to the real world, which is why religious people are so fond of crying Madonnas and other miracles, i.e. fabricated evidence that the religious beliefs pertain to this world too. You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...


The types of religious beliefs you site above are examples of the type of belief (in my opinion of course) that Boesen illustrates rather then the type of belief that Gardner holds. Gardner would not expect and does not seek evidence in this world for his beliefs.

Originally posted by dann

That's the difference. Gardner has a very good understanding and he is able to distinguish between the times when he feels like using it and the times when it is an obstacle to fabricating the stuff which makes him feel good!


From similar evidence to Gardner I come to a different conclusion however I lack the ability to state categorically that Gardner is wrong. I would say it is not so much he knows when to use "critical thinking" or not to support his beliefs but rather understands (within our current understanding of the world) the limits of "critical thinking" and if you like has placed his belief in a place that critical thinking (at least currently) does not reach.

Originally posted by dann

Karen Boesen has so much understanding of what constitutes evidence that she is able to distort it, invent it from scratch and demand evidence from her opponents if it seems opportune for her to do so.


A lot of her posts are incoherent and internally inconsistent therefore from the evidence I have I would say she shows a very limited understanding of what constitutes evidence, reasoning or even polite discussion and debate!

Originally posted by dann

(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

You've misunderstood my point, Gardner does not try to find evidence in the real world to support his beliefs, Boesen does, in other words Boesen does not "follow the evidence" but attempts to lead the evidence. Gardner, because he concludes his beliefs can have no evidence from the real world does not try to make the evidence of the real world fit his already established belief and again that is a difference between the two types of beliefs Gardner and Boesen hold.

(Edited for words and formatting.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by dann
Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good! I don't even doubt that it makes him feel good so I would never think of asking him for evidence.
The point is that he believes in something because it makes him feel good, which is just as stupid as claiming the non-existence of Britney because she doesn't! (Oops, I did it again!)

No it isn't, since there is evidence (however unfortunate that may be) that Britney exists. As far as I know Gardner's beliefs are not contradicted by any evidence.

To quote from Claus’s favourite on-line source, Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner
…snip…

Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. "The universe is the most exquisite mechanism ever constructed by nobody", from G.K.Chesterton is one of Martin's favorite quotes.

…snip…

[BillyJoe]

CP,

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
But the psuedo-skeptics? What do they have?
Arrogance?
Insults?
Knee-jerk responses? I think you are not using the prefix "psuedo" correctly. Randi's arrogant, offensive style offends you but that does not cancel him out as being a sceptic.

BJ

[crimresearch]

Well, since Consmophilosopher seems to be employing the same style he decries, perhaps he is using the term 'skeptic' incorrectly.

I can find no standard definiton that includes obsequiousness as a component.

[thaiboxerken]

So Richard Feyman didn't have a beautiful and wondrous explanation of the Universe to share?

Who?


Carl Sagan was out to lunch when he told the story of the Cosmos to millions?

No.


Carl Sagan was a troll as he brought the same criticisms i am making?

I doubt he did.

Einsteins Cosmic Religious Feeling, and ideas weren't uplifting?

Nope.

Freeman Dyson's speculations are nonsense?

Who?

Is Roger Penrose a troll when he talks about the Platonic Mathematical Cosmos?

Who?

My point is that angry, small-minded, arrogant Cynics are very poor representatives of our wonderful universe.

I agree, but can you give examples of such people?

I guess Debunking attracts a certain type of person who thinks they Know-It-All.

It doesn't, in fact, it tends to repel such people.

The level of communications is so low they would be fired from working at McDonalds drive-through.

Who are these people you keep talking about? You've invented an entire generalization of skeptics based on people that you have yet to show exist. How is the pay at McD's working out for you?


I'll stick with the real Skeptics, Feyman, E.O Wilson, Sagan, and many others who made wonderful contributions to this cause.

Don't forget the true Scotsman as well.


The cynics are really not that different from religious fundamentalists, as their thinking is so regimented, inflexible, and Black or White.

I agree. But who are these cynics you keep talking about?

[dann]

Originally posted by Darat
No it isn't, since there is evidence (however unfortunate that may be) that Britney exists. As far as I know Gardner's beliefs are not contradicted by any evidence.
I think that you misunderstood me. What I said was:
The point is that he believes in something because it makes him feel good, which is just as stupid as claiming the non-existence of Britney because she doesn't!
What I meant was: "because she doesn't make you feel good!"
Gardner's faith may not be contradicted by any evidence, but it also isn't based on or supported by any. Unlike even the most speculative parts of modern cosmology. Theoretical physics doesn't believe in branes because it's such a comforting concept. Even when it hasn't got a lot to do with the contemporary empirical facts, they are still what it has as its starting point.
To quote from Claus’s favourite on-line source, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner
…snip…
Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. "The universe is the most exquisite mechanism ever constructed by nobody", from G.K.Chesterton is one of Martin's favorite quotes.
…snip…
And if christmas presents are dumped down the chimney by some fat guy riding a sleigh pulled by reindeer, then Santa Claus is real!
Well, some people, maybe. I was never more bored than at church (I was too young to spend the time analyzing religion and its believers) and I'm much happier without faith and prayer. If I had to, I'd rather believe in Santa. If I were actually able to do so, the idea might make me happier. The idea of the narcissistic psychopath described in the Bible certainly wouldn't!
Nevertheless it is a poor excuse for an argument. God and his angels and Santa Claus don't exist because it comforts me to think so, nor do ghosts or alien abductions because they scare me!
Preference (or the opposite) is a very poor excuse for an argument. Gusto ergo est? (I never claimed to be any good at Latin!)

My point: As long as people behave rationally, they are rational. When they stop being rational, they aren't. This is no reason for dismissing their rational arguments which are more than welcome if they have any. But it is also no reason for wanting to forbid criticism of irrational beliefs. It is true, there are an awful lot of religious people out there, and criticizing them is not the best way of alluring them, no matter what their religion is. Some of them are Christians, some of them believe in astrology. Some of them claim to be able to prove their faith. Some of them don't. There are definitely differences here and distinctions to make, but there are also similarities.
Claus and many others would like to distinguish between the ones who just believe and the others who also need miracles.
There's a difference, true, but not a big one.
Personally I much prefer the materialism of the believers who would like to see their Madonnas weep, thereby making their faith vulnerable to scrutiny and debunking. Some of the best skeptics used to be people who wanted to prove the existence of otherworldly visitors. Their investigation into UFOs, however, disillusioned them. I see no reason why you should celebrate the ones whose faith makes them so happy that they can do completely without a single piece of proof of at least some relevance of their faith to the real universe. (And I don't mean their alleged happiness!)
In other words: This is not a popularity contest! We don't want woowoos to love us! We also don't want them to hate us, but sometimes they may. What we want is to make them realize that their delusions are delusions. Can we do that without upsetting (some of) them? No, of course we can't! So is it a very good argument that criticizing their beliefs might upset (some of) them? No, that's the whole point of the exercise!
If only we didn't criticize woowoo, woowoos would love us so much more. Sure!

[Sharon]

Originally posted by dann
we do that without upsetting (some of) them? No, of course we can't! [/B]

As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world. So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them. I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.



Sharon

[Cosmophilosopher]

Demon Haunted World is a wonderful book. I recommend that every chance i get.
Carl Sagan even talked about Randi in the book, (p 228)

"accurately self-described as an angry man...Like all of us, he is imperfect. Sometimes Randi is intolerant and condescending, lacking in empathy for the human frailties that underlie credulity."

He then goes on to compliment him as well for his achievements.
So Randi does good work, but the "intolerance" is in my view a very serious error.
Sure, attack Uri Geller, or other blatant frauds, and expose them, and expose their confidence tricks. That is Randi's gag, and it works in that context.

But don't carry this aggressive mentality over to try and deal with grandma's, soccer moms, and regular religious and New Age folks, who have got themselves wound up in their own beliefs.

Bring Civility back IN. I will have no part of those type of attacks on regular people. Its very destructive.
Obviously, if Randi did not listen to Carl Sagan, then he is not going to listen to anyone, that is obvious. He is as stuck in his Beliefs about this as anyone else. The leopard is not going to change his spots.

But it seems to me this is very poor behavior for others to model.
Birds of a feather flock together, so those who "get an Ego boost" from that type of "intolerance" are going to do it, no matter what anyone says. They could not give two ***** about what is the more effective way to communicate. Would they be interested in a scientific study to see which methods produced better results trying to get True Believers to consider other beliefs? I doubt it. They LIKE acting superior and arrogant. It gives them a shot of self-esteem for the moment. Its just intellectual arrogance, and low-frustration tolerance. Its just their own personal psychological issues they are acting out on other people.

But us more Humanistic and tolerant skeptics can make our mark as well, and perhaps even use the "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype to our advantage.
We could say, "well, i am not one of those angry, arrogant skeptics, who think they know it all! I just believe in carefully looking at the Evidence with careful critical thinking....now lets have a look at this a little closer..."
I have opened dozens of my friends minds to critical thinking over the years, and many of them have deeply thanked me for this. In EVERY case, i would first understand where they are coming from, and what they are getting out of it, and SLOWLY makes subtle points, until it builds up.
Scientific Thinking is very UNNATURAL for us human primates.
Its counterintuitive, and it has to be taught very carefully.

I think a good study would be to bring a bunch of "undecided" believers into a speech/workshop, and then compare the results of different approaches to get them to consider rethinking some of their beliefs.
This would be good evidence to use to help guide skeptics in how they communicate.



Originally posted by Sharon
As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world. So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them. I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.



Sharon

[BillyJoe]

CP,

Well, that all sounds very reasonable to me.
What do others think I wonder?

BJ


PS: Does TB really not know who Feyman, Penrose, and Dyson are or is he disagreeing with your description of their views? :con2:

[Sharon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyJoe
[B]CP,

Well, that all sounds very reasonable to me.
What do others think I wonder?

BJ


Yes it sounds reasonable to me too.

CP, I hope you don't think I'm being rude not replying in full?
It's just I'm planning to switch off the computer for a couple of months, got things I need to do and give 100% of my free time to. So with that in mind I don't want to get more involved, want to tie up loose ends. But yes I agree with lots that you say.

Sharon

[dann]

Originally posted by Sharon
As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world.
Congratulations, you read the book, it didn't hurt you, it convinced you!
So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them.
YES, they can and they do! I just don't see the argument. You read the book, it didn't upset you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't upset some woowoos. I don't see a lot of woowoo websites recommending the book to their audiences. Anyway, I'm not in control of the reaction of other people to the things I say. You imply that it is in my power to put things in a way so they won't upset others, but it isn't. Hell, a well-argued essay explaining evolution upsets a lot of fundies. It isn't necessary to include offensive words or calling anybody an idiot to achieve that effect.
I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.
So how exactly did Carl Sagan take the low self-esteem of his readers into account? And exactly how should it be taken into account? As far as I remember, Demon Haunted World did nothing to disguise its message or to make it more palatable to superstitious readers, did it?
Personally I can't think of a better way of recognizing the intelligence of fellow human beings than by telling them that they are being delusional when I think that they are. And if I'm wrong, I don't mind being told so.
See my point?!

[dann]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Demon Haunted World is a wonderful book. I recommend that every chance i get.
Carl Sagan even talked about Randi in the book, (p 228)

"accurately self-described as an angry man...Like all of us, he is imperfect. Sometimes Randi is intolerant and condescending, lacking in empathy for the human frailties that underlie credulity."
If you have so much compassion with human frailties that you don't criticize the delusional credulity and the way that people hurt themselves with it, then you can try endearing yourself to them by confirming all their beliefs. UFO abductees generally don't like to hear that they weren't actually abducted. This, by the way, is what really bugs them - you don't need namecalling to annoy them.
I know from personal experience that James Randi doesn't enjoy being criticized and that he immediately goes into the offensive, which only makes a discussion with him more interesting. When he has been proven wrong, the weekly newsletter is full of examples of his ability to admit to the fact.
Carl Sagan's words about Randi sometimes being intolerant and condescending are no good if you don't show us an example of this behaviour - one that he hasn't admitted or apologized for.
He then goes on to compliment him as well for his achievements.
So Randi does good work, but the "intolerance" is in my view a very serious error.
Sure, attack Uri Geller, or other blatant frauds, and expose them, and expose their confidence tricks. That is Randi's gag, and it works in that context.

But don't carry this aggressive mentality over to try and deal with grandma's, soccer moms, and regular religious and New Age folks, who have got themselves wound up in their own beliefs.
Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?
Bring Civility back IN. I will have no part of those type of attacks on regular people. Its very destructive.
Obviously, if Randi did not listen to Carl Sagan, then he is not going to listen to anyone, that is obvious. He is as stuck in his Beliefs about this as anyone else. The leopard is not going to change his spots.
I didn't see civility leave! And I didn't see Randi neglect what Carl Sagan had to say. (I only remember him being a little disappointed at hearing that Sagan used to smoke joints!) And what is all this about spot changing? Is it your way of indicating that you are very willing to change your attitude?
But it seems to me this is very poor behavior for others to model.
Birds of a feather flock together, more proverbs ... so those who "get an Ego boost" from that type of "intolerance" are going to do it, no matter what anyone says. They could not give two ***** about what is the more effective way to communicate. Would they be interested in a scientific study to see which methods produced better results trying to get True Believers to consider other beliefs?
Of course, they would! But you haven't got one, do you?!!!
I doubt it.
Yes, it's very easy to do!
They LIKE acting superior and arrogant. It gives them a shot of self-esteem for the moment. Its just intellectual arrogance, and low-frustration tolerance. Its just their own personal psychological issues they are acting out on other people.
I look forward to your scientific study!!!
But us more Humanistic and tolerant skeptics can make our mark as well, and perhaps even use the "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype to our advantage.
We could say, "well, i am not one of those angry, arrogant skeptics, who think they know it all! I just believe in carefully looking at the Evidence with careful critical thinking....now lets have a look at this a little closer..."
I have opened dozens of my friends minds to critical thinking over the years, and many of them have deeply thanked me for this. In EVERY case, i would first understand where they are coming from, and what they are getting out of it, and SLOWLY makes subtle points, until it builds up.
You are so very, very good. And I'm sure that their DEEPLY thanking you for your PATIENT and slow LECTURES has got absolutely nothing to do with getting a shot of self-esteem for the moment (or for eternity). Your tolerance and humanity will simply raise you above all those angry, arrogant bastards who have so much respect for the ability of even grandmothers and soccer moms to THINK that they simply tell them when they think they are wrong.
Scientific Thinking is very UNNATURAL for us human primates.
Its counterintuitive, and it has to be taught very carefully.
Carefully, yes. Cautiously, no. I suppose that only scientific thinking is so very UNNATURAL, whereas religion and delusions are very, very NATURAL, aren't they?
I think a good study would be to bring a bunch of "undecided" believers into a speech/workshop, and then compare the results of different approaches to get them to consider rethinking some of their beliefs.
This would be good evidence to use to help guide skeptics in how they communicate.
Well, since you already appear to know what the outcome of this study would be, I don't really think that it would have a lot of impact on your attitude ...
In my opinion you are very arrogant and full of yourself!

[Beth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dann
[B][B]
Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?
[B]

You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences. They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.

Beth

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions.
I don't - most of the time! (= showing them that their delusions are delusions).
Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.
They are the easy ones, however. You tell them that Venus was in that part of the sky at that hour, and they know that they didn't see an alien intruder! They are not the delusional ones, they are the ones looking for an explanation! And not averse to being told that the one they first came up with was wrong!
If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences.
I always do. They tell me - I don't even have to ask!
They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.
Why do you think that I do? Have you seen many examples of Cosmophilosopher's "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype? Or are you aware of the fact that this archetype is an invention? That it's the strawman created by woowoos to dismiss skeptics and their (most of the time) very serious arguments?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by dann

Why do you think that I do? Have you seen many examples of Cosmophilosopher's "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype? Or are you aware of the fact that this archetype is an invention? That it's the strawman created by woowoos to dismiss skeptics and their (most of the time) very serious arguments?

Well... it's not a complete archetype in the sense that most of us have acted this way on occasion. It's the rare individual that's always reasonable, all the time. :)

Having said that, I find myself in agreement with your posting. After reading CP's posts, I am affected by him in the exact same way he claims Randi (and JREF) affect non-skeptics because he's literally adopted the very tactics that he decries. From where I sit, he reads like a Randi and JREF basher.

:jedi:

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Beth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dann
[B][B]
Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?
[B]

You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences. They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.

Beth

Did anyone here behave in the kind of offensive manner you mention above throughout your claim, Beth? Maybe I missed it. You were reasonable and conversed in understandable terms with your claim and Kramer and the forum was reasonable back, as far as I remember.

Many believers are not so reasonable and will not discuss the paranormal fairly. They seem to think sceptics are attacking them personally and get all huffy. We are usually attacking their beliefs and the personal tit-for-tat usually starts when believers get defensive and evasive. Look at any of the threads in the Challenge Applications. You decided to take a step back and re-evaluate. Most others have painted themselves into a corner and can't summon the humility to back out. Sometimes it's just spite against JREF or sour grapes for the thought of the million.

[Beth]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Did anyone here behave in the kind of offensive manner you mention above throughout your claim, Beth? Maybe I missed it. You were reasonable and conversed in understandable terms with your claim and Kramer and the forum was reasonable back, as far as I remember.

1. I'm not easily offended. In fact, I have major fondness for brusk and crusty curmugeons. They remind me of my father.

2. Even though I'm not easily offended, I do hate mean-spirited or cruel posts. I put anyone whose posts I don't like for any reason (boring, stupid, mean, etc.) on ignore, so I don't read their posts or respond to them after I'm convinced they aren't worth the bother.

3. Yes, I think people here DO behave in that sort of offensive manner and no, I'm not going to name names. I think that only serves to derail the conversation into "yes it is"/"no is isn't" argument.

4. I've come to think of this forum as a place for skeptics to come and freely discuss their opinions, including bashing believers. To criticize this forum as being offensive in that manner is like criticizing a homopathic forum for bashing skeptics. The net is a wonderful place where people with similar beliefs can find each other and express their anger and frustration at those who are too rigid/stupid/etc. to believe as they do. Skeptics are no different than any other group in that regard. Nor is this forum particularly bad in that regard. Many are much worse.

5. My opinion is if you're trying to convert someone who believes in something you don't, you aren't going to have much success unless you respect them. If you respect them, you're not going to deliberately offend them. Accidental offensiveness can be easily forgiven.

[Cosmophilosopher]

Beth, I totally agree with you.

Also, they are NOT delusions.
A delusion is a psychiatric illness.
They are simply BELIEFS they have, no different than the beliefs that skeptics might have.
They are representations in their brain, and they are "real experiences" psychologically, and they deserve respect.

Many views that alleged skeptics hold are just as FALSE as beliefs that other people might hold.
Again, its just very sloppy thinking by the skeptics.
They are NOT delusions, just simply beliefs that people have, strange experiences, imaginationary experiences, etc.
So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.

Originally posted by Beth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dann
[B][B]
Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?
[B]

You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

Beth

[Cosmophilosopher]

Yes, as i have mentioned already, i have done this intentionally as an object lesson, to show how effective the Randi Style attacking works.
It doesn't.

But to be honest, its not about what "works".
For those who do it, its about getting an "Ego boost" by putting others down. It has nothing to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with feeling Superior.

Pure irrational Emotinal Reasoning, cloaked in the name of rationality.
Ironic, eh?

Originally posted by jmercer
After reading CP's posts, I am affected by him in the exact same way he claims Randi (and JREF) affect non-skeptics because he's literally adopted the very tactics that he decries. From where I sit, he reads like a Randi and JREF basher.

:jedi:

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Yes, as i have mentioned already, i have done this intentionally as an object lesson, to show how effective the Randi Style attacking works.
It doesn't.

But to be honest, its not about what "works".
For those who do it, its about getting an "Ego boost" by putting others down. It has nothing to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with feeling Superior.

Pure irrational Emotinal Reasoning, cloaked in the name of rationality.
Ironic, eh?

Unfortunately, while I accepted that reasoning at the start of the thread, we are up to page 4 now. The point had been made a while ago, and there was no reason to continue in this vein - you could have simply reverted to a more rational approach and continued the dialogue. Instead you have continued your diatribe "as an example".

I believe you are simply using this rationale as a excuse to continue bashing JREF and Randi. However, you can prove me wrong... continue the discussion without all the emotional rhetoric and rabble-rousing, stick to provable arguments, and I'll reverse my opinion. Otherwise, I stand by my assessment.

[dann]

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Beth, I totally agree with you.

Also, they are NOT delusions.
A delusion is a psychiatric illness.
They are simply BELIEFS they have, no different than the beliefs that skeptics might have.
They are representations in their brain, and they are "real experiences" psychologically, and they deserve respect.

Many views that alleged skeptics hold are just as FALSE as beliefs that other people might hold.
Again, its just very sloppy thinking by the skeptics.
They are NOT delusions, just simply beliefs that people have, strange experiences, imaginationary experiences, etc.
So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.
Don't you people GET it?! When I say this OFTEN enough using CAPITAL letters, you SHOULD realize that delusions are NOT delusions! BELIEFS in UFOS are no different from the beliefs that skeptics have in for instance geocentrism or evolution. Paranormal phenomena are representations in the brain (where else?!), and as such they are real psychological experiences (like believing that you are Jesus Christ or Napoleon, for instance), and therefore they reserve respect.
They are NOT delusions when I tell you that they are NOT. And I KNOW because unlike you I am a very, very tolerant, humane and emotionally balanced kind of guy.

[dann]

Oh no, I didn't actually write geocentric instead of heliocentric, did I? :o

[thaiboxerken]

So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.

delusion: a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts


I fail to see your point. People that believe in nonsense are delusional.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Beth
1. I'm not easily offended. In fact, I have major fondness for brusk and crusty curmugeons. They remind me of my father.

2. Even though I'm not easily offended, I do hate mean-spirited or cruel posts. I put anyone whose posts I don't like for any reason (boring, stupid, mean, etc.) on ignore, so I don't read their posts or respond to them after I'm convinced they aren't worth the bother.

3. Yes, I think people here DO behave in that sort of offensive manner and no, I'm not going to name names. I think that only serves to derail the conversation into "yes it is"/"no is isn't" argument.

4. I've come to think of this forum as a place for skeptics to come and freely discuss their opinions, including bashing believers. To criticize this forum as being offensive in that manner is like criticizing a homopathic forum for bashing skeptics. The net is a wonderful place where people with similar beliefs can find each other and express their anger and frustration at those who are too rigid/stupid/etc. to believe as they do. Skeptics are no different than any other group in that regard. Nor is this forum particularly bad in that regard. Many are much worse.

5. My opinion is if you're trying to convert someone who believes in something you don't, you aren't going to have much success unless you respect them. If you respect them, you're not going to deliberately offend them. Accidental offensiveness can be easily forgiven.

That doesn't answer my question. Were you, Beth, treated badly by anyone here regarding your claim? You don't need to name names. Just post a link to a thread or threads in which you were treated in a rude manner. Maybe there Is one. I'm going by memory and don't remember any such incident. Did anyone here call you 'delusional' or mock you and your claim? Point me to a thread where this happened.

Do you feel that you, personally, were treated fairly regarding your claim? If you feel you were treated unfairly, I'd like to see a link or links to a thread or threads that makes you think this. I'm not asking about your opinions on general attitudes here. I'm asking about YOUR experience. I might be wrong, but I do remember reading about your claim, and thought that you were re-assessing, self-testing, and/or thinking about future protocols. I don't remember seeing anyone claiming that you were 'delusional'.

I'm curious as to why your tone has become so anti-JREF in the forums when you were (from my memory) treated fairly regarding your claim. I realise that memory can be faulty, so perhaps you can set me straight.

[thaiboxerken]

I would gladly be rude towards Beth, if I knew what her claims were. :D

[BillyJoe]

Cosmophilosopher,

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
Also, they are NOT delusions. A delusion is a false belief (strongly held in spite of a lack of evidence)

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
A delusion is a psychiatric illness. A delusion can be a symptom of a psychiatric illness.

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
They are simply BELIEFS they have, no different than the beliefs that skeptics might have. They are false beliefs strongly held in spite of a lack of evidence.
This is very different from a sceptic who believes only if there is validating evidence.

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
They are representations in their brain.....Yes, they are representations in their brains, but these representations do not represent anything real (outside the brain)

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
.....and they are "real experiences" psychologically..... Yes, they are real experiences, in the sense that they really do experience them. But it is all in their brains. There is nothing outside the brain that they represent or correlate to.

Originally posted by Cosmophilosopher
.....and they deserve respect. In what sense do delusions deserve respect? I would say only in the sense that we need to understand and explain them.


regards,
BillyJoe

[Beth]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I'm curious as to why your tone has become so anti-JREF in the forums when you were (from my memory) treated fairly regarding your claim. I realise that memory can be faulty, so perhaps you can set me straight.

Generally, I don't like insults or rudeness, whether to me or other people. I try to avoid people who treat other people badly, even if they treat me decently.

I'm not going to provide any links to specific examples. As I said before, I think it simply leads to "yes it is"/"no it isn't" type aruments. Since it's a matter of opinion, those really aren't productive arguments. Further, my opinion is based not just on what is publically posted, but private correspondence as well.

I don't find JREF on the whole any worse than average. To me, it's just part of the human condition. Some people enjoy participating or watching such exchanges. No reason they can't have their fun, and the JREF challenge applicants provide lots of easy fodder for thier insults. But I didn't find it fun to participate.

In regard to the whole civility issue and how it affects the purpose of JREF, I'll quote a bit of a private correspondence from a different applicant, one who has never posted here, and let you draw your own conclusions.

With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness

Is this really how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community?

Beth

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beth
...snip...

Is this really how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community?

Beth

Did your correspondent trust the JREF before the alleged rudeness?

[Beth]

Originally posted by Darat
Did your correspondent trust the JREF before the alleged rudeness?

No opinion one way or the other prior to the experience.

Beth

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beth
No opinion one way or the other prior to the experience.

Beth

That's quite strange then, after all why would rudeness make you doubt someone’s integrity etc.? (Especially when you consider the fact the JREF is a an organisation that by law is open to public inspection.) Doesn’t seem a very rational response to me.

[crimresearch]

You know, everytime I go to the bank, and demand that they give me a million dollars, without bothering to complete any of their silly forms, or jump through their silly hoops, they are quite rude to me.

Should I quit trusting in their integrity?
:p

[sphenisc]

Darat said
QUOTE]That's quite strange then, after all why would rudeness make you doubt someone’s integrity etc.? (Especially when you consider the fact the JREF is a an organisation that by law is open to public inspection.) Doesn’t seem a very rational response to me.[/QUOTE]

People who are inconsiderate of other's feelings in their manner of speech, are more like to be inconsiderate of others in their manner of action. They are therefore more likely to be less than scrupulous in their dealings with you.

Originally posted by crimresearch
You know, everytime I go to the bank, and demand that they give me a million dollars, without bothering to complete any of their silly forms, or jump through their silly hoops, they are quite rude to me.

Should I quit trusting in their integrity?
:p

Yes... on second thoughts you should never have had any in the first place.

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
In regard to the whole civility issue and how it affects the purpose of JREF, I'll quote a bit of a private correspondence from a different applicant, one who has never posted here, and let you draw your own conclusions.
"With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness?"
Is this really how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community?
No, this is probably not how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community. I'm sure that they would prefer to hear something along these lines:

'With regard to the Randi Challenge they completely took me in with their kindness, their intgrety and their courteous way of treating my application. Every correspondence with them so far has resulted in a step closer to clarity and enlightenment, I and couldn't have been happier if I had actually won the one million dollars.
However, since I couldn't prove that my kind of dowsing actually works, something that my self-delusion and the ideomotor effect made me think, I, of course, didn't win the money. Instead I gained valuable insights into both nature and my way of perceiving the world.
I may have been disappointed at not winning the money, but I left the experience as an enriched and entirely happy person.'

This is an (unfortunately imaginary) reaction that I would find very natural, but I don't expect to hear of many cases ending this way, primarily because you are not in control of the way people react!
However, you assume that an anonymous quotation that doesn't mention a single example of bad behaviour is supposed to make people at the JREF Challenge change their minds ...
I won't call you delusional, but you ought to consider giving us a little proof of the accusations we have heard in this thread so far.

[Beth]

Originally posted by dann
No, this is probably not how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community. I'm sure that they would prefer to hear something along these lines:

because you are not in control of the way people react!


No one is in control of how other people react, but we can all control our own actions. If JREF does not want to be percieved in this manner, they can change they way they treat applicants. Since they choose to treat people in the manner they do, it's perfectly understandable (at least to me) why those outside of the community doubt the integrity and honesty of the challenge.

Beth

[i]edited to correct spelling error

[Beth]

Originally posted by Darat
That's quite strange then, after all why would rudeness make you doubt someone’s integrity etc.? (Especially when you consider the fact the JREF is a an organisation that by law is open to public inspection.) Doesn’t seem a very rational response to me.

Whether it's rational or not, it is a common response and it does affect how people perceive you and/or your organization.

Beth

[jmercer]

Originally posted by sphenisc
Darat said
That's quite strange then, after all why would rudeness make you doubt someone’s integrity etc.? (Especially when you consider the fact the JREF is a an organisation that by law is open to public inspection.) Doesn’t seem a very rational response to me.

People who are inconsiderate of other's feelings in their manner of speech, are more like to be inconsiderate of others in their manner of action. They are therefore more likely to be less than scrupulous in their dealings with you.


I'll be sure to tell that to my endocrinologist. He's rude, arrogant, and painfully blunt - a real character. A lot of patients won't stay with him because his bedside manner is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

He's also's considered the top doctor in his field on the east coast, and he's incredibly competent. I could give a rat's anus about his interactions with me other than the correctness of his diagnosis and treatment.

Many politicians are (or were) reportedly exquisitely courteous in person when meeting strangers - among them George Bush (both of them); Bill Clinton; Richard Nixon; etc. Does that make them more "trustworthy"?

I might also add that many serial killers have been described as "charming" or "polite and well-mannered" by their friends, neighbors and associates. Finally, the most effective con artists are the ones who are the most personable. They work very hard at gaining your trust by appearing to be trustworthy. Both of these criminal types count on the appearance of courtesy and "being a considerate person" as camoflage.

I'm not debating the fact that people equate being treated with courtesy as also indicating trustworthiness - I am, however, supporting Darat's contention that such a reaction is emotional and not rational.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth
Whether it's rational or not, it is a common response and it does affect how people perceive you and/or your organization.

Beth

True. :)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beth
Whether it's rational or not, it is a common response and it does affect how people perceive you and/or your organization.

Beth

As in my bank analogy, rudeness itself is a common reaction, often driven by perceptions, such as the perception that someone who asks for a million dollars is jerking you around by not following the process in a straightforward manner...
and both JREF and banks have a very clear process that needs to be followed when asking for a million dollars.

In other words, what line does someone have to cross in order to be treated rudely by JREF?

[Beth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
In other words, what line does someone have to cross in order to be treated rudely by JREF?

Judging by the posted JREF correspondence, simply inquiring about the challenge is sufficient to merit being treated rudely.

:p

Okay, that's tongue in cheek, but clearly many people reading the correspondence are left with the impression that JREF is unjustifiably rude to potential applicants. There are, after all, not just one but several recent threads regarding that perception in both this area and the challenge application section.

Beth

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beth
Judging by the posted JREF correspondence, simply inquiring about the challenge is sufficient to merit being treated rudely.

:p

Okay, that's tongue in cheek, but clearly many people reading the correspondence are left with the impression that JREF is unjustifiably rude to potential applicants. There are, after all, not just one but several recent threads regarding that perception in both this area and the challenge application section.

Beth

I agree...but I am struck by the fact that many of the posts Kramer has shared seem to start off politely enough on the JREF end and then switch to a tone that might seem to someone as unjustifiably rude.

I'm in no position to decide for other people what is unjustifiable about JREF's reasons for being brusque dismissive or offputting...

I'm just asking if we can define the *point* at which it goes from
'Thank you for your interest in the JREF challenge...'
to 'There is nothing more to be gained from further correspondence...'.

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
No one is in control of how other people react, but we can all control our own actions. If JREF does not want to be perceived in this manner, they can change the way they treat applicants. Since they choose to treat people in the manner they do, it's perfectly understandable (at least to me) why those outside of the community doubt the integrity and honesty of the challenge.

I'm happy for you since you appear to be so perceptive. It's not understandable to me why the outsiders mentioned by you doubt the integrety and honesty of the challenge, so could you show me some of the facts that make their doubt so understandable to you? Quoting the accusations from an anonymous guy who claims that it is so, but doesn't present the evidence, just doesn't do it for me!
With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness
Why don't you ask this guy to control his own actions and either shut up or, better still, prove that "every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness." I find his accusations very hard to believe without a shred of evidence!
Won't you, please?!
I would also like you to consider this: The woowoos control their own actions, right? So if they don't want me to perceive them as delusional, why don't they simply stop behaving as if they are? Isn't it perfectly understandable that those outside of the woowoo community sometimes tend to doubt their sanity?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth
Judging by the posted JREF correspondence, simply inquiring about the challenge is sufficient to merit being treated rudely.

:p

Okay, that's tongue in cheek, but clearly many people reading the correspondence are left with the impression that JREF is unjustifiably rude to potential applicants. There are, after all, not just one but several recent threads regarding that perception in both this area and the challenge application section.

Beth

True. And I'd be a complete fool (instead of a partial one) if I tried to suggest it isn't true that some people find the JREF unjustifiably rude. Further, I'll also admit that there are times when I read an exchange and thought that it was unnecessarily rude. "Many" might be pushing it - there are a lot more readers of these threads than writers, and there's really no way to accurately tell if it's many, or just a vocal minority. :)

But that's my personal preferences being imposed on someone else's responsiblity. It's JREF's million, so they can pretty much deal with the applicants any way they want. (And frankly, they STILL treat the applicants with more respect than many so-called "Reality TV" shows treat their contestants!)

Of course, all this rudeness and controversy generates a nice "buzz" - which in turn generates interest, so there's an upside to this as well. :)

[Beth]

Originally posted by jmercer
True. And I'd be a complete fool (instead of a partial one) if I tried to suggest it isn't true that some people find the JREF unjustifiably rude. Further, I'll also admit that there are times when I read an exchange and thought that it was unnecessarily rude. "Many" might be pushing it - there are a lot more readers of these threads than writers, and there's really no way to accurately tell if it's many, or just a vocal minority. :)

But that's my personal preferences being imposed on someone else's responsiblity. It's JREF's million, so they can pretty much deal with the applicants any way they want. (And frankly, they STILL treat the applicants with more respect than many so-called "Reality TV" shows treat their contestants!)



You are quite right of course. They can treat their applicants any way they like. I don't watch any of reality TV shows myself, but I'll take your word for how they treat their contestants.

Of course, all this rudeness and controversy generates a nice "buzz" - which in turn generates interest, so there's an upside to this as well. :)

I agree. After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more.

[Beth]

Originally posted by dann
I'm happy for you since you appear to be so perceptive. It's not understandable to me why the outsiders mentioned by you doubt the integrety and honesty of the challenge, so could you show me some of the facts that make their doubt so understandable to you? Quoting the accusations from an anonymous guy who claims that it is so, but doesn't present the evidence, just doesn't do it for me!


Okay. Don't be convinced. Go right on believing that JREF is never unjustiably rude or mean to applicants or potential applicants. Because if what's posted on the challenge application section doesn't convince you, I don't think I can. But clearly, many other people feel differently, including potential applicants who then never become actual applicants. Is that a problem? Apparently not.

Why don't you ask this guy to control his own actions

Because I try to control my own actions, not those of other people. And because my correspondent didn't do anything that I considered impolite. S/he only tried to engage JREF in a dialog about the challenge. In response, s/he was treated much as the EFT guy in Randi's commentary was treated. The result of the exchange - s/he now has the impression of JREF that I posted.

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more.
Yes, and if you are convinced, you are convinced, and that, apparently, is all the convincing you need.
So you can fall back on your being convinced as the argument in this debate: The challenge is simply a publicity stunt!
Very convincing!

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
Okay. Don't be convinced. Go right on believing that JREF is never unjustiably rude or mean to applicants or potential applicants. Because if what's posted on the challenge application section doesn't convince you, I don't think I can. But clearly, many other people feel differently, including potential applicants who then never become actual applicants. Is that a problem? Apparently not.
When did I say that the JREF was never rude or mean? I have no idea if they were, ever, or not. You are the one that posted this anonymous quotation:
"With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every (!!!) correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness" (my exclamation marks, of course)
It should be very easy to prove that every single correspondence with the JREF resulted in pure rudeness - and that the JREF, and the JREF only, were to blame!
Because I try to control my own actions, not those of other people. And because my correspondent didn't do anything that I considered impolite. S/he only tried to engage JREF in a dialog about the challenge. In response, s/he was treated much as the EFT guy in Randi's commentary was treated. The result of the exchange - s/he now has the impression of JREF that I posted.
And if you didn't consider what your correspondent did impolite, but apparently considered every correspondence from the JREF impolite, we simply have to take your word for it and ask the JREF to apologize ...
Come on, let's see the exchange. All of it! And let's decide for ourselves!
So far we only have your impressions and considerations, and you want us to simply accept this - as facts.
Come on!

[Beth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I agree...but I am struck by the fact that many of the posts Kramer has shared seem to start off politely enough on the JREF end and then switch to a tone that might seem to someone as unjustifiably rude.

I'm in no position to decide for other people what is unjustifiable about JREF's reasons for being brusque dismissive or offputting...

I'm just asking if we can define the *point* at which it goes from
'Thank you for your interest in the JREF challenge...'
to 'There is nothing more to be gained from further correspondence...'.

I'm not really concerned about defining that point. JREF can set it as they see fit and if they would stick to polite statements such as 'There is nothing more to be gained from further correspondence...' there wouldn't be much discussion about their propriety.

It is the fact that they become rude and belligerant at the slightest provation. It's almost as if they are trying to make applicants so angry and frustrated they go away rather than work through a protocol and be tested. I personally doubt this is actually the case, but I would find it understandable if someone reading through the correspondence came away with that impression.

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

Beth

[crimresearch]

"After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more."

Publicity? Sure...
That is the whole idea of offering a challenge when you are certain that it can't be beaten...to publicize the failures.

Stunt and nothing more?

As in a rigged stunt? A fraud? No money exists?

Given the available means of verification, I would hope that you would have something more to offer in the way of evidence than threads on a forum from a short while.

And back to the rudeness...I notice claims about rudeness from the very onset of communications.

IIRC, that scenario plays out when someone contacts JREF with a claim that would likely involve death or other severe harm to the claimant or the subjects, etc.

If the basis for forming negative opinions about JREF's integrity is that they are rude to people who propose harmful activities, could you expound upon that?
Why is that a bad thing?

Or if you are referring to cases where JREF's initial response to someone was rude, when no harm was involved, then we are left to ask:

Is it rude to reply 'Thank you for your interest, here is the application packet'?

Or can you provide more information as to why there is a difference between those posts, and the posts Kramer shared showing a lack of initial rudeness?


If I may ask, without being rude...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth
You are quite right of course. They can treat their applicants any way they like. I don't watch any of reality TV shows myself, but I'll take your word for how they treat their contestants.


Well, for the record, I don't watch them, either. (I don't watch much TV, for that matter.) I catch snips of them as I'm flipping channels when I do indulge, and occasionally I stop for a few minutes to watch with sick horror at just how people will debase themselves for money. Kind of like watching a train wreck in horrified shock. You don't want to see it, but you find it impossible (for the moment) to look away.

The whole "reality TV" thing is utterly disgusting - and the only thing worse (to me) is the fact that there are apparently enough people fascinated by this garbage that it's shown on prime time... AND there are enough of them to make it worthwhile to the advertisers!

Best argument I've ever seen for evolution, in the sense of extinction making room for higher life forms. ;)

Originally posted by Beth

I agree. After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more.

Whoa, pardner! That is NOT what I'm saying. There's certainly an element of "publicity stunt" involved in what the JREF does, and I think the organization leverages that as much as possible. And frankly, that's a good thing. The more people talk about something, the more it's examined.

But I don't believe that's all it is. I've seen no evidence to support that contention, and I've seen plenty of evidence that the million is technically "winnable". The only obstacle is that to win the million, you have to show something impossible actually exists. Well, to be accurate about that, I should have said:

"The only obstacle is that to win the million, you have to show something thought to be impossible actually exists."

Eventually, someone will probably win the million because they'll be able to demonstrate something "impossible". :)

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
IIt is the fact that they become rude and belligerant at the slightest provation.
So it actually takes provocation to make them rude? Interesting ...
It's almost as if they are trying to make applicants so angry and frustrated they go away rather than work through a protocol and be tested. I personally doubt this is actually the case, but I would find it understandable if someone reading through the correspondence came away with that impression.
You yourself doubt it, but nevertheless it is almost as if? And therefore, even though you doubt it, you empathize with the people who come away with that impression???

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20
And once again "a conclusion" from somebody who's angry at "this man". Wouldn't it be much more interesting if you showed us what made him reach his conclusion? The one-sidedness, the acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive behaviour that the JREF is being accused of?
I, for one, would like to see it ...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

Beth

Hey, Beth - you're citing a complaint by a dishonest and deceitful applicant, who's claim was rightfully closed by JREF.

This is just sour grapes from this guy when it became obvious that he was doing everything in his power to get JREF to close his claim, rather than him withdrawing it. (And thus irreparably damaging his reputation among his peers and readers.)

I documented the specifics of Wellfed's application journey in that thread when he finally manuvered JREF into closing his application.

Wellfed then responded by saying that my information was all wrong, and that Kramer, Randi and JREF had lied and practiced deception by manipulating the process to their own ends - that of dismissing his claim.

I told him to prove it.

He then attempted to show that Kramer lied to him him on two occasions, but failed miserably. He then admitted that other than the two "lies" he claimed Kramer did, the rest of the thread (and ergo, my specifics) were not lies... because what was posted in the thread was 100% accurate and representative of his (Wellfeds) actions.

So pointing to Michael Anda as an example of anger over rude treatment is erroneous here. His anger stems from me calling him on his deceitful and dishonest practices during the negotiations, and his attempts to manipulate the process to his own ends. He can't blame me for citing the Applications thread, and he can't say that I'm distorting it - so he has to complain about JREF.

Anda's complaint doesn't really support your position, IMHO.

[Beth]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hey, Beth - you're citing a complaint by a dishonest and deceitful applicant, who's claim was rightfully closed by JREF.
This is just sour grapes from this guy when it became obvious that he was doing everything in his power to get JREF to close his claim, rather than him withdrawing it. (And thus irreparably damaging his reputation among his peers and readers.


We'll have to disagree on that. I've had some private correspondence with Anda. He was seeking advice on how to deal with Kramer because he was frustrated, he very much wanted to come to a mutually agreeable protocol and felt stymied by the responses he had received from JREF. I don't think he is at all concerned about his reputation among readers. He's not a professional audio critic, he just posts his opinion to a public forum, much as we do here.

Anda's complaint doesn't really support your position, IMHO.

Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I think Kramer treated Anda badly; I can understand why he felt that Kramer had been deceptive. I wouldn't have blamed Anda for withdrawing his claim (in fact, I wrote him and told him that weeks ago), but he didn't. He chose to continue attempting negotiations despite the treatment he had received. End result: Kramer - not Anda - closed the file unilaterly and for what I consider to be pretty piddlin' reasons. Exactly what would expected if the Challenge is just a publicity stunt and JREF doesn't actually want any serious challengers - only loons and people predetermined to fail.

Beth

[jmercer]

I guess you're right - we'll simply have to disagree on this.

[Beth]

Originally posted by jmercer
I guess you're right - we'll simply have to disagree on this.

Thanks. It's nice to be told I'm right about something and it's nice to talk with someone who can disagree without being unpleasant about it.

Beth

[The Mighty Thor]

Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.
2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.
3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.
4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.
5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.
6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.
7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.
8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.
9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.
10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

There you go - disgruntled sour grapes. Can we get a sour grapes smiley. I think it would be used a lot. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth
Thanks. It's nice to be told I'm right about something and it's nice to talk with someone who can disagree without being unpleasant about it.

Beth

Nothing wrong with people having different opinions... and regardless of how I view Mr. Anda's activities, it's just my opinion, after all. It's certainly not worth being unpleasant about. (Except when I have a different opinion than my wife... at that point, I'm just an idiot, according to her. ;))

Where I do become passionate is when people deny reality in ways that negatively affect people, like that Verbeke guy and the Holocaust, or "John of God" and his "Healing Powers", Sylvia Browne, etc. These people are causing harm, and that's where I draw the line and refuse to step backwards. There's a reason I have Edmund Burke's quote in my sig...

BTW, if I didn't do so publicly before, let me compliment you on withdrawing from your Challenge without wasting everyone's time and/or dissembling... and for hanging around the forums and contributing. Both actions were and are - in my opinion - worthy of praise. :)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.
2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.
3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.
4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.
5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.
6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.
7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.
8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.
9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.
10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

There you go - disgruntled sour grapes. Can we get a sour grapes smiley. I think it would be used a lot. :)

Well, all I can say is that the way she has treated me has been *very* rude.

[Beth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, all I can say is that the way she has treated me has been *very* rude.

My apologies. It was unintentional. But if you will be kind enough to tell me what I did to you that you considered to be *very* rude , I will try to avoid such behavior in the future.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.

Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.

People have different ideas about what constitutes rude behavior. I don't care to get caught up in a 'yes it was'/'no it wasn't' type argument. Sorry, but you'll have to get someone else to argue with you about those details.
3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.
Asking questions or asking for evidence isn't rude, but it can be done in a way that is rude.

4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.
I haven't done that.

5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.

Hmm. I haven't used the most egregious example. And I prefer brief quotes with links to supporting material. Just my preference. You're free to bring up more context and more evidence.

6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.
I'm typically willing to support people I don't necessary like or approve of when discussing principles I do support, such as supporting pornographers in discussions of freedom of speech, drug dealers in discussions regarding legalization of recreational drugs, and christian fundamentalists in discussions of home-schooling. I don't see the people who apply for the challenge as being crooks, villains, etc. (I find it interesting that you do) and I don't consider them any worse than the other groups I just mentioned.

7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.
I'm not, nor have I ever been anti-scientist.

8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.

Is criticism of Randi or JREF not allowed? Is anyone who does automatically anti-Randi?

9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.
Abusive? Mocking? Charming? I'm at a loss for words with this comment. You might elucidate what you mean by abusive and I'll try to avoid it, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

Who started what fight? I don't consider this discussion a fight. Or are you referring to something else?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

PS: Does TB really not know who Feyman, Penrose, and Dyson are or is he disagreeing with your description of their views? :con2:

I don't know who those people are, and I could care less. Appeals to false authorities mean little to me.

[thaiboxerken]

Posted by Beth
Who started what fight? I don't consider this discussion a fight. Or are you referring to something else?


I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...

Originally posted by Beth
Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?


I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!!

[Beth]

Originally posted by jmercer
Nothing wrong with people having different opinions... and regardless of how I view Mr. Anda's activities, it's just my opinion, after all. It's certainly not worth being unpleasant about. (Except when I have a different opinion than my wife... at that point, I'm just an idiot, according to her. ;))

You sound like my husband. Any time I disagree with him, I'm a contrary b*tch who likes to argue (true) and he thinks I think he's a dick (not true). But all issues can be resolved with that magic phrase "Yes dear, you're right". ;)

Anyway, I quite agree that there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing - as long as they aren't disagreeable! :D But it seems more and more rare to find people one can disagree with and manage to keep civil at the same time.


BTW, if I didn't do so publicly before, let me compliment you on withdrawing from your Challenge without wasting everyone's time and/or dissembling... and for hanging around the forums and contributing. Both actions were and are - in my opinion - worthy of praise. :)

Aw shucks, it weren't nothin'. Thank you for being kind and gracious enough to notice and mention it.

Beth

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...




I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!! [/B]

for a "skeptic", you are pretty ignorant. The "have you quit...." was what most people of double-digit IQ would call "an example" of a question that doesn't deserve an answer.
To assume she was asking the question of you is the funniest thing I have ever read!

[jmercer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...




I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!! [/B]

Thai - I'm not sure if your serious about this or not. If you are, then I assume that you've never encountered this kind of paradox/question before, so I'll explain.

The question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" - is a classical rhetorical question used to illustrate a situation where there is no "good" answer.

If the subject says "Yes", then they've admitted to beating their wife previously. If they say "No", they've still admitted to beating their wife previously, not to mention continuing to do so.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by rwguinn
for a "skeptic", you are pretty ignorant. The "have you quit...." was what most people of double-digit IQ would call "an example" of a question that doesn't deserve an answer.
To assume she was asking the question of you is the funniest thing I have ever read!

I understand that it is an example, it's a poor one that is insulting, at best. She is trying to pick a fight with this kind of a rhetorical question.

Posted by JMercerThai - I'm not sure if your serious about this or not. If you are, then I assume that you've never encountered this kind of paradox/question before, so I'll explain.

I do understand the fallacy. However, I don't agree that using that particular question as an example is doing anything more than trying to pick a fight. Another factor that I've taken into consideration is the fact that she did NOT give specific examples of these fallacious questions that she claims people have asked her.

Beth, can you show me any real examples where people have asked such questions of you that assume a premise that has not been established?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!!

:rolleyes:

You've already demonstrated you're a cynic and not a skeptic. You really don't need to provide more evidence.

[Cosmophilosopher]

For an alleged Skeptical forum, the only skeptical, calm, rational, balanced, reasonable arguments and points i see are the one's asking the hard questions!

The True Believer type Skeptics seem to make as much Rational sense as the response one gets when asking a fundamentalist Christian to consider perhaps that Jesus was not Divine.

I realize its just a few Angry "Skeptics" who like to "try and be right" that are spoiling the broth. That is not rational skepticism. Its just a psychological problem.
I would be interested to see how many alleged skeptics are actually capable of putting together a proper, balanced, rational argument, and not just an emotional knee-jerk reaction!

Well, it is the internet!

[thaiboxerken]

Simply asking bleevers for evidence is the only "hard" question a skeptic needs.

[dann]

Originally posted by Beth
Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
And since not all questions deserve an answer, all the questions you've been asked, but haven't answered, are of the kind that don't deserve an answer, right?
Asking questions or asking for evidence isn't rude, but it can be done in a way that is rude.
And whenever you have been asked for evidence, but haven't answered, it was merely because the one asking for evidence added "you f**ing b**ch!"???
Hmm. I haven't used the most egregious example. And I prefer brief quotes with links to supporting material. Just my preference. You're free to bring up more context and more evidence.
It's probably rude of me to say so, but I seem to remember you bringing brief quotes with absolutely no links to supporting material, but I could be wrong. Hmmm! ..... No, I'm not:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beth
In regard to the whole civility issue and how it affects the purpose of JREF, I'll quote a bit of a private correspondence from a different applicant, one who has never posted here, and let you draw your own conclusions.
"With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness?"
Is this really how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, of course the real Beth, the one that she likes to imagine she is, wouldn't do a thing like that. Never. That's just the way she is. That's her preference.
Is criticism of Randi or JREF not allowed? Is anyone who does automatically anti-Randi?
Yes, of course it is! No, of course they aren't! Why don't you start criticizing instead of simply quoting people who claim that they have been abused by Randi and the JREF? Could it be because criticism is so much more demanding than simply quoting people who have allegedly been treated with rudeness?
You don't find your own behaviour in this respect rude at all?

Come on, Beth! Which of my unanswered questions did not deserve an answer because it was too rude? When did I ask for evidence in an abusive way?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I do understand the fallacy. However, I don't agree that using that particular question as an example is doing anything more than trying to pick a fight. Another factor that I've taken into consideration is the fact that she did NOT give specific examples of these fallacious questions that she claims people have asked her.



Oh - ok, then, as long as it wasn't a misunderstanding. By all means, proceed. :)