The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Thomas]

The JREF* is not such a large organization that it can afford to make itself smaller by systematically excluding classes of people.



There are people who think critically about all things.
There are people who think critically about most things.
There are people who think critically about some things.
There are people who we aren't sure if they think or not.


Each of the latter three classes of people can be taught to "move up" to the next class. The teaching isn't always easy. Some people aren't willing to listen. But it's hard to say that climbing the 'ladder' isn't progress, and if the people at the top of the ladder are vigorously kicking the ladder away and telling people below "You're not thinking critically enough to hang out with us"... what motivation is that to even WANT to join the people at the top of the ladder? After all, they seem like a bunch of dicks.

What if Robert Lancaster were a Christian?** Would you de facto exclude him? Or would you make a special pleading by saying "the work he does is important enough that we can overlook this"? Think carefully.



* Replace with 'skepticism', 'humanist movement', or whatever, as appropriate.

** As far as I know he's an atheist. If I'm wrong and he's not, that makes this question even more appropriate...
What would it change? We're just talking official JREF positions, so RSL and others would still be allowed on the forum as usual, no news at 11, it's just that JREF declares itself a non-believing organization - it's a much better image to hold for a selfdeclared skeptics organization, than being halfway endorsing believing in woo. The bible is so obviously wrong that it makes Sylvia B. look like an oracle of truths. That's just my opinion, of course.

Edit: In fact, I don't even care if official JREF positions are held by bleevers, what I think would be of greater importance, is that it skips the "we're not skepitcal towards religion"-policy, and gets real.

[six7s]

Why focus on Christianity in your post?Why not? As far as religious woo is concerned, this site is dominated by christianity

...many militant atheists in the West who have ostensibly embraced skepticismNo True Scotsman?

...many militant atheists ... myopically focus their anger and frustration on it.Myopically? Puhleeze, dipense with the self-righteous scorn!


We're better served by attracting religious believers who think homeopathy, UFOlogy, and yes, ghosts, phsychics, 2012, etc. are bunk than by spurning them.If you feel spurned, that's your problem

[six7s]

What if Robert Lancaster were a Christian?** Would you de facto exclude him? Or would you make a special pleading by saying "the work he does is important enough that we can overlook this"? Think carefully.If he used theistic woo to argue against Salivia Browne, then yes, I would exclude dismiss his approach

Wouldn't you? ("Think carefully.")

[remirol]

If he used theistic woo to argue against Salivia Browne, then yes, I would exclude dismiss his approach

Wouldn't you? ("Think carefully.")

That wasn't the question I asked.

[Cavemonster]

Remirol,

Here's the thing, JREF positions don't exclude any kind of involvement. The only thing that's clearly a JREF position is Skepticism, yet the forum is open to and receives many who neither are, nor consider themselves skeptical. The Challenge is open in the same way.

The only thing such a position would likely effect are JREF employees. As of now, would an employee who believed in Sylvia Browne, a 911 conspiracy and the Lockness monster be able to do their job well? How about one who believed in immaculate conception, talking snakes and mythical realms of punishment and reward?

Of course no one is excluded from the conversation or participation, but I don't see any reason to treat religious woo with any more respect than every other type of woo. It doesn't deserve a free pass.

[remirol]

Here's the thing, JREF positions don't exclude any kind of involvement. The only thing that's clearly a JREF position is Skepticism, yet the forum is open to and receives many who neither are, nor consider themselves skeptical. The Challenge is open in the same way.

So why should the JREF specifically exclude people who are critical thinkers about "most" things, but not all? I know you want to say that it "doesn't exclude any type of involvement", but if it doesn't matter, then why does it matter? The only way it matters is if the people advocating this intend to _make_ it matter; to somehow denigrate others, either explicitly or implicitly, for being "less skeptical".

What would it change? We're just talking official JREF positions, so RSL and others would still be allowed on the forum as usual, no news at 11, it's just that JREF declares itself a non-believing organization - it's a much better image to hold for a selfdeclared skeptics organization, than being halfway endorsing believing in woo.

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?

[Cavemonster]

So why should the JREF specifically exclude people who are critical thinkers about "most" things, but not all? I know you want to say that it "doesn't exclude any type of involvement", but if it doesn't matter, then why does it matter? The only way it matters is if the people advocating this intend to _make_ it matter; to somehow denigrate others, either explicitly or implicitly, for being "less skeptical".

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?

It matters because above all the JREF is a PR effort for critical thinking and skepticism.

Through the blog, the lectures and the challenge, the JREF makes it clear that they are an organization that.

Does not believe in psychics
Does not believe in homeopathy
Does not believe in dowsing
Does not believe in astrology etc etc.

Now in exactly the way that a clear stand for atheism is exclusive, these stands that are already made exclude those who are critical thinkers except for dowsing or any single claim.

Why should religion be treated differently? If having a position on religion is exclusive to people with varying levels of skepticism, how is it different from having a position on any of the above?

[remirol]

It matters because above all the JREF is a PR effort for critical thinking and skepticism.

This conversation is making me despise the term "skepticism" even more than I already do, by the way. This is kind of a derail, though, so -- not here.

Through the blog, the lectures and the challenge, the JREF makes it clear that they are an organization that.

Does not believe in psychics
Does not believe in homeopathy
Does not believe in dowsing
Does not believe in astrology etc etc.

Now in exactly the way that a clear stand for atheism is exclusive, these stands that are already made exclude those who are critical thinkers except for dowsing or any single claim.Correct. And all of the above can be tested.

Why should religion be treated differently? If having a position on religion is exclusive to people with varying levels of skepticism, how is it different from having a position on any of the above?The (non-)existence of god cannot be tested for. It isn't critical thinking to say "There's no god"; that's not a statement that can be supported with evidence. It is fine to say "There is no evidence of god's existence", and "The evidence provided for the Christian god is sufficiently vague and self-contradictory that it is a near-certainty that the Christian god does not exist", but you can't say "There's no god".

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.

You may note that the MDC does not accept claims based on demonstrating the existence of god, demons, angels, etc. This is consistent with the position.

Also, as a side, more practical note: atheism is a lack of belief in any god, but that's not how the public sees it. They see it as an explicit denial of all gods, and that is how many media centers portray it. That's wrong, of course, but that will take some time to overcome; in the meantime, it is better for the JREF to be not explicitly atheist.

ETA: Let's just get all the ad-homs I see coming out of the way now: I'm an atheist.

[six7s]

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.Your use of the word 'think' seems incongruous...

Although thinking does not necessarily preclude faith/belief/etc, faith certainly precludes thinking

[remirol]

Although thinking does not necessarily preclude faith/belief/etc, faith certainly precludes thinking

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong. A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things. So much for faith precluding thinking.

[Piggy]

The (non-)existence of god cannot be tested for.

Of course it can.

If you define God, then it's no problem to test for God's existence.

I'm sorry, but here you're merely repeating "accepted wisdom" that has no basis in fact.

On the other hand, if you refuse to define God, then you're just talking nonsense.

[Piggy]

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.

This makes no sense.

There is no "get out of critical thinking free" card for religion.

Slapping a "faith" label on a belief does not somehow make it a skepticism-free zone.

If I follow your logic, I could call my belief in a flat earth "faith" and declare that it's exempt from examination.

[Piggy]

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong. A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things. So much for faith precluding thinking.

The amount of time spent thinking about a topic doesn't matter.

Evidence and reason matter.

Go look at all the hardcore 911 Truthers, the most prolific Holocaust deniers, the rabid anti-GW crackpots who post ad nauseum. They have spent a lot of time thinking about these things. Nevertheless, they are wrong.

Not all thinking is created equal. Quality matters -- mere quantity does not.

And btw, "faith" by definition precludes thinking. If a conclusion follows from reasoned thought and evidence, faith is obviated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
No True Scotsman?
...About this misnomer (not that you used it specifically this way in your post), god beliefs are in the category of woo. It doesn't matter who has those beliefs.

The issue is not about what a skeptic is or isn't. It is about which conclusions are based on rational evaluation of the Universe and which are not.

As for the organization, there is one argument to be made and that is which focus does the JREF have? If you add in atheism you dilute the focus. OTOH, if you focus on critical aka rational thinking, atheism follows regardless of the members who don't follow that thinking.

I, for one, think allowing the critical thinking blind spot regarding supposed faith based evidence and beliefs is a mistake of hypocrisy. But I have no issue with saying the JREF is not an atheist organization. Because atheism is not the focus of the group.

[athon]

I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon

[six7s]

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong.Bollocks

A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things.I'd be more inclined to agree (that 'faith does NOT preclude thinking') if you had acknowledged that 'most faithers jump to a conclusion and then reverse-engineer their worldview to fit'

However... you didn't... you have (it seems) skipped over the (uncomfortable?) parts of reality, where critical thinking involves something along the lines of 'thinking about observable reality, postulating conclusions and, for faithers, then thinking if/how their faith fits with reality') and instead, it seems, focused attention on those who do/are "thinking about their faith" :(

So much for faith precluding thinking.OK... I will acknowledge that there are some very clever minds that are patently capable of advanced-level thinking whilst (but not, I think, in conjunction with) faith - e.g. the astronomers in the Vatican, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc...

However... I suspect that there is NO evidence to suggest that: they combine their faith with their thinking in way that is more beneficial than thinking alone they have applied their full range of critical thinking skills to the fundamentals of their faith (instead, their woo is given a 'free pass')

[Thomas]

Also, as a side, more practical note: atheism is a lack of belief in any god, but that's not how the public sees it. They see it as an explicit denial of all gods, and that is how many media centers portray it. That's wrong, of course, but that will take some time to overcome; in the meantime, it is better for the JREF to be not explicitly atheist.

This has been debated many times on this forum, and while I'm an agnostic, then I declare myself atheist here because I know a lot of you differ between soft and hard atheists from older discussions, where I would be a soft atheist - aka agnostic.

[Thomas]

Bollocks


OK... I will acknowledge that there are some very clever minds that are patently capable of advanced-level thinking whilst (but not, I think, in conjunction with) faith - e.g. the astronomers in the Vatican, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc...
Most of the astronomers of ancient times took a lot of heat from their discoveries tho.. Bruno was burned at the stake, Gallileo was threatened with torture, etc. etc., religion is nothing to approve of when you know a tad about the history of the same.

[Thomas]

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?
Several people have told you this now, but it doesn't seem to sink in, does it.. Do you know what image means in this context?

I'm a skeptic, and I believe that a pink bunny on the backside of Mars controls Earth. Do you see how this sentence doesn't make much sense? Then try to switch the bunny with a hebrew vulcano god, and you're on the right track.

[Cavemonster]

I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon

I see your point but I disagree.
As an example, the JREF vocally and clearly holds a view on homeopathy.
There are certain conclusions, which after as much research and study as you can possibly do, you can only arrive at them through faulty logic, and they're dangerous to boot.

The whole point of skepticism is to be able to make good conclusions, and avoid bad ones. I believe and I think Randi might agree, that one of the strong reasons it's important for skepticism to spread, is to ideally rid the world of some of those dangerous conclusions.

Note that generally when Randi or another JREF member mentions Homeopathy, they're clear that although it's pretty clearly bull from the extensive, they're open to looking at the results of research or even an MDC test to change their minds. The same should hold true of God.

[remirol]

Of course it can.

If you define God, then it's no problem to test for God's existence.

If it were that easy, someone would've done it long ago. It appears that most definitions of god, however, lend themselves to untestability -- for example, "god is omniscient" can be tested initially by finding out whether god knows a thing he can't otherwise know. Next step: get a response from god. Oops.

[remirol]

This makes no sense.

Well, read it again then.

[arthwollipot]

soft atheist - aka agnostic.Not the same thing.

[remirol]

Several people have told you this now, but it doesn't seem to sink in, does it.. Do you know what image means in this context?

If you had read my posts, you'd understand that I do, in fact, know what image means. Please reread recent post to Cavemonster.

I'm a skeptic, and I believe that a pink bunny on the backside of Mars controls Earth. Do you see how this sentence doesn't make much sense? Then try to switch the bunny with a hebrew vulcano god, and you're on the right track.

About all you're demonstrating here is that it's a good idea for people to stop self-identifying as "skeptics". Which I'm in favor of, because it promotes the "us vs. them" mentality; as athon has accurately noted above, it should be about a philosophy, not about us telling people what is and isn't right.

[Thomas]

Not the same thing.
According to prior discussions on this forum, then it is, so I looked it up, and while yahoo answers perhaps isn't the best source, then it agrees with me. What agrees with you?

[Thomas]

About all you're demonstrating here is that it's a good idea for people to stop self-identifying as "skeptics". Which I'm in favor of, because it promotes the "us vs. them" mentality; as athon has accurately noted above, it should be about a philosophy, not about us telling people what is and isn't right.
It still spoils the image of JREF to not be skeptical towards hebrew gods. It seems like they only want to take on the small fish in the pond.

[Cavemonster]

Randi writes about this very notion
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/653-randi-on-religion-and-the-jref.html

[remirol]

It still spoils the image of JREF to not be skeptical towards hebrew gods. It seems like they only want to take on the small fish in the pond.

I disagree with you on the "image" part (see previous posts). Also, atheism involves all gods, not just the one or two that someone happens to personally dislike or have a grudge against.

[Thomas]

I disagree with you on the "image" part (see previous posts). Also, atheism involves all gods, not just the one or two that someone happens to personally dislike or have a grudge against.
Hebrew gods, or rather, a certain hebrew god, is what dominates the western world woo tho, so you're just missing the point. The RCC has a few more followers than Sylvia Browne.

[remirol]

Hebrew gods, or rather, a certain hebrew god, is what dominates the western world woo tho, so you're just missing the point.

No, I'm really not. Atheism includes _all_ gods. To self-paint atheism as anti-Christian simply because you happen to have a grudge against them for some reason is wilfully inaccurate, and will do more harm than help.

[Thomas]

No, I'm really not. Atheism includes _all_ gods. To self-paint atheism as anti-Christian simply because you happen to have a grudge against them for some reason is wilfully inaccurate, and will do more harm than help.
Try to understand that the hebrew god was used as an example because it is the most obvious example in the western world. Get it? Good.

[remirol]

Try to understand that the hebrew god was used as an example because it is the most obvious example in the western world. Get it? Good.

Try to understand that using it as an example is inappropriate because atheism is lack of belief in _all_ gods. Get it? Good.

[Thomas]

Try to understand that using it as an example is inappropriate because atheism is lack of belief in _all_ gods. Get it? Good.
I represented atheism/agnosticism in an International class for 11 years, from when I was 8 years old or so, so maybe I just consider your new discovery a n00b trifle.

[athon]

I see your point but I disagree.
As an example, the JREF vocally and clearly holds a view on homeopathy.

Officially, they don't. Sure, Randi will regularly voice his opinion on it and will regularly point out that the claim is without merit. Yet there is no official position stating they are promoting the fact that homeopathy doesn't work.


The whole point of skepticism is to be able to make good conclusions, and avoid bad ones. I believe and I think Randi might agree, that one of the strong reasons it's important for skepticism to spread, is to ideally rid the world of some of those dangerous conclusions.

No disagreements here. Yet there are two ways of going about it - one is to promote good thinking skills and hope people will use them properly. A natural consequence of that will be to avoid making conclusions based on weak evidence or social thinking values. Promoting a conclusion has the effect of encouraging people to adopt your point of view, which is in itself a social thinking value.

In truth, it's difficult to separate them. Many people within this community have their conclusions reinforced by the fact others agree with them. We're social animals - it can't be avoided. However, to go that extra step and officially support and promote a particular conclusion runs contrary to the skeptical philosophy.

Note that generally when Randi or another JREF member mentions Homeopathy, they're clear that although it's pretty clearly bull from the extensive, they're open to looking at the results of research or even an MDC test to change their minds. The same should hold true of God.

The very fact they're open to the possibility of pseudoscience working or a particular definition of god existing would negate the fact that the organisation would officially represent the fact it does not.

Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Athon

[Thomas]

Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Athon
Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?

[remirol]

I represented atheism/agnosticism in an International class for 11 years, from when I was 8 years old or so, so maybe I just consider your new discovery a n00b trifle.

Dude. Is there a point to all this constant repetition other than to have the last word? We disagree. Get over it. Move on.

[Piggy]

If it were that easy, someone would've done it long ago. It appears that most definitions of god, however, lend themselves to untestability -- for example, "god is omniscient" can be tested initially by finding out whether god knows a thing he can't otherwise know. Next step: get a response from god. Oops.

You're looking at it backwards.

When no definition of a thing can be had, it's clear you're talking about an empty concept.

[remirol]

Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core,

This is another excellent opportunity to bang my drum about why we should not be self-identifying as skeptics. This is perfect. Thank you very much; I couldn't have asked for a better way to illustrate this point.

Teaching people to blindly doubt is bad; and that is what 'skepticism' is seen as.

We should be teaching people critical thinking; or to doubt when appropriate. If a policeman came up to me and held forth for ten minutes on where the "bad" crime areas in the city were, I would be foolish to doubt him. And yet, that seems to be exactly what too many self-identified "skeptics" fall into the trap of -- the trap of excessive ego, of trusting nothing but their own opinion and demanding proof for all challenges to their position.*

All this does is make people think you're a dick and stop listening to you. And we cannot afford to have people stop listening to us.

I have a friend who's starting to get sucked into Mona Vie and their MLM scheme. I talked to her for awhile when she first heard of it, and warned her that MLMs never succeed, but she has her blinders firmly on out of random hope; the economy is bad, after all, and she thinks she needs quick money. After about 20 minutes of conversation, I finally backed off and said "Well, when you get the chance, ask some questions of the other people to make sure; if it's a scam, the answers will sound like this". I sent her some links about MLMs in general as well.

The point here is that when we left that conversation, she was still willing to listen to me. When things go south for her in the future and she finds that she's the only one buying her "product" at $40/bottle in order to maintain her obligations, she'll still be willing to listen when I remind her that this is exactly how every other MLM fails. Maybe I can get her to change her mind; maybe not. I know that as long as she's still talking to me, I have a chance.

If the JREF gets into the business of being an organization that promotes skepticism, rather than one that promotes critical thinking, then it will not advance its mission very rapidly, if at all.



* I am hardly immune to this disease, but I do try to self-police.

[Piggy]

I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon

Well, we also need to be honest when a skeptical approach to a question actually does yield an answer.

A skeptical approach to ancient flat earth theory reveals that it's wrong.

A skeptical approach to the Holocaust can't help but conclude that yes, it happened.

We can't shrug at these things without doing a disservice to reason, which leads us to conclusions in these matters.

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.

[Piggy]

Well, read it again then.

Done. Sense failed to emerge.

[Piggy]

Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?

I'm not sure that it's about doubt at the core.

To me, it's about method at the core. It's about applying reason.

Yes, doubt is a necessary component of that. But I don't see it as the central pillar.

[remirol]

You're looking at it backwards.

When no definition of a thing can be had, it's clear you're talking about an empty concept.

But plenty of people are able to define god; it just isn't a definition that can be tested. Look at gerry, for example. He can define god. It's not even remotely close to a definition that can be tested, and it's not the most coherent one due to the limitations of the poster, but it _is_ a definition, whether we like it or not.

I understand you have some personal grudge against religion. But it's simply not critical thinking to assert that "there is no god"; you can't prove the negative. (It _is_ skepticism, though, isn't it? Hmmm.... ;) )

If you were to say "There's no evidence for god", i'm on board. "I can't see any reasonable way that god _could_ exist" is fine with me, too. And you're not going to find me lined up at the confessional curtain "just in case"; I have to alphabetize my socks Sunday mornings, and that takes priority. Until someone shows me some indicator that there _is_ a god, i'm going to act as though it doesn't exist, just like the invisible pink unicorn in my closet.

But to implicitly tell others who have chosen to have faith in something that probably isn't there that they aren't good enough? I can't support that, sorry.

[six7s]

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.My guess (yes, guess) is that the JREF takes more than a mere 'default' position on theism...

I wouldn't be surprised to be told that all of the staff members, when drafting what they publish, make an active/conscious decision to excise any/all theistic woo from their work... even (otherwise) trivial 'poetical, colloquial' stuff (like 'thank god', 'holy cow!', 'saints alive!', etc)

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

[Piggy]

But plenty of people are able to define god; it just isn't a definition that can be tested.

Then what's it worth when it comes to claims that God "exists"?

If you're going to claim -- as you have -- that the (non-)existence of God is somehow outside the realm of rational examination and testing, then you're going to have to explain how it can be that X can be asserted to potentially exist and yet, at the same time, X cannot -- even in theory -- be examined to determine whether or not it exists and (and this is key) also still be God. (E.g., we can speculate about certain things outside our light horizon which may or may not exist, and we'll never know, but no one has ever believed God to be, say, a planet outside our light horizon).

I'm not saying that no one has ever defined God.

I'm asking you to examine, and defend if possible, your own assertion.

I understand you have some personal grudge against religion.

No, you don't.


But it's simply not critical thinking to assert that "there is no god"; you can't prove the negative. (It _is_ skepticism, though, isn't it? Hmmm.... ;) )

With all due respect, I recommend that you ease up on the accepted wisdom.

Of course negatives can be proven. Give me access to DNA testing, and I can prove that Sarah Palin is not my mother. I can prove that there are no adult gorillas in my house.

Again, you're claiming something rather remarkable -- that God can be said to exist and yet be immune to examination of its alleged existence -- and you've yet to explain yourself.

But to implicitly tell others who have chosen to have faith in something that probably isn't there that they aren't good enough? I can't support that, sorry.

"Aren't good enough"? Now you're merely inventing claims out of thin air. That's not what this is about.

[Piggy]

My guess (yes, guess) is that the JREF takes more than a mere 'default' position on theism...

I wouldn't be surprised to be told that all of the staff members, when drafting what they publish, make an active/conscious decision to excise any/all theistic woo from their work... even (otherwise) trivial 'poetical, colloquial' stuff (like 'thank god', 'holy cow!', 'saints alive!', etc)

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

That was me, not Thomas, btw.

Not all the staff members are, or were, atheists. There's at least one deist.

[six7s]

That was me, not Thomas, btw.That's summat I didn't doubt ;)

ETA: whoops! I now see the cock-up... I must have begun by multi-quoting you both, and then edited sloppily

Not all the staff members are, or were, atheists. There's at least one deist.I was vaguely aware of a deist in teh house... my guess is that they have NEVER mentioned such woo in their published JREF work

[SezMe]

My best friend admits that she believes because it is comforting....
Which is the same reason given by Martin Gardner, the grandfather of skepticism and an inspiration for Randi, me and probably many others here.

[SezMe]

According to prior discussions on this forum, then it is, so I looked it up, and while yahoo answers perhaps isn't the best source, then it agrees with me. What agrees with you?
Not a what but a who: Michael Shermer. In one of his books (can't remember which) he goes into some detail about agnosticism, atheism, and the many, many variants of each. He discusses how they differ and overlap. In short, at any but the most bluntest levels, they are not the same.

The problem with using a dictionary to resolve the issue is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus, because agnostic has been widely misused, you will find that misuse enshrined in various definitions. One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.

[six7s]

Martin Gardner, the grandfather of skepticism:confused: The name Gardner doesn't sound very Greek

[athon]

Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?

Ah, now, welcome to my pet zone. :) This is one thing I've spent many years studying (being a science communicator, definition is kind of an occupational hazard).

Remirol kind of hits the nail on the head. There are several interpreted meanings to the term, depending on the community you're communicating with.

You're correct that 'doubt' lies at the core of all meanings of the term. Yet the placement of this doubt depends on the context of the term. Most people in the community tend to associate the word 'skeptic' with an opposition to an otherwise accepted belief. In other words, it's always a negative thing that conflicts with a perceived truth. Take 'climate change skeptic' for an example.

Yet in communities such as this one, to be a skeptic is associated not with any one particular stance or context, but rather with an overall philosophy.

This contrast makes it difficult to communicate the core goals of critical thinking. People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

Athon

[six7s]

One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.The a in atheism is easy: without

Alas, the same cannot be said for the theism in atheism

[athon]

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

Well, now we're getting pedantic on what's meant by 'officially and atheist organisation'.

Of course, but your logic you're correct. It is atheist. Does this mean it should also officially promote the fact it is not a sporting association, not a genealogical society, and not an animal rights group? It's not many things, so it's equally true to say it's not theistic.

I believe the nature of this thread, however, is to discuss if it should be recognised as an atheist organisation (I might have it wrong, of course, in which case I agree completely that by default we can call it atheistic just as we can call it a-vegan).

Athon

[SezMe]

:confused: The name Gardner doesn't sound very Greek
Ya know, after I made that post I wondered if someone would call me on that. Ok, ok, ok, "modern skepticism". Better?

ETA: Ok, ok, ok, before someone else rings my chimes, "modern American skepticism". Better?

[athon]

Well, we also need to be honest when a skeptical approach to a question actually does yield an answer.

A skeptical approach to ancient flat earth theory reveals that it's wrong.

A skeptical approach to the Holocaust can't help but conclude that yes, it happened.

We can't shrug at these things without doing a disservice to reason, which leads us to conclusions in these matters.

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.

The problem with that is that it is an apriori way of communicating.

'I'm skeptical. But I believe that the moon landing was hoaxed.'
'Really? Well, you can't be skeptical, because we skeptics don't share your conclusion, and therefore you're applying it wrong.'

By all means, if somebody shows faulty reasoning, that needs to be addressed. And, of course, I also can't see how somebody could believe in an interventionalist deity or homeopathy while effectively being skeptical. I'd need to listen to their reasoning. But therein lies the difference - organisations such as the JREF promote the thinking, with a focus on where it goes wrong and therefore leads to certain conclusions. To state categorically that there are conclusions which are impossible to have when thinking skeptically is, by that very epistemology, unskeptical.

Athon

[six7s]

People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

AthonIt was this same perceived attitude that prompted me to coin the term veretic as a self-descriptor/aim

Anyhoo... this seems rather off-topic to me... or am I missing something?

[Piggy]

To state categorically that there are conclusions which are impossible to have when thinking skeptically is, by that very epistemology, unskeptical.

Not at all, as long as we're talking about a reasonably informed person.

In some cases, evidence is conclusive.

I understand why most folks would not put atheism into that category, and that's fine. But -- and we've been over this several times now in other threads -- there should be no reason why we cannot say, for instance, that it's simply not tenable to apply skepticism to ancient flat earth theory and conclude that it was correct. There is simply too much evidence against it. It cannot be true. One cannot be a skeptic and reasonably well informed and believe that the earth is flat like a pancake.

There is simply no support for an assertion that it is somehow unskeptical to state that skepticism renders certain beliefs untenable, because clearly it does.

[athon]

It was this same perceived attitude that prompted me to coin the term veretic as a self-descriptor/aim

Anyhoo... this seems rather off-topic to me... or am I missing something?

Meh, it's off topic when it gets moved to AAH. :p Otherwise, I say discuss away.

Not at all, as long as we're talking about a reasonably informed person.

In some cases, evidence is conclusive.

I understand why most folks would not put atheism into that category, and that's fine. But -- and we've been over this several times now in other threads -- there should be no reason why we cannot say, for instance, that it's simply not tenable to apply skepticism to ancient flat earth theory and conclude that it was correct. There is simply too much evidence against it. It cannot be true. One cannot be a skeptic and reasonably well informed and believe that the earth is flat like a pancake.

There is simply no support for an assertion that it is somehow unskeptical to state that skepticism renders certain beliefs untenable, because clearly it does.

Based on past discussions we've had, Piggy, I know there's nothing really to say to this. The moment we discuss philosophy, you defer to pragmatism. All well and good, but skepticism is a philosophy. You and I might agree on the outcomes because we share the same values and thresholds for evidence, but just because we share them doesn't make it an objective part of the philosophy. Communicating this is vital for encouraging good critical thinking skills, which is often missed by many skeptical communicators.

Athon

[Thomas]

This is another excellent opportunity to bang my drum about why we should not be self-identifying as skeptics. This is perfect. Thank you very much; I couldn't have asked for a better way to illustrate this point.

Teaching people to blindly doubt is bad; and that is what 'skepticism' is seen as.

We should be teaching people critical thinking; or to doubt when appropriate. If a policeman came up to me and held forth for ten minutes on where the "bad" crime areas in the city were, I would be foolish to doubt him. And yet, that seems to be exactly what too many self-identified "skeptics" fall into the trap of -- the trap of excessive ego, of trusting nothing but their own opinion and demanding proof for all challenges to their position.*


Do you then find that doubt is appropriate when it comes to religion, or did you ask a cop who said no?


All this does is make people think you're a dick and stop listening to you. And we cannot afford to have people stop listening to us.


You haven't spend much time in the R&P section have you.. Rethorical question.


I have a friend who's starting to get sucked into Mona Vie and their MLM scheme. I talked to her for awhile when she first heard of it, and warned her that MLMs never succeed, but she has her blinders firmly on out of random hope; the economy is bad, after all, and she thinks she needs quick money. After about 20 minutes of conversation, I finally backed off and said "Well, when you get the chance, ask some questions of the other people to make sure; if it's a scam, the answers will sound like this". I sent her some links about MLMs in general as well.

The point here is that when we left that conversation, she was still willing to listen to me. When things go south for her in the future and she finds that she's the only one buying her "product" at $40/bottle in order to maintain her obligations, she'll still be willing to listen when I remind her that this is exactly how every other MLM fails. Maybe I can get her to change her mind; maybe not. I know that as long as she's still talking to me, I have a chance.


Good luck with that. I have "deprogrammed" anything from rebirthers to core xians. Simply with suggestive doubt. The bleevers on this forum is usually a bit more hardcore tho, and come here for a reason with a very closed mindset.


If the JREF gets into the business of being an organization that promotes skepticism, rather than one that promotes critical thinking, then it will not advance its mission very rapidly, if at all.


It will advance its (non-)mission against religion and attract more agnostics and atheists if it declares itself an agnostic organization - more rational people to take on Sylvia B etc., and keeping it real, because Randi has attacked religion several times in Swift anyway.


* I am hardly immune to this disease, but I do try to self-police.

Or you could always ask the cops.

[Thomas]

Not a what but a who: Michael Shermer. In one of his books (can't remember which) he goes into some detail about agnosticism, atheism, and the many, many variants of each. He discusses how they differ and overlap. In short, at any but the most bluntest levels, they are not the same.

The problem with using a dictionary to resolve the issue is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus, because agnostic has been widely misused, you will find that misuse enshrined in various definitions. One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.
Yes, I knew it was Shermer, I just wanted his sources.. Since the correlation between agnosticsm and soft atheism is vast.. There's a fair article on the distinction on wiki.. Maybe I can just do this... soft atheist.. And voila!

[Thomas]

Ah, now, welcome to my pet zone. :) This is one thing I've spent many years studying (being a science communicator, definition is kind of an occupational hazard).

Remirol kind of hits the nail on the head. There are several interpreted meanings to the term, depending on the community you're communicating with.

You're correct that 'doubt' lies at the core of all meanings of the term. Yet the placement of this doubt depends on the context of the term. Most people in the community tend to associate the word 'skeptic' with an opposition to an otherwise accepted belief. In other words, it's always a negative thing that conflicts with a perceived truth. Take 'climate change skeptic' for an example.

Yet in communities such as this one, to be a skeptic is associated not with any one particular stance or context, but rather with an overall philosophy.

This contrast makes it difficult to communicate the core goals of critical thinking. People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

Athon
Sounds like a plan alright, but do you find that doubt is appropriate to apply when it comes to religion?

[SezMe]

Yes, I knew it was Shermer, I just wanted his sources.. Since the correlation between agnosticsm and soft atheism is vast.. There's a fair article on the distinction on wiki.. Maybe I can just do this... soft atheist.. And voila!
Not sure if that is sarcasm, play or bad linking. Your voila leads to ... nothing.

[Thomas]

Not sure if that is sarcasm, play or bad linking. Your voila leads to ... nothing.
Click on the little tag next to soft atheist.

Edit: Oh it doesn't work for soft atheist, only hard atheist.. There..

[Cavemonster]

Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Athon

But you need to understand that the JREF did not come into being in a vacuum just because skepticism is a good idea. It started as a reaction to specific dangerous claims rising out of fraud and self deception.

An organization dedicated to skepticism for it's own sake may be a noble goal and a broad tent, but the JREF specifically has at it's roots a goal of addressing those harmful beliefs.

Randi, as a spokesman and face of JREF will come out and say "Homeopathy is bunk". Yes it isn't in the official mission statement that homeopathy is bunk, and I don't think atheism should be in the official mission statement either. But to the extent that we can agree that unless new evidence is forthcoming, homeopathy, flat earth theory and gods are not consistent with a skeptical approach.

And of course we would all be willing and happy to see new evidence that changes the picture, what could be more exciting? And of course this doesn't mean that theists or people who believe in homeopathy or whatever should be shunned or have nothing to do with the organization.

But just as we see nothing wrong with Randi or any other JREF representative publicly calling Psychics on their bunk, I think they should also feel free to equally call out religious woo for what it is. And that's the extent to which I think it's appropriate for the JREF to embrace Atheism, in exactly the way it has publicly embraced other conclusions.

[SirPhilip]

The JREF, as it deals with everything that encompasses metaphysical phenomena, is nominally a secular organization until it's proven otherwise. I don't see what the cause for debate is about.

[athon]

But you need to understand that the JREF did not come into being in a vacuum just because skepticism is a good idea. It started as a reaction to specific dangerous claims rising out of fraud and self deception.

For the most part it started out as a result of Randi's reaction to people who claimed to have supernatural powers while what they did appeared to be no different to a magician's trick. I have no doubt that the dangerous ramifications of poor thinking was a key motivating factor, but the seeds of it were not in telling people to not believe in such stuff, but rather to provide people with an ability to discern truth from nonsense.

But just as we see nothing wrong with Randi or any other JREF representative publicly calling Psychics on their bunk, I think they should also feel free to equally call out religious woo for what it is.

I don't think that's being questioned. If a particular person makes a claim -religious or otherwise- and that claim can be critically evaluated with a skeptical philosophy by which it fails to be supported, then of course there's no problem. A skeptical approach is being applied to a situation, which is what the organisation promotes.

Yet this is different to officially claiming that they are an organisation opposed to any possible account of said claim.

And that's the extent to which I think it's appropriate for the JREF to embrace Atheism, in exactly the way it has publicly embraced other conclusions.

I personally think there is a subtle difference between an official stance and Randi's opinions on things.

Athon

[remirol]

If you're going to claim -- as you have -- that the (non-)existence of God is somehow outside the realm of rational examination and testing, then you're going to have to explain how it can be that X can be asserted to potentially exist and yet, at the same time, X cannot -- even in theory -- be examined to determine whether or not it exists and (and this is key) also still be God.

*sigh* Look, dude. Define god, for example, as "an omniscient, omnipotent being who created and permeates the whole of our universe." Now test for that. Right, you can't; while we could certainly examine the components of, say, my car and try to find the bit that's god, we still don't know what a bit of god looks like.

Now can we move on from the silly derail? Did you miss the point where I said I was an atheist? You really seem to have a bug up your butt about the obvious here.

Of course negatives can be proven. Give me access to DNA testing, and I can prove that Sarah Palin is not my mother. I can prove that there are no adult gorillas in my house. Poor analogies. You can prove there are no adult gorillas in your house because your house is finite and you have access to all portions of it in which a gorilla would fit.

If someone defines god as "a being who lives at the top of a mountain on a distant planet and controls the entire universe", that's a remarkably precise definition. You could even test for it in theory; check the mountaintops of every planet in the infinite uni... oh, right. You can't even test for it in theory.

Again, you're claiming something rather remarkable -- that God can be said to exist and yet be immune to examination of its alleged existence -- and you've yet to explain yourself.And you seem to think that it _needs_ explaining. How you doin', Claus?

Sort your issues out, move on, I don't care which. But I'm not going to bother responding to any more posts on this; it's just stupid and I'm not going to waste time repeating myself. I will say that this is precisely the type of behavior by "skeptics" that retards the advancement of critical thinking, though; you're being annoying for no purpose and trying to force me to defend a hypothetical position I don't actually hold (yep, still an atheist) simply to make what is essentially a semantic point.

Get over it.

[remirol]

Do you then find that doubt is appropriate when it comes to religion, or did you ask a cop who said no?

Personally? Of course. But not everyone agrees with me, and I do not wish for the JREF to implicitly label them as "not good enough" by taking an official atheistic stance.


You haven't spend much time in the R&P section have you.. Rethorical question.Good luck with that. I have "deprogrammed" anything from rebirthers to core xians. Simply with suggestive doubt. The bleevers on this forum is usually a bit more hardcore tho, and come here for a reason with a very closed mindset.I'm not talking about Internet forums, in this case, largely because of exactly what you describe -- it's too hard to tell whether someone's interested in actually discussing things, or interested in just preaching to the masses.

It will advance its (non-)mission against religion and attract more agnostics and atheists if it declares itself an agnostic organization"mission against religion"? I hope you're joking there.

Also, isn't this about it becoming an atheist, rather than agnostic organization? Just curious as to why that gear shifted there.

And finally -- what about the organization being not _explicitly_ atheist prevents it from attracting agnostics and atheists now? (My answer would be "not much, because they seem to be the vast majority of participants).

more rational people to take on Sylvia B etc., and keeping it real, because Randi has attacked religion several times in Swift anyway.Someone else has already addressed the second part; Randi is not the JREF, as odd as it may seem to say. As far as the first part... I do not think that "debunking" advances the cause of teaching critical thinking anywhere near as much as actually teaching critical thinking does. I wish those who call themselves "skeptics" would spend less time trying to be the next RSL or the next Gravy (yes, UncaYimmy, I'm lookin' at you here), and more time trying to show people how they can actually _benefit_ from fifteen minutes' worth of research on a topic ... how they can learn to find the truth for themselves, and not have to depend on what _anyone_ else tells them (unless it's reasonable; cf. cop example).

[Thomas]

Personally? Of course. But not everyone agrees with me, and I do not wish for the JREF to implicitly label them as "not good enough" by taking an official atheistic stance.
Yes, let's label them good enough instead and aid in sabotaging stemcell research and whatsnot.


I'm not talking about Internet forums, in this case, largely because of exactly what you describe -- it's too hard to tell whether someone's interested in actually discussing things, or interested in just preaching to the masses.
Nor am I talking about internet forums. I've already told you I had my arse in the grass since I was a kid, so we're talking IRL.


"mission against religion"? I hope you're joking there.
Of course I'm not kidding, religion should be banned on par with pyramid games and other organized scams.


Also, isn't this about it becoming an atheist, rather than agnostic organization? Just curious as to why that gear shifted there.Because some Americans use the term atheist on par with agnostic, so I was just being generic - would you believe that?!

And finally -- what about the organization being not _explicitly_ atheist prevents it from attracting agnostics and atheists now? (My answer would be "not much, because they seem to be the vast majority of participants).
True, but maybe that's just because religion is losing participants in the western world, it's almost gone where I come from - the state of something rotten.

Someone else has already addressed the second part; Randi is not the JREF, as odd as it may seem to say. As far as the first part... I do not think that "debunking" advances the cause of teaching critical thinking anywhere near as much as actually teaching critical thinking does. I wish those who call themselves "skeptics" would spend less time trying to be the next RSL or the next Gravy (yes, UncaYimmy, I'm lookin' at you here), and more time trying to show people how they can actually _benefit_ from fifteen minutes' worth of research on a topic ... how they can learn to find the truth for themselves, and not have to depend on what _anyone_ else tells them (unless it's reasonable; cf. cop example).Randi is mostly amusing to read for those who agrees with him, but I'm none the less delighted that people like him still exists.. I'm not a huge fan of debunking either, but certain people can read no other languages. He can be a mean machine, but so can those he are up against. And you know, it takes one to know one - sometimes.

[arthwollipot]

According to prior discussions on this forum, then it is, so I looked it up, and while yahoo answers perhaps isn't the best source, then it agrees with me. What agrees with you?Common sense and the definitions of words, perhaps? Do I really have to go through all this again? One of these days I'm going to create a website all about the difference between theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic. That way I'll just have to link to it when someone fails to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

[Thomas]

Common sense and the definitions of words? Do I really have to go through all this again? One of these days I'm going to create a website all about the difference between theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic. That way I'll just have to link to it when someone fails to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.
Maybe you should read that wiki link I posted above before you make your 101 site. Then you may realize that the terms are not as fixed as you think, especially not the term atheist.. Language is alive and evolving.. So why should we all listen to you? Let me guess, because you're the first Robin Hood with a kinky Australian accent?

[arthwollipot]

Maybe you should read that wiki link I posted above before you make your 101 site. Then you may realize that the terms are not as fixed as you think, especially not the term atheist.. Language is alive and evolving.. So why should we all listen to you? Let me guess, because you're the first Robin Hood with a kinky Australian accent?And just what is that supposed to mean?

[Thomas]

Men in Tights reference.. I just couldn't find any other reason as to why we should all listen to you. And why you should be in charge of the term atheist when everyone uses the term ad hoc anyway.

[arthwollipot]

Men in Tights reference.. I just couldn't find any other reason as to why we should all listen to you. And why you should be in charge of the term atheist when everyone uses the term ad hoc anyway.Who ever said that I am "in charge of the term"? I merely invite you and others to examine the difference between the definitions of theism and gnosticism.

Sure, language is fluid. That doesn't mean that words can simply fleem what we want them to.

And yes, I got the reference. I was trying hard to be offended by your remark, but in the end I realised that it just wasn't worth it.

[remirol]

Yes, let's label them good enough instead and aid in sabotaging stemcell research and whatsnot.

Argument from hyperbole doesn't wash with me, sorry.

Of course I'm not kidding, religion should be banned on par with pyramid games and other organized scams.Yeeeaaaaaah. Let me know when you get traction with _that_ approach. Me, I'll stick with a slightly less reactionary, less "us vs. them" tone. You do realize what a problem using that tone causes, right?

Because some Americans use the term atheist on par with agnostic, so I was just being generic - would you believe that?! Precision in language is important. If we're suggesting the JREF adopt a particular position as its official stance, we should be precise. It becomes even more important when you start talking about the societal connotations attached to a word; it's safer in certain places around this city for me to claim that I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist, for example, because some people handwave over a certain term in their head and some don't.

I would be far less disturbed if the JREF were to adopt agnosticism as opposed to atheism, for example. There is a small, but significant difference between the two positions.

Randi is mostly amusing to read for those who agrees with him, but I'm none the less delighted that people like him still exists.. I'm not a huge fan of debunking either, but certain people can read no other languages. He can be a mean machine, but so can those he are up against. And you know, it takes one to know one - sometimes.I agree. There's a reason it's magicians running the MDC and not scientists.

[Thomas]

Who ever said that I am "in charge of the term"? I merely invite you and others to examine the difference between the definitions of theism and gnosticism.

No, not at all, you just wanted to make a webpage where you could tell us all what it means. I'm flattered, but then again, not really.

Sure, language is fluid. That doesn't mean that words can simply fleem what we want them to.Atheist is one of the more live terms tho, but sure, there are margins, feel free to define them for us.

And yes, I got the reference. I was trying hard to be offended by your remark, but in the end I realised that it just wasn't worth it.It wasn't to offend you; get out of that defense position, it looks silly when you're not under attack.

[Thomas]

Argument from hyperbole doesn't wash with me, sorry.

So you don't want to render them "good enough", then what? Do you like stem cells?

Yeeeaaaaaah. Let me know when you get traction with _that_ approach. Me, I'll stick with a slightly less reactionary, less "us vs. them" tone. You do realize what a problem using that tone causes, right?
I don't have a problem with religion where I come from, because only few believes that nonsense here. Now it's your turn to clean your own house.

Precision in language is important. If we're suggesting the JREF adopt a particular position as its official stance, we should be precise. It becomes even more important when you start talking about the societal connotations attached to a word; it's safer in certain places around this city for me to claim that I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist, for example, because some people handwave over a certain term in their head and some don't.
I can imagine.

I would be far less disturbed if the JREF were to adopt agnosticism as opposed to atheism, for example. There is a small, but significant difference between the two positions.Me too.

I agree. There's a reason it's magicians running the MDC and not scientists.Something we can agree on.

[remirol]

So you don't want to render them "good enough", then what? Do you like stem cells?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I don't have a problem with religion where I come from, because only few believes that nonsense here. Now it's your turn to clean your own house.

This response has nothing to do with whether a reactionary, "us vs. them" tone will convince people in "my house", whatever you think that may be, of anything WRT religion.

[Thomas]

Have you stopped beating your wife?
I didn't prompt you to say "yes or no", it's an open question, so non sequitur, sir. I'm afraid Clausian tactics are weak within this Jedi.

This response has nothing to do with whether a reactionary, "us vs. them" tone will convince people in "my house", whatever you think that may be, of anything WRT religion.
Well, the us vs them tone is already here, read in the R&P threads for measure.. It wouldn't change much as I said to begin with, except one thing, as I also said to begin with; it will make sure that JREF keeps it real - and that's of essence to me, instead of that manipulative approach you're seeking by luring them into the fox trap by fake strawberries and pseudo chocolate, I even doubt strongly that it works. How many have you converted by that apporach?

[remirol]

I didn't prompt you to say "yes or no", it's an open question, so non sequitur, sir. I'm afraid Clausian tactics are weak within this Jedi.

It was also what we call a 'strawman'. Perhaps you could rephrase your question, whatever it _actually_ is, in your own words that are relevant to the conversation, rather than the words you wish I had said and conjured up from your own hyperbole?

Well, the us vs them tone is already here, read in the R&P threads for measure.. It wouldn't change much as I said to begin with, except one thing, as I also said to begin with; it will make sure that JREF keeps it real - and that's of essence to me, instead of that manipulative approach you're seeking by luring them into the fox trap by fake strawberries and pseudo chocolate, I even doubt strongly that it works. How many have you converted by that apporach?Strawman again. Could you please address the words I actually say?

ETA: Silly me, I just realized something. You're the same Thomas from the irc.skepticsrock.com chat room, aren't you? Can you confirm this as 'yes' or 'no' before we continue this any further?

[Thomas]

It was also what we call a 'strawman'. Perhaps you could rephrase your question, whatever it _actually_ is, in your own words that are relevant to the conversation, rather than the words you wish I had said and conjured up from your own hyperbole?

Pretty far from a straw man yes (it's two words in this context), because it's quite simple, religion oppose stem cell research in the United States yes.. And you would rather not that we render religion "not good enough" yes, hereby follows that stem cells in your world, must be "not good enough".. No straw man, common sense.

Strawman again. Could you please address the words I actually say?
Exactly, that's not a straw man either, I adressed your "us vs them" notions quite clearly, re-read it. You shouldn't use such words when you can't spell them and don't know their meaning. Do a foreigner really have to spell that out for you, oh my.

[Thomas]

ETA: Silly me, I just realized something. You're the same Thomas from the irc.skepticsrock.com chat room, aren't you? Can you confirm this as 'yes' or 'no' before we continue this any further?
Just use your imagination, and then leave yes.

[remirol]

I figured as much. I probably should've recognized it earlier when you started with the over-the-top hyperbole. On ignore you go; I'm not going to keep wasting time on this.

[Thomas]

Run Forest, ruuuuuuuuuun!

[Piggy]

Based on past discussions we've had, Piggy, I know there's nothing really to say to this. The moment we discuss philosophy, you defer to pragmatism. All well and good, but skepticism is a philosophy. You and I might agree on the outcomes because we share the same values and thresholds for evidence, but just because we share them doesn't make it an objective part of the philosophy. Communicating this is vital for encouraging good critical thinking skills, which is often missed by many skeptical communicators.

Of course, from my point of view, when the discussion starts to get dragged into a philosophical realm, I simply stick around in the real world. ;) As you know, I consider myself aphilosophical, and I consider skepticism a method (or practice) rather than a philosophy, and one that is validated by outcomes, as well as by some very intriguing experiments showing how the brain reaches wrong, but firmly held, conclusions if a skeptical method is not employed.

But you're right that in the end the practical differences between our points of view are slight, so it ends up six of one, half dozen of another for the most part.

[Piggy]

*sigh* Look, dude. Define god, for example, as "an omniscient, omnipotent being who created and permeates the whole of our universe." Now test for that. Right, you can't; while we could certainly examine the components of, say, my car and try to find the bit that's god, we still don't know what a bit of god looks like.

No need to sigh. Believe me, I've been through this discussion many more times than you have.

But yes, that claim is in fact testable. If you claim that a being exists at all points of the universe and that this being is aware of all the information in the universe, there will have to be an energy signature. We see no such thing.

Now can we move on from the silly derail? Did you miss the point where I said I was an atheist? You really seem to have a bug up your butt about the obvious here.

It's not silly, and it's not a derail. It matters very much to the OP whether or not this claim is in fact outside the realm of discovery.

And no, no bugs. It's just that I'm not going to let you off the hook with the accepted wisdom you keep trotting out. This is an important topic, and it requires careful thought.

Oh, and no, I didn't miss that point about your personal beliefs -- it's just that it doesn't matter. This isn't personal.

Poor analogies. You can prove there are no adult gorillas in your house because your house is finite and you have access to all portions of it in which a gorilla would fit.

If someone defines god as "a being who lives at the top of a mountain on a distant planet and controls the entire universe", that's a remarkably precise definition. You could even test for it in theory; check the mountaintops of every planet in the infinite uni... oh, right. You can't even test for it in theory.

No, in this case, the analogy serves quite well for what it's intended to show.

And again, this claim can indeed be tested for, since such a being would also leave an energy signature if it were controlling the universe. But that's not what we observe.

That's why I say you need to think all these things through much more carefully than you're doing.

And you seem to think that it _needs_ explaining. How you doin', Claus?

Sort your issues out, move on, I don't care which. But I'm not going to bother responding to any more posts on this; it's just stupid and I'm not going to waste time repeating myself. I will say that this is precisely the type of behavior by "skeptics" that retards the advancement of critical thinking, though; you're being annoying for no purpose and trying to force me to defend a hypothetical position I don't actually hold (yep, still an atheist) simply to make what is essentially a semantic point.

Get over it.

Of course it needs explaining. It's a remarkable claim. And it doesn't make sense.

You're free to stop responding if you like, but forgive me if I don't find much weight in your chiding me to improve my critical thinking skills.

It's beyond me why you think I have some sort of personal grudge going, or how you can consider yourself to have been skeptical on this point when you don't seem to be applying critical thinking to your own assertions.

[remirol]

No need to sigh.

Oh, no, there is plenty of reason to sigh. But even this response is too much. We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.

[six7s]

We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.Really?

Why and/or when should you be believed?

We disagree. Get over it. Move on.

Now can we move on from the silly derail?

<snip/>

Sort your issues out, move on, I don't care which. But I'm not going to bother responding to any more posts on this; it's just stupid and I'm not going to waste time repeating myself.

:rolleyes:

[remirol]

Why and/or when should you be believed?

Why, all the time, of course. I especially suggest following my recommendations for life, love, health, and most importantly: cooking, especially my chili and pork roast.

Sign up for my newsletter today. Only $19.99 a month; operators are standing by.

[Piggy]

Oh, no, there is plenty of reason to sigh. But even this response is too much. We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.

I seriously doubt that you will. To "move on" you'd have to begin thinking much more critically about your assertions, and I see no indication that you intend to do that.

[remirol]

I seriously doubt that you will. To "move on" you'd have to begin thinking much more critically about your assertions, and I see no indication that you intend to do that.

:oldroll:

Aw, what's the matter? Are you angry because someone won't argue trivial crap back and forth with you until the cows come home?

Seriously, now, think about it. And think critically, if you can. If you can't even hold _my_ attention, what makes you think you'll ever convince someone who _isn't_ already an atheist? Or are you just intending to chatter away on webforums forever, making little "i won!" hash marks on your monitor every time you irritate someone into not responding?

When someone walks away from you in real life because you're being too pedantic and overfocusing on side issues, your opportunity with that person is gone. You can shout no-true-scotsman insults at their back all you like, but in the end, the result was a failure; not only didn't you convince someone to think more critically, you may even have driven them away from the concept because they'll think "I don't want to be like _him_ if that's what skepticism makes you." Seems paradoxical, doesn't it -- trying to be too "right" actually ends up being more "wrong".

Many of those who self-identify as "skeptics" need to learn this; it certainly seems to be endemic among the breed. I'm not the person who originated the idea, by a long shot, but it is certainly why I try to self-identify as "critical thinker" rather than "skeptic" -- I don't want people to accidentally associate me with the negative connotation on a first impression. And more and more these days, I feel I've made the right call. See, I don't have to be accepted by "skeptics" to apply critical thinking in my own life, or to teach others, in my own little roundabout way, to do the same. There's no license I have to carry, no test I have to take. I can just do, and know that what I do works, and know that I'm making my own little bit of difference.

So next time you decide you're going to get all wound up and insist that you aren't going to "let someone off the hook", you may want to stop and consider this little post. There wasn't any hook in the first place, see -- not anywhere but in your own mind.

Oh, and the best way to illustrate this? *plonk*.

[SezMe]

This thread sure went to hell in a handbasket.

[Piggy]

:oldroll:

Aw, what's the matter? Are you angry because someone won't argue trivial crap back and forth with you until the cows come home?

What makes you think I'm angry?

I have a suggestion: Try reading my posts in a calm and dispassionate mental voice. That will render them more accurately.

I'm not asking you to "argue trivial crap back and forth". Far from it. I'm asking you to follow the thread of your own line of reasoning and see if it holds up.

Seriously, now, think about it. And think critically, if you can.

I'll try my best.


If you can't even hold _my_ attention, what makes you think you'll ever convince someone who _isn't_ already an atheist? Or are you just intending to chatter away on webforums forever, making little "i won!" hash marks on your monitor every time you irritate someone into not responding?

Well, I doubt I'll sway any true believers. But in my time here I've gotten some fence sitters to think a little deeper, follow the logic a little farther. And that's good enough.

I'm not doing PR here. That's my day job. Here, I'm really just interested in applying rigorous skepticism.

When someone walks away from you in real life because you're being too pedantic and overfocusing on side issues, your opportunity with that person is gone. You can shout no-true-scotsman insults at their back all you like, but in the end, the result was a failure; not only didn't you convince someone to think more critically, you may even have driven them away from the concept because they'll think "I don't want to be like _him_ if that's what skepticism makes you." Seems paradoxical, doesn't it -- trying to be too "right" actually ends up being more "wrong".

In meatspace, I rarely get into these kinds of conversations. Most folks don't want to have them. But with those who do, I'm honest.

But this is a skeptics' forum. We cannot allow ourselves to pull our punches here. It would be like asking posters on a science forum to "go easy" on Creationism because, hey, some folks might not like it.

And after all, I'm only asking you to be skeptical. I'm only asking that you apply basic skeptical tools to your own assertions of accepted wisdom.

You'll either do that or you won't. And your choice, of course, will not affect my life one way or the other.

Many of those who self-identify as "skeptics" need to learn this; it certainly seems to be endemic among the breed. I'm not the person who originated the idea, by a long shot, but it is certainly why I try to self-identify as "critical thinker" rather than "skeptic" -- I don't want people to accidentally associate me with the negative connotation on a first impression. And more and more these days, I feel I've made the right call. See, I don't have to be accepted by "skeptics" to apply critical thinking in my own life, or to teach others, in my own little roundabout way, to do the same. There's no license I have to carry, no test I have to take. I can just do, and know that what I do works, and know that I'm making my own little bit of difference.

Well, amen.

You actually seem to be more of an activist than I am. Perhaps I'm old and jaded.

Outside of this forum, I don't identify as anything. But after all, this is an openly "skeptical" forum. Skepticism is what this organization is all about.

Call it "critical thinking", that's fine. It's really one and the same.

So next time you decide you're going to get all wound up and insist that you aren't going to "let someone off the hook", you may want to stop and consider this little post. There wasn't any hook in the first place, see -- not anywhere but in your own mind.

Who got "wound up"? Certainly not me.

But no, I have no intention of letting you off the hook. You still haven't examined your assertions, and that needs to be pointed out.

If we can (please) get off this little personal sidetrack and back to the real issue, then maybe we can get down to brass tacks and examine the real issues.

If claims about God actually are exempt from critical examination, that bears directly on the OP. Ditto if they are not.

But of course, there's no a priori reason to believe that they are. And it is not enough merely to assert that they are.

Anyway, if you want to pursue the actual points worth pursuing, I think that would be worthwhile.

[Piggy]

This thread sure went to hell in a handbasket.

The great thing about handbaskets is they're easy to get out of if you want to.

[Thomas]

The great thing about handbaskets is they're easy to get out of if you want to.
Don't use hyperbole now, there are sports idiots present.

[arthwollipot]

I'm still not sure what Thomas is trying to argue here.

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure why Remirol thinks that Piggy's wound up. I've had similar arguments with him before, and if anyone got wound up, it was me; his arguments have always been dispassionate. I may not necessarily agree with him in all cases, but that has no bearing on the emotions behind his conduct. Remirol, though, looks like he could use a breath of fresh air. No offense, Remirol.

[remirol]

I'm still not sure what Thomas is trying to argue here.

This is far from the first time I've seen this particular poster get a bit incoherent, though previously it's been in a different environment.

I'm not sure why Remirol thinks that Piggy's wound up. I've had similar arguments with him before, and if anyone got wound up, it was me; his arguments have always been dispassionate. I may not necessarily agree with him in all cases, but that has no bearing on the emotions behind his conduct. Remirol, though, looks like he could use a breath of fresh air. No offense, Remirol.

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current. :thumbsup:

Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

[Piggy]

Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

Seems to me that your pet peeve is being asked to actually think about what you're saying.

If you ever decide to jump back into the discussion, we'll be here.

[dglas]

Is the JREF a women's organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not a women's organization.

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

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

The explicit statement that the JREF is not an atheist organization is unneeded, singles out for special exclusion, and only draws attention to an artificial distancing of the JREF from atheism. There is no legitimate reason for this statement. One wonders what the reasons for making this special distinction are; what audience is the statement directed at.

[Lonewulf]

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current.

Indeed.

Been a while since I've been active here, and I don't tend to look at dates before I post.

[Prometheus]

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current. :thumbsup:

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one? :confused:


Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

:i:



Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?

[Thomas]

This is far from the first time I've seen this particular poster get a bit incoherent, though previously it's been in a different environment.
You're the one who's a "bit incoherent"; wants a skeptics organization to back off on religion. A child can see how wrong that is.

[remirol]

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one? :confused:

If one is going to speculate about my mental state, it would behoove one to ensure that it hasn't been 3 days since I might have been in the particular state. Hence why it actually mattered in this case; normally it wouldn't.

Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps! :D

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

[remirol]

The explicit statement that the JREF is not an atheist organization is unneeded, singles out for special exclusion, and only draws attention to an artificial distancing of the JREF from atheism. There is no legitimate reason for this statement. One wonders what the reasons for making this special distinction are; what audience is the statement directed at.

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

[RevDisturba]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization? ;)

; }?>

[remirol]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization? ;)


Not sure the "why" matters anymore, after 600+ posts, but many people seem to either think it is or should be.

[Piggy]

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Well, the one person who is sure to never know is remirol.

As for me, my ironymeter just went off the charts with the explanation of the *plonk* bit. So remirol's "educational demonstration" of effective persuasion is to ignore people?

And personally, I don't see how it is a "pedantic sub-issue" to point out that a poster's argument is without merit.

As I've said, it is directly relevant to the OP whether or not theistic claims are/aren't dis/provable.

remirol seems to acknowledge that, since he was discussing the point himself.

I think it's absolutely necessary for skeptics to think about our assertions, examine them fully, and actually discuss counterpoints rather than ignoring them.

But hey, that's just me.

[Lonewulf]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that.

I did nothing different than what you were doing. You accused someone of having emotional investment, I stated that if anyone was having any emotional investment in the issue, it was you. I don't particularly see why the timing of my post was so important, either.

You are free to be annoyed at that if you like. I don't mind.

[Darth Rotor]

Is it more important for critical thinking to be a tool or a tribal tatoo?

I vote for the former.

[Darat]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

[remirol]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

And where.

[dglas]

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

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

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

Mr. Randi,

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

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

[Prometheus]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps! :D

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.


Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil. As to the other part, I neither like nor dislike you, as I don't even know you beyond a small handful of exchanges here. But I agree--let's move on. :)

[remirol]

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.

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

Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".

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

Mr. Randi,

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

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

:oldroll: Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

[remirol]

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil.

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)

But I agree--let's move on. :)

And stuff. :)

[Prometheus]

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)



And stuff. :)

You're right; let's forget about it.

[dglas]

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.



Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".



:oldroll: Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

Semantics are how we understand the world.
Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

[remirol]

Semantics are how we understand the world.

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

[dglas]

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

I can see the concerted effort you are making to consider the matter thoroughly. I am inspired by your example.

You are attacking the arguer, and the use of words, rather than the argument. The point remains unaddressed.

[remirol]

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

You are attacking the arguer,Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

and the use of words, rather than the argument. That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.

[Piggy]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

[Prometheus]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?


On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

Isn't this a tautology?



I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?



And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife :boxedin: ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

[dglas]

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book. It only exhibits a reflexive dismissal and points not at the subject matter, but at the intentions of the writer. I look forward to hearing anything you have to contribute on the subject of the subject matter.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.

[dglas]

Actually, Piggy. I agree with you that skepticism leads to atheism. Religions are affirmation-based philosophies. A non-affirmation-based philosophy must assume something may not be the case until and unless some evidence indicates otherwise. Non-affirmation is not denial in the sense the religious would have us believe. Unfortunately, affirmation-based philosophies try to impose a dichotomous relationship that is not necessarily the case. In a sense we are forced to atheism because of the definitions of the terms imposed upon us by the holders of affirmation-based philosophies. In their minds, anything other than affirmation is denial.

But this is beyond the scope of this discussion. :)

[remirol]

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

Mind-read much? In any case, you're wrong. I say this because I believe you're spending a great deal of time intentionally overfocusing on the words, and none focusing on the actual issue; ie. "should the JREF be explicitly atheist or not?". Worrying about what the JREF has said in the past on the subject, and the precise wording of how they said it, is just silly.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.Your personal issues aside, again, if you think I'm addressing the arguer and not the argument, please use the 'report' button; if not, please don't waste both our time by claiming it. Thanks! :thumbsup:

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book.It closes the book on that particular argument. If you'd care to address the actual subject matter, rather than attempt a very weak reductio ad absurdum based on the JREF's phrasing when responding to a question, then perhaps there's something to say. But until then, yes, that book is not just closed, but the pages are stuck together.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.Just because you didn't like the answer you got doesn't mean you didn't get an answer. I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

[Piggy]

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.



Isn't this a tautology?

Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.


Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?

1. Lurking where?

2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.


For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife :boxedin: ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

[Piggy]

I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

<Thanks Jesus>

[Prometheus]

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.



Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Gotta run; I'll address the latter half later on. :)

[Prometheus]

1. Lurking where?

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.



2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?


Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

I agree. And I don't really see anything wrong with skeptics being quite passionate about the issue either--especially in a forum like this. But that's still a separate issue from the identity of the organization itself.

[Darth Rotor]

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.
True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. ;) )
I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

Yes, often with great eloquence.

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

DR

[Piggy]

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.

Maybe. I chalk that up to other assumptions, tho. It's like me and Athon... we both agree on what the skeptical method is, but we disagree on other issues that make us butt heads sometimes.

From my POV, "We can't know anything for sure" isn't an assumption about skeptical methods.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

All 3 of the options are tautologies. If A then X, if B then Y, if C then Z, perforce.

Seems to me that's where a lot of skeptics clash on the issue. Skeptics who accept A, B, and C are going to necessarily come to different conclusions about whether skepticism leads you to agnosticism, atheism, or neither -- even though they're all following the skeptical method.

[Piggy]

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

[Piggy]

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?

As far as the goal of JREF, I'd agree with you there.

I was referring to a different sense of the question: Is JREF, or any other ostensibly skeptical organization, an "atheist" organization?

If you think skepticism has to lead eventually to the conclusion that there is no God, then you have to conclude that, intellectually, it's bound to be, even if that's not part of the mission.

[Piggy]

True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. ;) )

Well, it's the most important facet of my life. I don't know of any other way to negotiate the world around me.

[Piggy]

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

Thank you. I enjoy your posts as well.

[Prometheus]

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

[Piggy]

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

[six7s]

...people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.I think that the term 'fundamental' is key... sure, as Prometheus said, "people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo"... however, 'superficial' behaviour modification is, ultimately, relatively worthless in comparison with the sort of change that follows a 'joining of all the dots' to see the 'bigger picture'

[RevDisturba]

The bigger picture is God. Core beliefs are God. Superficial beliefs are partial truths like the emerging discoveries of science. Science exists to discover the full truth which is God.

Your welkie.

; }>

[six7s]

The bigger picture is God. On the Disney Channel... maybe

Meanwhile, back in the real world... NO gods have ever been seen or heard

[remirol]

The bigger picture is God. Core beliefs are God. Superficial beliefs are partial truths like the emerging discoveries of science. Science exists to discover the full truth which is God.

:eusa_naughty:

Your statements, they lack the evidence.

[Prometheus]

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

I think that's true; at least it certainly has been so in my own case. I'm just not sure that that fundamental change is required in order for someone to be a good person.

I think that the term 'fundamental' is key... sure, as Prometheus said, "people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo"... however, 'superficial' behaviour modification is, ultimately, relatively worthless in comparison with the sort of change that follows a 'joining of all the dots' to see the 'bigger picture'

I don't think that in this case 'fundamental' and 'superficial' form a hard dichotomy, though. For instance, I know a few people who were raised as hardcore fundamentalist YEC xians, but have eschewed that upbringing in favour of deism or unitarianism, both of which are, in my opinion, considerably less onerous. That they didn't "go all the way," so to speak, in relinquishing religious woo, really takes nothing away from the fact that they can now at least think rationally enough to understand Evolution. They are significantly better people than they were before.

[Piggy]

I think that's true; at least it certainly has been so in my own case. I'm just not sure that that fundamental change is required in order for someone to be a good person.

I wasn't aware we were talking about what it takes to be a good person.

[Prometheus]

I wasn't aware we were talking about what it takes to be a good person.

Sorry, I was using that as a sort of shorthand. 'Good person' = 'behaves desirably'. I'm just trying to get at why I generally don't consider confronting others' religious beliefs to be of primary importance.

[Piggy]

Sorry, I was using that as a sort of shorthand. 'Good person' = 'behaves desirably'. I'm just trying to get at why I generally don't consider confronting others' religious beliefs to be of primary importance.

Well, I don't either. Don't forget, I work with fundies, and I live in the Bible Belt.

But I don't think that's the issue.

I believe we were discussing the issue of whether or not skepticism leads you inevitably to atheism, agnosticism, or neither, and what the implications are for whether skeptical organizations are or are not, by default, atheistic.

[Prometheus]

Well, I don't either. Don't forget, I work with fundies, and I live in the Bible Belt.

But I don't think that's the issue.

I believe we were discussing the issue of whether or not skepticism leads you inevitably to atheism, agnosticism, or neither, and what the implications are for whether skeptical organizations are or are not, by default, atheistic.


And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character. So we're sort of on the same topic. I apologize for not being clearer; I've only recently begun thinking seriously about these issues and I'm still somewhat unsure of my positions.

[Piggy]

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character.

Well, no, I don't think so, either.

I mean, I guess I could imagine one with such a mission. But the JREF is not that organization.

[ohp]

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character. So we're sort of on the same topic. I apologize for not being clearer; I've only recently begun thinking seriously about these issues and I'm still somewhat unsure of my positions.

In other words, you shouldn't expect everyone who belonged to a shovel enthusiasts group to live at the bottom of a hole. :)

[Piggy]

In other words, you shouldn't expect everyone who belonged to a shovel enthusiasts group to live at the bottom of a hole. :)

A better analogy: Is the American Medical Association an organization that is "anti" denying your children medical care and choosing instead to pray for them?

That's not in their mission statement, certainly.

But there's no doubt that if you're at all schooled in medicine, you will object to that practice.

So in that sense, they certainly are "anti" that practice.

Skepticism is incompatible with positive affirmations of faith in ancient myths with no evidence to back them up, and which usually are contradictory to what is scientifically known about the world.

Skepticism can lead you to agnosticism or atheism. It cannot lead you to faith in God.

[ohp]

A better analogy: Is the American Medical Association an organization that is "anti" denying your children medical care and choosing instead to pray for them?

That's not in their mission statement, certainly.

But there's no doubt that if you're at all schooled in medicine, you will object to that practice.

So in that sense, they certainly are "anti" that practice.

Skepticism is incompatible with positive affirmations of faith in ancient myths with no evidence to back them up, and which usually are contradictory to what is scientifically known about the world.

Skepticism can lead you to agnosticism or atheism. It cannot lead you to faith in God.

I think my analogy is easier to remember :)

[six7s]

I don't think that in this case 'fundamental' and 'superficial' form a hard dichotomy, though. For instance, I know a few people who were raised as hardcore fundamentalist YEC xians, but have eschewed that upbringing ...

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character...I get the impression that the word 'fundamental' is being used in two different ways...

In the 2nd case, it seems (to me) to be synonymous with 'foundational' and 'simple' as in uncomplicated and basic, etc

In the 1st case, I sincerely suggest that it is synonymous with 'simple' as in half-baked, dim, wilfully ignorant, etc

[Prometheus]

I get the impression that the word 'fundamental' is being used in two different ways...

In the 2nd case, it seems (to me) to be synonymous with 'foundational' and 'simple' as in uncomplicated and basic, etc

In the 1st case, I sincerely suggest that it is synonymous with 'simple' as in half-baked, dim, wilfully ignorant, etc

Both my uses of the word 'fundamental' were closer to 'foundational'. My use of the word 'fundamentalist' was just nominal.

[remirol]

Both my uses of the word 'fundamental' were closer to 'foundational'. My use of the word 'fundamentalist' was just nominal.

Noumenal?

(now i've done it, i've summoned maatorc)

[Prometheus]

(now i've done it, i've summoned maatorc)

That's okay, I know you can handle him (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=maatorc&word2=remirol). :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just thought I'd bump this in light of the "gay organization" thread to show that a more reasonable approach to the issue can be taken.

[Darat]

How dare you be reasonable about this!!! What are you a reasonist?!

[UnrepentantSinner]

How dare you be reasonable about this!!! What are you a reasonist?!

Only militant areasonists would ask such questions!