The JREF is not an atheist organization [Archive]

Miss Anthrope

15th August 2007, 08:48 PM

Not at all. I cringe every time I hear "I thought you were a skeptic" or something similar. If the JREF or the Skeptics' Society, P&T, or whoever causes someone to become skeptical about everything but religion, there is still more skepticism in the world than there was before.

I would even teach them our secret handshake. :)

Yep, for folks who like to cry foul at the Scotsman Fallacy, some of us who proclaim our skeptitude sure seem guilty of it often enough.

I'd love to see people apply their skepticism toward areas of faith...but frankly I'm happy they are applying critical thinking in the areas they are ready and willing to.

Caius Textor

15th August 2007, 08:53 PM

There is a subtle difference, that to me isn´t a difference at all:

There is the "political" label of "atheist": You take up that flag as something radically important to your organization. Randi says that the JREF does NOT hold that flag, meaning it does not have an atheist agenda and it does not shun religious people for being religious.

There is the PRAGMATICAL position: Randi says that the JREF stands critical and doubtful of religion as an account of reality. That means that the JREF doesn´t support, encourage nor otherwise promotes or discusses religion in itself. He is very clear when he says that religious statements do not have a privileged treatment and they are seen with skepticism.

It could, of course, simply take the "suspension of judgement" position. Simply refuse to debate any sort of statement of a religious nature. Not the case.

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again). Religion is about accepting and believing, the JREF is about proving and doubting. So there you have it.

On a side note: I´m a moral person and I always act rightly, except when I go to a department store. There I like to shoplift because I just love clothes.
You can´t choose to be skeptic regarding certain things and simply NOT skeptic regarding some other arbitrary stuff. Doesn´t make any sense.

timhau

15th August 2007, 09:08 PM

On a side note: I´m a moral person and I always act rightly, except when I go to a department store. There I like to shoplift because I just love clothes.
You can´t choose to be skeptic regarding certain things and simply NOT skeptic regarding some other arbitrary stuff. Doesn´t make any sense.

I don't know. It's like saying that the only way to go is "I'm a skeptic, and therefore I believe that P". I prefer "I believe that P, and therefore I'm a skeptic", i.e. take the label because it fits your thinking (better than others), but don't let the label define your thinking.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 09:12 PM

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again).

This isn't a disagreement, but there's a more accurate way of expressing that - pragamtically emprically agnostic.

Wowbagger

15th August 2007, 09:14 PM

I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum. So was I.

Caius Textor

15th August 2007, 09:15 PM

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 10:35 PM

My whole point here is that any "label" is unimportant. What matters is what you actually do. If you pick topics to be skeptical about you´re just using it at your convenience and not as a thinking tool used to reach rational conclusions.

How do you determine whether someone who is religious has skeptically considered their beliefs or not? Or are you suggesting they have not unless they are atheist... which leads back to the OP.

boloboffin

16th August 2007, 12:26 AM

Skepticism isn't about atheism any more than it is about contrarianism, although I'm sure we have plenty of those around as well.

Corpse Cruncher

16th August 2007, 12:29 AM

Darat

16th August 2007, 12:42 AM

OK lets look at this skeptically. What is the evidence that the JREF is an "atheist organisation"?

UnrepentantSinner

16th August 2007, 12:59 AM

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.

I think you might have it backwards. Atheists tend to be more skeptical and more likely to self-identify as a skeptic or join skeptics organizations.

OK lets look at this skeptically. What is the evidence that the JREF is an "atheist organisation"?

I'm taking to negative position that it is not, so what I'm looking for is people who think, since you can only be a True SkepticTM, that the JREF needs to change its mission statement. We can't have a bunch of crazies and child abusers claiming the appellation skeptic now can we?

MortFurd

16th August 2007, 01:10 AM

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.
Skepticism is a thought process. You apply it to things as you think about them, and you work out your conclusions.

I don't see why a religious person should have to first apply skepticism to his religion. Actually, I can see where religion is the last place a believer would apply skepticism.

As you apply skepticism more and more to the things you do, you will get better at accepting the conclusions that critical thought bring you to.

Dumping a religious belief is going to be difficult for most people. They've built a life around their beliefs to the extent that no part of their lives aren't touched by religion. Dumping that is a major change, and one that most people will have to work up to.

I would expect a religious skeptic would not dump religion until 1) he's practiced critical thinking enough to be sure of his reasoning ability and 2) he's ready to deal with a major upset in his way of life.

Skeptical and religious? Yes, because you can't change everything all at once. Be glad the believer is thinking critically at all.

CFLarsen

16th August 2007, 01:46 AM

Skepticism is a thought process. You apply it to things as you think about them, and you work out your conclusions.

I don't see why a religious person should have to first apply skepticism to his religion. Actually, I can see where religion is the last place a believer would apply skepticism.

Why?

If people apply skepticism to things as they think about them, a religious person should apply skepticism to his religion as the very first thing.

Darat

16th August 2007, 01:57 AM

Why?

If people apply skepticism to things as they think about them, a religious person should apply skepticism to his religion as the very first thing.

Why?

Beady

16th August 2007, 01:58 AM

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again). Religion is about accepting and believing, the JREF is about proving and doubting. So there you have it.

You're wrong. JREF is not any kind of atheist organization, nor is skepticism about proving and doubting. Skepticism is about examining, and examining implies neither doubt nor proof. Neither does skepticism assume no deity, it only asserts that no human interpretation of a deity has yet sufficed to explain the universe as we now know it; there is a vast difference between a deity and an interpretation of a deity.

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 02:43 AM

Heh, if there was a word for 'not believing in the paranormal' or 'not believing in psychic powers', and the JREF said it wasn't that, this thread would be very different.

Irrational beliefs aren't worthy of respect, neither do they command special status (although some folk believe otherwise). With that in mind, I feel comfortable saying I see no difference between an uncritical and unappraised belief in a sky daddy and Sylvia Browne's spirit guide.

prewitt81

16th August 2007, 04:25 AM

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Jeff Corey

16th August 2007, 05:36 AM

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.
Agreed. Our local group came to that conclusion long ago. We had members who ranged from strong atheists to agnostics to religiously observant people.We did investigate claims such as the "weeping icon" in a church in Astoria NY, however, because they were making a testable claim. http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping25.htm

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 05:37 AM

How do you determine whether someone who is religious has skeptically considered their beliefs or not? Or are you suggesting they have not unless they are atheist... which leads back to the OP.

Unless you´re willing to accept Patristic and Scholastic "philosophical" justifications for faith, there is no rational way that will lead you to blind belief, much less one which has no ground in material reality.

You're wrong. JREF is not any kind of atheist organization, nor is skepticism about proving and doubting. Skepticism is about examining, and examining implies neither doubt nor proof.

Skepticism is about examining statements that cannot, or should not, be taken at face value and should be CHECKED to see if they´re reasonable. Hence, obviously, doubting.
The very origin of the term in philosophy is that of a questioning and doubting position regarding knowledge.

Examining a statement about the real world requires that statement to be judged against FACTS and DATA. The Million Dollar Chalenge is ALL ABOUT THIS: you have a claim (statement about the real world) and you have to DEMONSTRATE the veracity of such claim (show that it is the case.) I call that prooving, maybe you have some other name.

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 05:51 AM

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Religions are always making claims about the real world*, that´s its nature. That most of these claims are untestable by (their) construction doesn´t mean we can´t be skeptical about them! Quite the opposite, we MUST have a rational position regarding those claims! It´s the opposite of single-ing(??) it out; anything doing the same has the same treatment. That is my whole point here.

* With this I mean that a religion will always have claims that are not about an oblivious extra-natural world. Examples:

- There are "energy fields" in your body and they cause deseases when they are "unbalanced".
- Your life is guided by the motion of stars in such and such a way.
- There is a demon in your body and it should be expelled.
- This earthquake happened because we didn´t sacrifice our annual quota of oxen and virgin maidens.
- Because I don´t understand how the world works, it follows that an all-powerfull entity exists in the real world and changes it at will at all times.

Wowbagger

16th August 2007, 06:29 AM

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.
Ditto!
I was actually preparing a post that pretty much said this same thing (with different wording), but I think I'll just skip it, and declare "Yeah, what prewitt81 said!!"

Corpse Cruncher

16th August 2007, 06:36 AM

Why?
Why wouldn't it?

Isn't that the main crux of religion, god? Isn't the main crux of skepticism proof? How can the two opposites co-exist.

I honestly cannot see how a skeptic, who is religious is or can be a true skeptic. Especially if they apply critical thinking to all but one major part. To me that is saying faeries don't exist but homoeopathy is great. Bad comparison but it is all I could think of. It is incompatible and illogical.

You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest. It does not and should not work like that.

I can understand religion is in some deeply ingrained; but if they say they are skeptics then they have crossed the line and are ready to remove those religious shackles. How can anybody logically hold onto both ideas that are so very opposed.

I have no problem with people's beliefs, it is their choice. However I, personally cannot accept at this time any claim to be a skeptic from one who is following a god based religion. It is my opinion at this time that they are not indeed a skeptic or are following truly what skepticism promotes.

Like I said I do not understand how the two can be co-joined so my opinion is based on the now I feel. Present me with an understanding of how the two work and co-habit the same space and I may change my opinion. I am not that set in stone.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

brodski

16th August 2007, 06:50 AM

Irrational beliefs aren't worthy of respect, neither do they command special status (although some folk believe otherwise).

You are wrong, religious beliefs do command special status in every society Iknow of. The question is, should they?

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 06:55 AM

You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest. It does not and should not work like that.

My point exactly.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

This sounds really weird. You probably understand "morality" in a different than normal way, is that right? Or your trying to set it apart from "ethics" or something?
You certainly don´t think an atheist can´t follow agreed-upon rules of good conduct, or do you?

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 06:57 AM

You are wrong, religious beliefs do command special status in every society Iknow of. The question is, should they?

Ha ha, you know that's what I meant in the first place :p

Command was totally the wrong word to use. Hey, whaddya expect? I don't have time to think about what I type AND be awesome at the same time.

brodski

16th August 2007, 07:06 AM

Ha ha, you know that's what I meant in the first place :p

Command was totally the wrong word to use. Hey, whaddya expect? I don't have time to think about what I type AND be awesome at the same time.

I know what you meant, but i was only half joking. The fact is that the societies in which we all live do separate religion from otehr beliefs, which means hat any organization/ movement/ whatever which aims to change the way in which society thinks about things needs to recognize that fact.
Especially as religious beliefs tend to make a different kind of claim from other beliefs which would attract sceptical attention, religious claims tend to be unfalsifiable. where religious claims are testable nobody here objects to them being treated with scepticism.

tsg

16th August 2007, 07:15 AM

The JREF promotes skepticism. For some people, that results in atheism.

The JREF is not promoting atheism, it is therefore not an "atheist organization".

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 07:16 AM

I know what you meant, but i was only half joking. The fact is that the societies in which we all live do separate religion from otehr beliefs, which means hat any organization/ movement/ whatever which aims to change the way in which society thinks about things needs to recognize that fact.

Yes, it's only because of the organisations around the belief that they have any sort of special status at all. So organisations could also reverse that thought. But religion has special status at JREF too. So...

If I came in here and announced my belief in a double-headed hydra which tells me I'm the son of Hercules, I'd be laughed at and mocked, and possibly sectioned. But if I get a million other people believing it, it moves into another category.

But the core belief is still ridiculous.

Especially as religious beliefs tend to make a different kind of claim from other beliefs which would attract sceptical attention, religious claims tend to be unfalsifiable. where religious claims are testable nobody here objects to them being treated with scepticism.

Only in the 'god exists' sense. That's not a testable claim. But when I was a Christian, everything that happened was attributed to divine intervention, including healings, windfalls, bad luck, relationships etc. In which case, there's no difference between saying 'your cancer went away because of the power of Jesus through the laying on of hands' and 'your cancer went away because of this magic bean'.

Beady

16th August 2007, 07:40 AM

You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest.

A computer can't, a human can; computers are logical, humans are emotional. If forced to bet on a human making a logical or an emotional choice, my money is on the emotional.

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

Any given human being is perfectly capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at once, and of acting on that belief. Look at yourself, right now, insisting that emotional beings act exclusively according to logic. What sense does that make?

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 07:59 AM

Beady, you do understand how I can use your reasoning to justify pretty much anything I do or say, right?

Being coherent and reasonable is something we should always aim at and aspire to achieve. Not something we should run away from, or loathe at the excuse that "it´s not human."

tsg

16th August 2007, 08:09 AM

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that.

Jeff Corey

16th August 2007, 08:25 AM

...It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.
Your opinion only. And your second quoted sentence makes no sense. If they are not bedmates, what is the relationship?

ETA: Just saw Caius T's post 34, and agree.

Mercutio

16th August 2007, 08:51 AM

The result of the process of skeptical inquiry is going to be dependent on the quality of the evidence. If one is raised in a religious community, where the available information (trusted authorities, institutions, literature, even personal experience) can be most easily interpreted in accordance with a theistic view, then a good skeptic will be a theist. Some here seem to be assuming that everyone will magically have access to the exact same information, and it doesn't work that way in the real world.

I think Jeff Corey will be able to back me up on this--an analogous situation can be seen with respect to "mind". In various arguments in the Science, Religion, and Politics areas on this forum, it is quite clear that quite a few of you "skeptics"--perhaps even a majority--believe that you have a [causal] mind, and can exercise free will in making choices. Some will defend this view vigorously--Pesta even makes a career of studying it. Of course, "mind" is a prescientific remnant of a cartesian worldview, every bit as fictional as any god, and invoked to explain many of the same actions (where we once might have said "god softened his heart", we now say "he changed his mind").

Can a skeptic believe in mind?

(Somewhere in an old SWIFT--if memory serves, which it rarely does--there was an article claiming that Radical Behaviorism was the only proper stance for a good skeptic. It has been too long since I saw that paper for me to comment on whether it presented a good argument, though.)

Kahalachan

16th August 2007, 08:52 AM

This doesn't scream atheist foundation to me at all. It is more science than atheist.

I think might be possible to be a weak theist (deist or pantheist most likely) and a skeptic. I suppose a desire to believe in a metaphysical intelligence isn't a direct violation of skepticism. If it's more of a personal belief and there's no argument made then it probably doesn't count as an extraordinary claim.

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 09:06 AM

The result of the process of skeptical inquiry is going to be dependent on the quality of the evidence. If one is raised in a religious community, where the available information (trusted authorities, institutions, literature, even personal experience) can be most easily interpreted in accordance with a theistic view, then a good skeptic will be a theist. Some here seem to be assuming that everyone will magically have access to the exact same information, and it doesn't work that way in the real world.

That is a fair point. All principles are not equal. However, if someone comes to this forum then they've opened up their information avenues.

Talking of principles, I would say that it's sensible that JREF distances itself from atheism because to be an openly atheistic organisation in the USA today is commercial suicide. Plus, there are some excellent and hardworking supporters of JREF who are deists, so if we're defining JREF as 'the sum of its staff and volunteers' then it's certainly not an atheist organisation. So I think the disclaimer is fair.

I still don't find a distinction between one belief-with-no-proof and another, but that's my personal stance.

ImaginalDisc

16th August 2007, 09:55 AM

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

Bollux. As in, you're paying too much attention to the bollux. You can't use a lance or lasso an animal as well riding sidesaddle, or do any work at all. If there's too much. . .ouch, in your groin, stand taller in the stirrups.

See, humans have the capacity for rational thought, in identifying a problem, and finding a sollution. Your gobbly-gook about humans being inherently irrational is an excuse to hide from reason, and a bad one at that. Just because humans are prone to irrational behavior that doesn't mean we should abandon reason entirely. Skepticism is the practise of applying an evidence-based method of inquiry to claims. Whatever the failings of foibles of each individual skeptic, the method is sound and clear.

Humans have miserable vision, but we can see the stars billions of lightyears away. We have a terrible sense of smell, but we can identify hundreds of thousands of chemicals and compounds. We do these things by using sound methodologies to reach beyond our limitations, methodologies including skepticism and the scientific method. Your position, if taken to its conclusion, would replace progress with stagnation.

Mercutio

16th August 2007, 10:01 AM

That is a fair point. All principles are not equal. However, if someone comes to this forum then they've opened up their information avenues.
At which point, we may ask how long is a reasonable time to overcome a lifetime of prior learning? It happens, certainly, but a couple of weeks arguing in an internet thread is not a lot of exposure. If we recognise this, and have a bit more patience, it might be a bit less rancorous.

CFLarsen

16th August 2007, 10:15 AM

Why?

Because, if you are religious, religion forms your most basic understanding of how the world works. It permeates every aspect of your life.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

What am I, then? Amoral?

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 10:16 AM

At which point, we may ask how long is a reasonable time to overcome a lifetime of prior learning? It happens, certainly, but a couple of weeks arguing in an internet thread is not a lot of exposure. If we recognise this, and have a bit more patience, it might be a bit less rancorous.

Ah, so are you saying that a reasonable person, if exposed to greater opportunities for learning, should in time reject religion? ;) :D

thull

16th August 2007, 10:30 AM

Check out the top banner, underneath JREF. Whatever someone's belief or limited experience, if people approach subjects within the forum with an open mind and a friendly attitude I don't see the problem.

Read on these forum the other day:
"skepticism was my first step along the path to atheism"

True, not all people draw the same conclusions from the information and experiences they encounter. However it does point out that JREF risks loosing a portion of their audience at a critical stage in their beginning to question the world around them. So to broadcast a possible end result instead of focusing on the distribution of concrete knowledge and the pursuit of truth... seems a little short sighted to me.

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 10:41 AM

If there's too much. . .ouch, in your groin, stand taller in the stirrups.

One can ride pretty comfortably even without stirrups. Just sit properly (put things in their proper places) and you can have a deep seat and low stirrups.
Use extra clothes if you´re uncomfortable.

ImaginalDisc

16th August 2007, 10:46 AM

One can ride pretty comfortably even without stirrups. Just sit properly (put things in their proper places) and you can have a deep seat and low stirrups.
Use extra clothes if you´re uncomfortable.

You ride without stirrups? Are you reenacting Alexander the Great's battles or something?

:-p

prewitt81

16th August 2007, 10:58 AM

Just a general reminder: It is now a rule in the public threads to keep posts on topic. Please keep this in mind.

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 10:59 AM

I CAN, doesn´t mean I do all the time. :)

Beady

16th August 2007, 11:04 AM

Beady, you do understand how I can use your reasoning to justify pretty much anything I do or say, right?

Absolutely correct. Just because it's an inconvient attribute, however, does not justify denying its existence, and the person who does so is in both denial and a certain amount of jeopardy.

BTW, I am not sanctioning human illogic, I am merely recognizing its existence and its extent and taking both into account. "Humanity" means a lot of things, many of them unpleasant, and in asserting what people will or won't, should or shouldn't do, you're doing yourself a disservice by insistantly behaving as if this side of the species either doesn't exist or is not in control.

Maybe people should examine their religion logically, but they don't. Maybe people shouldn't believe mutually contradictory things at the same time, but they do. Maybe people shouldn't act in their own worst interests, but they do. Maybe people shouldn't deny reality, but they do. All the time. What are you going to do, play God and change the species? It might be more realistic to recognize your fellow creatures for what they are.

I CAN, doesn´t mean I do all the time.

Precisely. Just because you can think logically doesn't mean you do. In fact, it doesn't take much to make you think illogically: hunger, fatigue, desire...

pgwenthold

16th August 2007, 11:18 AM

I don't like the "athiest organization" because it implies it is an organization of atheists, which JREF is obviously not.

OTOH, I would say that it is an atheistic organization, in that it is an organization without god. You (and even I) may prefer the term "secular organization," but I think atheistic is also appropriate. Contrast that to, for example, the Knights of Columbus, which is a religious (or theistic) organization. Similarly, given how things are now, I would say even the Boy Scouts would be a theistic organization.

Atheistic and theistic are more descriptive than the nominal labels.

Darat

16th August 2007, 11:20 AM

Yes, it's only because of the organisations around the belief that they have any sort of special status at all. So organisations could also reverse that thought. But religion has special status at JREF too. So...

...snip...

Where does religion have special status at the JREF?

Jeff Corey

16th August 2007, 11:49 AM

...I think Jeff Corey will be able to back me up on this--an analogous situation can be seen with respect to "mind". In various arguments in the Science, Religion, and Politics areas on this forum, it is quite clear that quite a few of you "skeptics"--perhaps even a majority--believe that you have a [causal] mind, and can exercise free will in making choices. Some will defend this view vigorously--Pesta even makes a career of studying it. Of course, "mind" is a prescientific remnant of a cartesian worldview, every bit as fictional as any god, and invoked to explain many of the same actions (where we once might have said "god softened his heart", we now say "he changed his mind").

Can a skeptic believe in mind?

(Somewhere in an old SWIFT--if memory serves, which it rarely does--there was an article claiming that Radical Behaviorism was the only proper stance for a good skeptic. It has been too long since I saw that paper for me to comment on whether it presented a good argument, though.)
I recall that article, too, but can't find it.
I agree that not believing in some "mind" thing that is responsible for our behavior seems most consistent with a skeptical point of view, as does atheism, materialism and determinism.
As to radical behaviorism, I came to it out of a Hullian, methodological behaviorist, intervening variable background. My skepticism about the various psychodynamic schools was strong from the start of my training.

Mercutio

16th August 2007, 12:03 PM

Ah, so are you saying that a reasonable person, if exposed to greater opportunities for learning, should in time reject religion? ;) :D *sigh*

No. Not even close. For several reasons.

It is obvious that "greater opportunities for learning" can lead in any number of directions.

"Reasonable person" is a distasteful phrase; a behaviorist mantra is "the rat is always right." It is not up to the person to be "reasonable"; it is up to the environment to reinforce the behavior. (Besides which, it gives the NTS dismissal a foothold--this person is not rejecting because he is not reasonable.)

"In time" is much too vague to be of any use; do you mean days? Weeks? Generations?

I really am at a loss to see how you got what you did out of my post.

What I was saying--what I did say--is that if we understand that a person comes to a thread with a lifetime of learning, it might put the pace of change in perspective. Any change. I learned a great deal in my arguments with Interesting Ian, for instance, and we both changed as a result of our interaction; it was not a case of only one of us coming to understand something that the other person brought to the table. There are none of us here who have learned everything there is to learn.

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 12:18 PM

Absolutely correct. Just because it's an inconvient attribute, however, does not justify denying its existence, and the person who does so is in both denial and a certain amount of jeopardy.

You don´t understand: your ARGUMENT is flawed. I´m not denying its existence, I´m stating its falsehood. You´re mixing things up: I never said that irrationality does not exist. I am saying that we shouldn´t use it deliberatly. See the difference?

Sorry for the off-topics, BTW.

Beady

16th August 2007, 12:49 PM

Well, all I'm saying is that, given the chance, people will react irrationally rather than rationally, and that the rational person is better off making that part of his calculations. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that "rational" people cannot believe two opposing things at once; yes they can, and we all do it far more often than we care to admit.

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 01:25 PM

*sigh*

No. Not even close. For several reasons.

It is obvious that "greater opportunities for learning" can lead in any number of directions.

"Reasonable person" is a distasteful phrase; a behaviorist mantra is "the rat is always right." It is not up to the person to be "reasonable"; it is up to the environment to reinforce the behavior. (Besides which, it gives the NTS dismissal a foothold--this person is not rejecting because he is not reasonable.)

"In time" is much too vague to be of any use; do you mean days? Weeks? Generations?

I really am at a loss to see how you got what you did out of my post.

What I was saying--what I did say--is that if we understand that a person comes to a thread with a lifetime of learning, it might put the pace of change in perspective. Any change. I learned a great deal in my arguments with Interesting Ian, for instance, and we both changed as a result of our interaction; it was not a case of only one of us coming to understand something that the other person brought to the table. There are none of us here who have learned everything there is to learn.

Jesus Christ! You see the wink and the big grin smiley? That means 'I am deliberately misinterpreting your words for a comedy wind-up'. I am really at a loss to see how you didn't see that in my post.

Ah, forget it. Next time I'll write 'I AM JOKING' under the winking, grinning smileys.

brodski

16th August 2007, 01:35 PM

Jesus Christ! .

Good Gravy- A Christian!
No True Skeptic.

NO TRUE SKEPTIC!!
SHUN!
PERSECUTE!
CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY!

:p

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 01:44 PM

Good Gravy- A Christian!
No True Skeptic.

NO TRUE SKEPTIC!!
SHUN!
PERSECUTE!
CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY!

:p

Thanks goodness you put that smiley, I was about to take you seriously...

brodski

16th August 2007, 01:45 PM

Thanks goodness you put that smiley, I was about to take you seriously...

I can't remember the last time that happened.

Mercutio

16th August 2007, 02:00 PM

Jesus Christ! You see the wink and the big grin smiley? That means 'I am deliberately misinterpreting your words for a comedy wind-up'. I am really at a loss to see how you didn't see that in my post.

Ah, forget it. Next time I'll write 'I AM JOKING' under the winking, grinning smileys.Some people are just better at telling jokes. As Phil says, if you have to explain them, they don't go in the act.

I thought my point was important enough that I would rather not take the chance of appearing to agree with your post. I am happy to see that I was mistaken about your comprehension.

T'ai Chi

16th August 2007, 02:53 PM

tkingdoll

16th August 2007, 03:00 PM

Some people are just better at telling jokes. As Phil says, if you have to explain them, they don't go in the act.

I thought my point was important enough that I would rather not take the chance of appearing to agree with your post. I am happy to see that I was mistaken about your comprehension.

Yeah, I'm famously unfunny. Here's another smiley for ya: :rolleyes:

Mercutio

16th August 2007, 03:53 PM

"While I, as JREF president, and those presently working in our office, are declared atheists,..."

Sums it up.

It is not an organization that actively promotes atheism, but the staff is apparently all atheists.

But not the board. At least one prominent member of the board is not an atheist, and has been invited to speak, and to write the weekly commentary. In your last sentence, the first clause "sums it up" better than the last.

athon

16th August 2007, 04:38 PM

Others have said it better than I could, but I'll back them up on this.

My view is that skeptical organisations, like the JREF, ideally don't have a predecided position on something. That is the point of skepticism - to leave room for further evidence that could change the accepted conclusion. To say 'we are atheist' makes no sense.

Look at it this way - should the organisation actively communicate atheism? Or should it actively communicate the tools one needs to arrive at that conclusion? Because they are different - the former is a position or a content, the latter is a process or a set of skills. For a skeptical organisation to adopt a position on something which it communicates authoritatively, it would negate the very point of what it does - promote skeptical thinking.

The JREF, ideally, shouldn't lose anything if God were to appear convincingly tomorrow, if homeopathy were to be found to be an actual phenomenon, or if the dead were to return in waves of zombie attacks.

Athon

Piscivore

16th August 2007, 06:37 PM

...or if the dead were to return in waves of zombie attacks.

Eris willing.

ShowerComic

16th August 2007, 07:03 PM

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Yes yes & Yes. Just as Randi has gone after Peter Popoff & other Faith Healers who make such testable claims. -- The JREF is about being skeptical about Faith Healers, and Breatharians and Christian Science claims.

Example -- when one followes up on those who attend a Faith Healing Service one finds the condition returns, thus the person was not healed.

Example: (from the news recently) I saw a story on an Evangelical Christian exorcist, and one of the people possessed kept getting re-possessed. makes you think he's not very effective huh.

Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

If being a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim) means to you follow the golden rule, be nice to people, or God want you to do 'x', we can't really 'prove' God wants you to do 'y' instead.

Generally atheists don't say 'God does not exist.' They say instead there is no evidence for God, thus they don't hold a belief in God.

Some have said (and I think at TAM 5) one disagreed with Dawkins in that Dawkins felt a God would leave evidence of his existence, some speaker said one couldn't prove that God would design a universe such that Faith isn't needed to find evidence for God. (ie. while the Universe is as it would be if it weren't designed, that doesn't mean it wasn't designed this way)

UnrepentantSinner

16th August 2007, 08:41 PM

Caius Textor

16th August 2007, 08:57 PM

If a religious person wants to claim the mantle of skeptic, can they only do so if their critical inquiry has resulted in them becomming an atheist?

I can´t rationally commit myself to a "yes" answer. I would say "depends on the particular reasoning she used." HOWEVER, she can´t claim that mantle if she doesn´t use it to address her belief. My personal intuition tells me that there aren´t that many rational conclusions one would reach by doing so.

athon

16th August 2007, 09:20 PM

I've scanned (sorry, time/bandwidth) the messages posted since I went to bed this morning, but I don't see any definative answer to a question I asked earlier...

If a religious person wants to claim the mantle of skeptic, can they only do so if their critical inquiry has resulted in them becomming an atheist?

I'll have to find the thread I already posted an answer to this in, but the essence of what I said there was that 'skeptic' is an ideal which has no real meaning. Even those who are skeptics will compartmentalise occasionally, deferring critical thinking for social thinking every now and then.

Even still, conclusions are often based on personal threshold of evidence. Evidence thresholds are arbitrary as it is (what convinces me might not convince you), hence somebody might be critical and apply skeptical thinking and yet come to a conclusion that a God could well exist.

The answer is not black and white. At the core of it, 'skeptic' is an archetype, not a real thing, and is most relevant only when used in a given context such as a particular belief.

Athon

Corpse Cruncher

17th August 2007, 01:52 AM

This sounds really weird. You probably understand "morality" in a different than normal way, is that right? Or your trying to set it apart from "ethics" or something?
You certainly don´t think an atheist can´t follow agreed-upon rules of good conduct, or do you?
You are correct I did not mean atheists cannot follow or uphold good conduct. For some atheists may appear as a crime loving spree riding folk, not for me. Neither do I class those following religion as law abiding citizens. Both have elements of crime and law abiding.

I would not class those 'society conduct' aspects as morality. For me those are everyday society components, respect, gratitude compassion. None of which I would assign to being a sole religious concept.

Morality perhaps, quite true, I do not entirely comprehend morality. Therefore am quite wrong in my opinion of basing it as entirely a religious outpost. Morality has always appeared to be in the domain of religion. That is my basis of forming my opinions of. Until I learn otherwise I cannot be expected to form a universally accepted standpoint. My opinions stand until I reach a point of change, then they adapt or alter as required. I would never stand up and say i am right as equally I would not stand up and state my view is wrong. It feels right for me at that moment in time.

The point of being a skeptic, to me that is, is that you set your opinion based on what you know at that time. When change occurs you re-evaluate and alter accordingly. Nothing is set in stone and neither should any skeptic be solid as a rock. Fluidity is the key element to being a sound skeptic.

Corpse Cruncher

17th August 2007, 02:10 AM

A computer can't, a human can; computers are logical, humans are emotional. If forced to bet on a human making a logical or an emotional choice, my money is on the emotional.

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

Any given human being is perfectly capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at once, and of acting on that belief. Look at yourself, right now, insisting that emotional beings act exclusively according to logic. What sense does that make?

I'll admit here I am not understanding very well your drift or the general flow of this religion+/- skepticism issue.

What I did pick up on was this and perhaps is my trip-up. I understand and can agree humans can think of many things simultaneously, irregardless of whether the flow is compatible or in a state of flux. Logic and illogic probably do occupy the same space at the kitchen table at times. But one surely must have the larger space over the other?

What I am trying to get through, in my own mind, mainly is when you have one set of rules governing something you follow can it really co-exist as a claim to be. If on the other side of the coin you follow an entirely different set of rules. I cannot see how it can work or be acceptable. It makes me think that those who are religious and claim to be skeptics are making a mockery of skepticism. Like some in-house joke.

The example that spring to my mind in this posed question is somebody shouting, 'I love god but I am a devil worshipper.' It does not or cannot add up. If I said I am a skeptic and apply critical thinking but I also provide psychic readings. I would be and I would expect to be ostracised for claiming to be. Why the acceptance for those who follow religion?

Corpse Cruncher

17th August 2007, 02:21 AM

What am I, then? Amoral?

I do not know and can I really be expected to answer that, having no basis of knowing you to form any reasonable answer upon? Do I have the right to say you are or not, on the basis I have? My answer is I do not have that right, naturally I decline from answering based on that concept.

I confess I do not know 'amoral'. If I take the assumption it is the opposite of moral? If I base it on moral = religon then yes atheism = amoral. That is all I can do at this time.

Corpse Cruncher

17th August 2007, 02:41 AM

US, is it feasibly possible that there is no answer to your question? If 99.9% of this place are atheists and 0.01% are religious. I do not see how the Jref could not state it is atheist based. It could state the majority or minority are one or the other.

Is, perhaps, being an atheist an optional additional facet of being a skeptic. Rather than being a compulsory must-have feature?

-----

As for the comment previous by another, to admit to being a sole atheist based site is social suicide. I find that hard to comprehend. Should it not matter that some country might be peeved with you for being godless? Shouldn't the Jref rise above such ....sorry I can't think of a word other than 'blackmailing' to fit here.... and promote its views. I find that fear of being ostracised by a group for saying I am this particularly odd. It makes me wonder if Jref is as firm and active promoter of skepticism as it claims to be? If it is not then isn't this a mockery?

I now find I have doubts about the Jref commitment based on that. Again. I'll admit not to be up on the smartest chip in the block regarding this. Thus my doubts base my current held view and concerns.

CFLarsen

17th August 2007, 04:43 AM

I do not know and can I really be expected to answer that, having no basis of knowing you to form any reasonable answer upon? Do I have the right to say you are or not, on the basis I have? My answer is I do not have that right, naturally I decline from answering based on that concept.

I confess I do not know 'amoral'. If I take the assumption it is the opposite of moral? If I base it on moral = religon then yes atheism = amoral. That is all I can do at this time.

Immoral ("conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles") is the opposite of moral. Amoral is being neither moral or immoral.

Perhaps you mean that I am immoral?

Jeff Corey

17th August 2007, 11:46 AM

... Again. I'll admit not to be up on the smartest chip in the block regarding this. Thus my doubts base my current held view and concerns.
You still haven't answered the questions about equating religion with morality.
Let's try again.
Do you think that religion is a necessary and sufficient cause of morality?

crackers

17th August 2007, 03:10 PM

...
I now find I have doubts about the Jref commitment based on that. Again. I'll admit not to be up on the smartest chip in the block regarding this. Thus my doubts base my current held view and concerns.

Are you saying that you have doubts based on what people have posted in this thread? I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread actually has a position of authority (or any kind of position) in the JREF organization.

andyandy

17th August 2007, 04:18 PM

Skepticism isn't about atheism any more than it is about contrarianism, although I'm sure we have plenty of those around as well.

no we don't :p

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 05:44 AM

Are you saying that you have doubts based on what people have posted in this thread? I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread actually has a position of authority (or any kind of position) in the JREF organization.

Yes I am basing my doubts on the remarks made, that is my response to it. What was said has raised my concern.

Shouldn't skepticism being promoted, irregardless if it rattles a few pots and pans in segments of society that is following it's own paths? Not remaining semi-hiding behind the apron strings for fear of upsetting a few apple carts?

Why does the religious society incites such fear? What if the physics imposed the same level of fear or blackmail, as I view it, would the Jref be so lighted footed? What does that say about the face Jref shows to places other than its home where it may stomp instead of tip-toe about?

That is the question that worries me.

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 05:47 AM

Immoral ("conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles") is the opposite of moral. Amoral is being neither moral or immoral.

Perhaps you mean that I am immoral?
My sames answer remains as was. I cannot answer it, how I am supposed to? For I do not know you, therefore cannot provide an answer. For the answer will be one based on guesswork. Which has an equal probabilty of being both offencive and wrong as it does of being flattering and correct.

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 05:56 AM

You still haven't answered the questions about equating religion with morality.
Let's try again.
Do you think that religion is a necessary and sufficient cause of morality?

I don't think religion is necessary. As for it and morality being bed-mates. I guess I do based on what I believe is correct basing it on the assumptions I have made from information I have been given along the way.

Morality and religion are like strawberries and cream, hands and gloves co-linked. As said before I don't attribute society attributes as moral or morality. They are behaviours.

Jeff Corey

18th August 2007, 06:41 AM

I don't think religion is necessary. As for it and morality being bed-mates. I guess I do based on what I believe is correct basing it on the assumptions I have made from information I have been given along the way.

Morality and religion are like strawberries and cream, hands and gloves co-linked. As said before I don't attribute society attributes as moral or morality. They are behaviours.
You still didn't answer my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.
Is morality possible without religion?

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 06:51 AM

You still didn't answer my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.
Is morality possible without religion?
I answered it as best that I could. It wasn't the answer you wanted, I am sorry. I am not claiming it to be correct or making it a hard and fast statement of fact.

If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.

CFLarsen

18th August 2007, 07:02 AM

I answered it as best that I could. It wasn't the answer you wanted, I am sorry. I am not claiming it to be correct or making it a hard and fast statement of fact.

If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.

Why am I not in jail, then?

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality?

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society.

Jeff Corey

18th August 2007, 07:15 AM

...If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.
Explain this, then http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 07:32 AM

Why am I not in jail, then?

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality?

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society.

Back off there, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As for why are you not in jail CFLarsen, how am I supposed to know that. Perhaps you are eluding the police by dressing as woman for all I know. For all I know they are camped outside your residence and are storming your front door as I type. I am a skeptic not a psychic you know.

When did I say atheists were a danger to society? Never or would I. Go pick that argument with somebody who states so. Likewise did I say you were anything. If I recall I refused to answer as I could not answer it. I repeat NO I have not. So go pick a fight with somebody who did. This is how you react. Glad I didn't answer it, you may have spat something other than a dummy out of your pram.

I won't bite or play that game with you. I am far to old to embark in playground games of this kind.

I say this politely never add words to my post or even claim to know what I think again. You do not and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that again.

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 07:43 AM

Explain this, then http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Sorry not understanding your point here. I see alot of figures about jailtime. That means zilch to me.

CFLarsen

18th August 2007, 08:05 AM

Back off there, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As for why are you not in jail CFLarsen, how am I supposed to know that. Perhaps you are eluding the police by dressing as woman for all I know. for all I know they are camped outside your residence and are storming your front door as I type. I am a skeptic not a physchic you know.

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

When did I say atheists were a danger to society? Never or would I. Go pick that argument with somebody who states so. Likewise did I say you were anything. If I recall I refused to answer as I could not answer it. I repeat NO I have not. So go pick a fight with somebody who did. This is how you react. Glad I didn't answer it, you may have spat something other than a dummy out of your pram.

I won't bite or play that game with you. I am far to old to embark in playground games of this kind.

I say this politely never add words to my post or even claim to know what I think again. You do not and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that again.

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

Corpse Cruncher

18th August 2007, 08:18 AM

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.
I am not explaining anything to you dear when you talk to me in that tone of voice. Change your mannerism and I may chose to re-engage with you.

No dear, I am not running away I am acting civilly and as an adult. So please don't get it into your head you've won some weird battle that is only going on inside your skull.

You are wrong and I bid you good day to you sir.

prewitt81

18th August 2007, 08:28 AM

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

I don't think CC is saying this at all. In fact she/he (sorry I don't know everyone's genders yet :o ) has said the exact opposite. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2877273#post2877273

I think this has been a misunderstanding. I think here that if CFLarsen and Corpse Cruncher both stated what they mean when they say "morality", two completely different answers would be given.

Now, as moderator: I have no plans to split this thread, but the last few posts have gotten away from the topic. I see it as acceptable thread drift at this point, but let's keep it that way.

CFLarsen

18th August 2007, 08:29 AM

I am not explaining anything to you dear when you talk to me in that tone of voice. Change your mannerism and I may chose to re-engage with you.

No dear, I am not running away I am acting civilly and as an adult. So please don't get it into your head you've won some weird battle that is only going on inside your skull.

You are wrong and I bid you good day to you sir.

Spoken like a blind believer on wild retreat.

brodski

18th August 2007, 08:38 AM

Why am I not in jail, then? because you haven't been convicted of a crime which carried a custodial sentence.

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality? because they may think you have ethics

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society. Either because one believes that killing is wrong, or because one believes that ethics are an acceptable substitute for, or even better than, morals.

Lisa Simpson

18th August 2007, 08:38 AM

As prewitt81 has already stated, please keep this thread on topic and do not use personal attacks. Argue the post, not the poster. Thank you.

CFLarsen

18th August 2007, 09:06 AM

because you haven't been convicted of a crime which carried a custodial sentence.

I haven't even committed such a crime. Nor have I ever gotten a fine. If I am so lacking in the morality department, why not?

because they may think you have ethics

I know that I shouldn't kill you for stealing my tractor.

Either because one believes that killing is wrong, or because one believes that ethics are an acceptable substitute for, or even better than, morals.

I think you have misunderstood something.

Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) isn't a substitute for morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality).

As prewitt81 has already stated, please keep this thread on topic and do not use personal attacks. Argue the post, not the poster. Thank you.

A split is fine with me.

UnrepentantSinner

18th August 2007, 05:33 PM

Whether atheists are moral or not has nothing to do with whether a religious person can be a skeptic and if not, whether JREF should change its mission statement to reflect that only atheists can be skeptics.

Please don't take the troll bait folks.

Caius Textor

18th August 2007, 06:06 PM

The JREF does certain things and that defines it in a certain way. That is a matter of fact. In my view that is of a pragmatically "atheist" organization. It´s not the view of others here.

The JREF does not wish to shun religious people, at least not officially. That´s Randi´s choice but I´m not particularly bothered by that. Matter of fact.

It is also a matter of fact that religious people are "selectively skeptical" if ever so. I have a big problem with that but lots of you here do not. Fair enough.

RemieV

18th August 2007, 08:48 PM

athon

18th August 2007, 11:22 PM

I intern for the JREF. I am not an atheist.

I do not see the point in making the JREF an atheist organization. To me, that seems awfully exclusionary.

Have we forgotten what the JREF acronym means? It's the James Randi Educational Foundation, not the James Randi Believe What I Do Or Else Foundation.

Exactly. This is what I was saying before - the JREF should have no official, conclusive stance on anything. Skepticism is a process distinct from a conclusion. It can be argued that applying it to a given system should result in an established result (as rendering any pseudoscience as 'unacceptable'), but the result is still distinct from the process, and we should be careful about selling the conclusion before the method.

Athon

Darat

19th August 2007, 02:26 AM

As Admin: Off topic discussion split to this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90772

Darat

19th August 2007, 02:33 AM

It's from two years ago but nothing has happened that has made me change my mind:

From "Should the JREF formally be an atheist skeptical organization?"

Why even consider adding another label?

The JREF is an organisation that promotes critical thinking and the tools of critical thinking; it also applies those ideas to the weird and whacky claims made by people that appear to be in contradiction with how we think the world works. (I.e. the Challenge).

Looking at the history of the JREF and Randi it can be seen that the JREF and Randi have been more then willing to tackle claims from the religious, whether that be the Virgin Mary appearing in a window, weeping statues or faith healers and it has never shied away from being very clear about the conclusions it believes can be drawn from those investigations.

I see no more reason for the JREF to declare itself an "atheist organisation" then for it to declare itself a "non-invisible-pink-unicorn-the-garage organisation" Since adding that label would not help people to understand what the JREF stands for and what it does I see no benefit to the JREF in adding the label "atheist".

It should encourage people to judge it on what it does, not on what labels are attached to it.

(Edited for words.)

T'ai Chi

19th August 2007, 05:20 AM

Have we forgotten what the JREF acronym means? It's the James Randi Educational Foundation,..

Well it seems Randi has forgotten what it means.

I mean, I don't consider it education to constantly poke fun at groups of people in weekly commentaries. For example, "But the woo-woo crowd has much to offer such a hare-brained idea, as usual".

CFLarsen

19th August 2007, 06:43 AM

Well it seems Randi has forgotten what it means.

I mean, I don't consider it education to constantly poke fun at groups of people in weekly commentaries. For example, "But the woo-woo crowd has much to offer such a hare-brained idea, as usual".

Do you consider it education to allow credulous people to offer nonsense to credulous people?

Chaos

19th August 2007, 11:44 AM

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

To play the Devil´s Advocate here... While I don´t agree with Corpse Cruncher at all, I see a rather compelling reason why saying atheists cannot be moral does not equate with saying atheists are a danger to society.

That is, in our society most kinds of immoral behavior (such as theft, rape and murder) are punished through the law, and they and most or all others (such as dishonesty and cruelty) carry a negative social stigma. Avoiding said punishment and/or stigma can be reason enough to not engage in immoral behavior. How compelling that reason is depends on the severity of the punishment and/or stigma, and the chance of being caught.

GimmePepsi

19th August 2007, 11:46 AM

I see no more reason for the JREF to declare itself an "atheist organisation" then for it to declare itself a "non-invisible-pink-unicorn-the-garage organisation"

In Skeptical Inquirer, Massimo Pigliucci said "Being an a-theist is as reasonable as being an a-unicornist".

T'ai Chi

19th August 2007, 12:27 PM

In Skeptical Inquirer, Massimo Pigliucci said "Being an a-theist is as reasonable as being an a-unicornist".

...which is to say, not really reasonable at all if you're a 'strong atheist' that says 'there is no god(s) and that is a fact'.

Meaning you somehow were able to search all of space and time in order to make that statement.

CFLarsen

19th August 2007, 12:48 PM

To play the Devil´s Advocate here... While I don´t agree with Corpse Cruncher at all, I see a rather compelling reason why saying atheists cannot be moral does not equate with saying atheists are a danger to society.

That is, in our society most kinds of immoral behavior (such as theft, rape and murder) are punished through the law, and they and most or all others (such as dishonesty and cruelty) carry a negative social stigma. Avoiding said punishment and/or stigma can be reason enough to not engage in immoral behavior. How compelling that reason is depends on the severity of the punishment and/or stigma, and the chance of being caught.

Social stigma applies to everyone, so there is no reason to suspect that there would be a difference.

But there is one reason more for religious people not to commit crimes: They will earn the wrath of their god (as well as the attached clergy).

Yet, this clearly isn't reason enough for them to stop committing crimes.

Chaos

20th August 2007, 12:43 AM

Social stigma applies to everyone, so there is no reason to suspect that there would be a difference.

We are talking about atheists here. Who else stigma applies to is irrelevant.

But there is one reason more for religious people not to commit crimes: They will earn the wrath of their god (as well as the attached clergy).

We are talking about the supposed amorality of atheists and whether or not this is automatically enough to make them a danger to society. Quit shifting the goalposts.

Yet, this clearly isn't reason enough for them to stop committing crimes.

You didn´t read what I wrote, did you? For your edification, I will repeat it:

"How compelling that reason is depends on the severity of the punishment and/or stigma, and the chance of being caught."

CFLarsen

20th August 2007, 01:05 AM

We are talking about atheists here. Who else stigma applies to is irrelevant.

It is highly relevant, because we are talking about atheists vs. religious people.

We are talking about the supposed amorality of atheists and whether or not this is automatically enough to make them a danger to society. Quit shifting the goalposts.

I'm not shifting the goalposts. But it makes no sense to talk about the (lack of) morality of atheists unless you also talk about the (perceived higher) morality of religious people.

Why else do you think this is such an important point to some religious people? They really think they have the upper hand when it comes to morality. Yet - and the evidence show this - they don't, quite contrary.

You didn´t read what I wrote, did you? For your edification, I will repeat it:

"How compelling that reason is depends on the severity of the punishment and/or stigma, and the chance of being caught."

I did read it, and I agree completely. There is just more to it than that.

Social stigma may be compelling enough to keep atheists from committing crimes, or it may not. There is no reason to think it would apply more to atheists than religious people, though. Whatever reasons there may be, it certainly results in less jail time.

Corpse Cruncher

20th August 2007, 02:32 AM

I fear this may be off topic too. I apologise if the Mods/Admins feel it is.

I haven't stated and certainly have not implied the JREF cannot have persons other than Atheist Skeptics aboard. As pointed out by another poster this is the James Randi Education Foundation. Educating being the main point here.

That educational drive and promotion is for all persons, skeptic or otherwise. Point being it is to educate all persons to apply thought, question and factual processes in every aspect of their daily life. From those, educational points apply them and follow the natural progressive course.

However, the sticking point I found troublesome was for those who claimed to be a skeptic; yet still actively supporting religion. My response is to raise the question can they. My answer being no.

I have no problem with religion or those who want or feel the need for it in their lives. Their choice as is mine to have no desire for religion in my life. I have a problem accepting them as skeptics. My answer and frame of mind would still be the same for any Psychic purporting to be a skeptic. A raised eyebrow would also be applied to an atheist who partook in homoeopathy. Negative answer being applied to them.

I am not saying my view is correct, but it is for me, at this time. A skeptic in my mind is one who has re-evaluated their life and is without the constraints of religion. Worshipping a god and skepticism, I honestly feel, cannot be co-habitual.

So in my mind yes JREF should be and show it is an atheist group. In so answering US's posed question in part.

However, JREF should not refuse entry to those seeking answers or raising questions, or restrict itself to a place that is skeptic only. Those who do, from any walk of life should be answered in a manner that is educational and not resorting to one that belittles or adds a name label to them.

Skeptics must remain above the gutter level of some other groups. How else is it to support and continue the JREF's educational aims?

To be a skeptic you must learn and continue to do so. If you do not you are not a skeptic or support skepticism. Many here I feel might do well to remind themselves of that point.

Skeptics are not without a doubt correct 100% of the time. Science changes therefore answers must change to show this. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong. There is shame in resorting to bullying tactics. Any skeptic that does that should be reprimanded, regardless of favour or status.

Darat

20th August 2007, 02:39 AM

Corpse Cruncher

20th August 2007, 02:52 AM

CC - I still don't see how you tie the "skeptic" and "atheist" as a combined definition; if I had a religious belief I could still be skeptical about my beliefs in just the same way as I hold certain political beliefs yet are still skeptical about those beliefs. Atheism is a conclusion (even if only a provisional one), skepticism is a method they are not the same type of thing.
Yes I think I can see what you are saying here. Try this and see if this helps or more likely not explains my drift.

Person a is practising religion. Now they have questions and follow a skeptical way of thinking. In turn they apply some or all of what they learnt but... they continue to actively engage in religious worshipping.

They are following some skeptical applications but are not skeptics.

Whereas person b is again religious and is active. Like person a they go through the same process. Unlike person a their religious view point and practise begins to be curtailed to the point that they no longer support or engage in religion.

Skepticism is all or nothing. You cannot pick the bits to suit therefore you cannot be a skeptic if you pick and choose the tastier bits and conveniently ignore the bits that may cause indigestion?

Atheism is a product of choice and is a natural formula for a skeptic to be. Being religious is not.

If I was to say a homoeopath was a skeptic would we still be having this conversation? Or is the religious undertone far greater than I imagine?

Is that of help?

I cannot get it into words. I am not saying I am right here. I can as easily be wrong in my view point.

Darat

20th August 2007, 03:11 AM

...snip...

Is that of help?

I cannot get it into words. I am not saying I am right here. I can as easily be wrong in my view point.

I can follow that but by your definition no one can ever call themselves "skeptical" since none of us apply skepticism throughly, equally and consistently to all parts of our lives. Indeed I would say you just couldn't function if you did!

It seems that you are given religious beliefs some special status above other kinds of beliefs that we all have. For example consider someone who believes their partner loves them. Can they not be called skeptical because they haven't sought out empirical evidence for that? That they live their life as if that that other person's love is a fact rather than their faith? I would say as long as they recognise the faith aspects of their belief they can still be called skeptical.

Now obviously with religious beliefs we move into what are generally broader based and a more complex set of beliefs but as long as there is a truthful recognition of what those beliefs are I don't think someone is being "unskeptical".

So whilst someone stating that the "Earth is only 600 years old" cannot claim to be being skeptical - since the empirical evidence contradicts this (plus there is nowhere in the Bible that actually sets when the Earth was created in terms of solar years... ;) ), someone saying "I have faith that a god exists but I know I cannot prove the god exists" can still be called "skeptical". After all they have examined their own beliefs and based on the facts they have concluded that what they have is faith and they recognise that they cannot prove it. That is using skepticism to come to a conclusion.

tkingdoll

20th August 2007, 05:10 AM

someone saying "I have faith that a god exists but I know I cannot prove the god exists" can still be called "skeptical". After all they have examined their own beliefs and based on the facts they have concluded that what they have is faith and they recognise that they cannot prove it. That is using skepticism to come to a conclusion.

Replace 'god' with 'telepathy'. Now it just sounds absurd to hold that viewpoint whilst calling oneself a skeptic. There have been efforts to test for the existence of god (e.g prayer expts) just like telepathy.

Although of course if you invent your own god, it becomes untestable. Convenient, that.

brodski

20th August 2007, 05:18 AM

Replace 'god' with 'telepathy'. Now it just sounds absurd to hold that viewpoint whilst calling oneself a skeptic. There have been efforts to test for the existence of god (e.g prayer expts) just like telepathy.

Although of course if you invent your own god, it becomes untestable. Convenient, that.

How about replace “aliens” with “god”, there have been attempts to establish the existence of aliens, EG SETI. Does the JREF and the Organized Skeptical Movement ™ In general take the view that aliens don’t exist? Can a true skeptic ™ accept a belief in aliens?

Now, of course if we are to discuss whether aliens are abducting people, or if god is heeling people- then that is a different matter, a different type of claim, one which is amenable to “sceptical inquiry”, indeed eth more specific a claim the easier it is to treat with the tools of skepticism, but a general claim such as “god or gods exist” cannot be falsified, and is not something which a sceptical organisation has to take a stance on.

tkingdoll

20th August 2007, 05:37 AM

How about replace “aliens” with “god”, there have been attempts to establish the existence of aliens, EG SETI. Does the JREF and the Organized Skeptical Movement ™ In general take the view that aliens don’t exist? Can a true skeptic ™ accept a belief in aliens?

Now, of course if we are to discuss whether aliens are abducting people, or if god is heeling people- then that is a different matter, a different type of claim, one which is amenable to “sceptical inquiry”, indeed eth more specific a claim the easier it is to treat with the tools of skepticism, but a general claim such as “god or gods exist” cannot be falsified, and is not something which a sceptical organisation has to take a stance on.

But non-atheists make specific claims ALL THE TIME! Like prayer, for example. Which can, and has, been tested.

The opposite of atheist is...what? Does it just mean 'people who believe but don't follow an organised religion which makes specific claims' in this context? Cause that's not what 'the JREF is not an atheist organisation' will mean to most people. Or are we separating 'belief in god' from 'religion' here? Is there a difference between religion and organised religion?

I simply do not accept that it's skeptical to say "there is no evidence for the existence of X so I choose to believe it anyway".

SETI is a poor example, by the way. You might as well use it as an example of an attempt to establish the existence of god.

If I said "there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, so I choose to believe in them" you would all shout me down in a second. You would tell me that the only skeptical position to arrive at in the absence of any evidence supporting the existence of aliens, is one of agnosticism. Why is belief in god any different here?

If there is no evidence for the existence of god, how is it skeptical to accept the claim anyway?

Darat

20th August 2007, 05:43 AM

tkingdoll

20th August 2007, 05:49 AM

Well of course it depends on how you define "god" since there is not a single definition of any god never mind a definition of THE god. But the same can be said for something like psi in general, for example some people define telepathy as no more than "intuition" some as "transferring information via some unknown sensory mechanism". Definitions are always important.

But you agree that it wouldn't be skeptical of me to claim I accept the existence of psi in the absence of any evidence?

And in fact there is some, albeit weak, evidence in favour of the existence of psi, I believe. But still not enough for me to be anything but agnostic about it.

We occasionally get people here who spout their beliefs about all sorts of woo topics. They get mocked, often. At no point does anyone say 'hey, it's not unskeptical to believe in something even though there's no evidence for it'. I'm not sure why god is any different :confused:

But to go back to a point I made a while ago in this thread, is it not more the case that JREF is distancing itself from atheism for other reasons? Political, economical, etc. I doubt it's a philosophical stance, it seems more a pragmatic one to me.

brodski

20th August 2007, 05:58 AM

But non-atheists make specific claims ALL THE TIME! Like prayer, for example. Which can, and has, been tested. And the JREF takes a stance on those specific claims, and those claims are only made by a specific subset of non-atheists (theists), althpugh I am also aware of atheist groups who offer prayers and claim results- check out SGI.

Nam Yoho Renge Kyo.

The opposite of atheist is...what? grammatically "theist", a word which was coined specifically as the opposite of "atheist", or we could include deists here too- the opposite of atheist is not “religious”.

Does it just mean 'people who believe but don't follow an organised religion which makes specific claims' in this context? Cause that's not what 'the JREF is not an atheist organisation' will mean to most people. "the JREF is not an atheist organisation" does not mean the same thing as "the JREF is a theistic organisation", just as the statement "I do not believe in god" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe that there is no god", perhaps part of the JREFs mission should be to educate people on what such statements of belief and lack of belief actually mean.

Or are we separating 'belief in god' from 'religion' here? Is there a difference between religion and organised religion? religion can be athiestic, and belife in god can be non-religious (see deism). It’s debate is about atheism, not religion.

I simply do not accept that it's skeptical to say "there is no evidence for the existence of X so I choose to believe it anyway". So it is unskeptical to accept the existence of life on other planets? Is Dawkins no true Skeptic then? How about those that believe in string theory, or M-theory? No evidence of their truth, but people believe in the non the less. No true skeptic there?

SETI is a poor example, by the way. You might as well use it as an example of an attempt to establish the existence of god. Can you explain what you mean here?

If I said "there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, so I choose to believe in them" you would all shout me down in a second. You would tell me that the only skeptical position to arrive at in the absence of any evidence supporting the existence of aliens, is one of agnosticism. Why is belief in god any different here? many skeptics do take that position on aliens, all be it they use the word but rather than so, in much the same way that many non-atheist skeptics talk about god.

If there is no evidence for the existence of god, how is it skeptical to accept the claim anyway? It may not be sceptical, but can it be skeptical? Yes I think it can, there is a lack of evidence either way, and taking the hard view that “it is a fact that god does not exist” is also not sceptical. Given that a definite answer is not going to be found using the tools of scientific scepticism, why should a skeptic organisation take a position?

Darat

20th August 2007, 05:59 AM

But you agree that it wouldn't be skeptical of me to claim I accept the existence of psi in the absence of any evidence?

It would depend on the definition - for example I have stated many a time here that I believe that ghosts exists and I have arrived at that conclusion by what I consider is skeptical reasoning.

And in fact there is some, albeit weak, evidence in favour of the existence of psi, I believe. But still not enough for me to be anything but agnostic about it.

BUT the interesting thing in those studies (if you mean the ones that are quite often brought up here) is that it is not what is usually defined as "psi" - so if they are showing a real phenomenon it is not what most people mean when they say "psi". So again it's a matter of definitions.

We occasionally get people here who spout their beliefs about all sorts of woo topics. They get mocked, often. At no point does anyone say 'hey, it's not unskeptical to believe in something even though there's no evidence for it'. I'm not sure why god is any different :confused:

I don't so I'm not the person to ask about that mocking. I have always been quite happy to accept that people believe things for a myriad of reasons, what I "object" to is when people make a claim like "telepathy exists and I can prove it" or "it's been proved" and so on.

But to go back to a point I made a while ago in this thread, is it not more the case that JREF is distancing itself from atheism for other reasons? Political, economical, etc. I doubt it's a philosophical stance, it seems more a pragmatic one to me.

I don't think the evidence points to that. From the number of non-atheists we know have been intimately associated with the JREF over the years, to Randi's comments to the type of panels there have been at TAM, they all indicate it is quite agnostic ;) on this matter.

tkingdoll

20th August 2007, 06:06 AM

I don't think the evidence points to that. From the number of non-atheists we know have been intimately associated with the JREF over the years, to Randi's comments to the type of panels there have been at TAM, they all indicate it is quite agnostic ;) on this matter.

I think your comment there is more evidence that supports my assertion. The JREF benefits from the involvement of non-atheists. That's a good reason to publicly state that it is not an atheist organisation.

Regarding the definition of god, I make no claim in the belief of such an entity, so I can't offer a definition other than a dictionary one. However, I suspect that deists who don't follow an organised religion have their own definition. Maybe one of the theists here can confirm that.

But again, that prompts me to point out that I can make up anything any claim belief in it despite no evidence for its existence. But I don't accept that it would be skeptical of me to do so. I also don't believe my belief would be readily accepted by the skeptic community.

kittynh

20th August 2007, 06:48 AM

I'm here.

Proof enough.

I'm what is refered to as the "one white crow"

I'm welcomed, loved and proudly a friend of Randis.

I know of 3 other white crows. (here on the forum)

We aren't welcome at other skeptic sites and organizations.

Here, we are respected.

Religious leaders are supporters of Randi. His book, "The Faith Healers" brought not only myself, but many others that follow a more religious lifestyle into the JREF fold. If you read the book, you learn why Mr.Randi is a good friend indeed for all "believers".

kittynh

20th August 2007, 06:51 AM

Oh and a tenant of all good religious people is that their faith be tested. That doesn't mean 40 days and nights in the desert. It means THINKING and reevaluating your beliefs. It means challenging them and seeing what you really believe and what you are just spouting as dogma.

Belonging to JREF and having it make you THINK, is a good thing.

I want reason and sanity to be the key words here. don't go soft on anything!

If I want soft sell I can go to church. Which is also nice. But if I want to really know what I think and believe, I come here.

Caius Textor

20th August 2007, 07:32 AM

So it is unskeptical to accept the existence of life on other planets? Is Dawkins no true Skeptic then? How about those that believe in string theory, or M-theory? No evidence of their truth, but people believe in the non the less. No true skeptic there?

It is not the same thing as what Teek said.

There is no "belief" in string theory. Some people think it is a sound and promising theory, but Ed Witten doesn´t pray for it every morning. It is a hypotheses that is SEVERELY CRITICIZED because it is and will be extremely difficult to test experimentaly. And no scientist would ever say that string theory IS the ultimate description of the universe even after evidence has been sought and not found, or found to the contrary.

The same goes for life on other planets. It seems logical that there is, and that is a good REASON to believe in it. But no scientist would hold that position in light of new discoveries.

It´s not even logical to believe in deities. On top of that, they are either untestable (therefore unfoundable) or testable and not existant. The only thing that supports belief is belief itself.

Caius Textor

20th August 2007, 07:43 AM

Oh and a tenant of all good religious people is that their faith be tested. That doesn't mean 40 days and nights in the desert. It means THINKING and reevaluating your beliefs. It means challenging them and seeing what you really believe and what you are just spouting as dogma.

There can be no "test" to faith. Talking to yourself and reaching the conclusion "Oh, yeah, I REALLY believe in this!!" is not a test. One can have no idea what goes on in your mind, so you shouldn´t use that as an argument.

So either you (or anyone else) present a cohesive and logical argumentation to support your belief (that would be your "thinking") or you´ll have to stick with the old an irrational formula of "I can´t explain it to you. I simply know it to be true."

tkingdoll

20th August 2007, 07:48 AM

Given that a definite answer is not going to be found using the tools of scientific scepticism, why should a skeptic organisation take a position?

But it HAS! "The JREF is not an atheist organisation' is taking a position!

Will address the rest of your points tonight when I have more time. But re: SETI, perhaps you meant Project Phoenix rather than SETI? If not, then my point stands. SETI is to discover something about the origin of the universe, and to find evidence of other intelligent life. That could be god, or aliens, or the FSM. No-one knows til something is found. But SETI covers 63 different types of projects, not just 'listen to the sky and hope ET phones home using a narrow band signal'. As far as an 'experiment' goes, it's not a great one.

brodski

20th August 2007, 08:01 AM

But it HAS! "The JREF is not an atheist organisation' is taking a position!

Will address the rest of your points tonight when I have more time. But re: SETI, perhaps you meant Project Phoenix rather than SETI? If not, then my point stands. SETI is to discover something about the origin of the universe, and to find evidence of other intelligent life. That could be god, or aliens, or the FSM. No-one knows til something is found.

Saying that “the JREF is not an atheist organisation” is no more taking a position than saying “the JREF is not a Newcastle United fan club, there is nothing to stop either Interesting Iain or Ducky supporting the JREF (a Magpies supporter IIRC, and a NUFC despiser respectively) despite the fact that one position may be considered more rational than the other. That does not mean that the JREF cannot hold a position on the design of St James’s park, or the decisions taken by Sam Allardyce if those topics come up in relation to something which the JREF does take a stance on.

brodski

20th August 2007, 08:04 AM

It is not the same thing as what Teek said.

There is no "belief" in string theory. Some people think it is a sound and promising theory, but Ed Witten doesn´t pray for it every morning. It is a hypotheses that is SEVERELY CRITICIZED because it is and will be extremely difficult to test experimentaly. And no scientist would ever say that string theory IS the ultimate description of the universe even after evidence has been sought and not found, or found to the contrary.

The same goes for life on other planets. It seems logical that there is, and that is a good REASON to believe in it. But no scientist would hold that position in light of new discoveries.

It´s not even logical to believe in deities. On top of that, they are either untestable (therefore unfoundable) or testable and not existant. The only thing that supports belief is belief itself.
Many of those that posit a deity do not worship at all, and do not claim proof. They argue that there are logical reasons to suppose some kind of deity, or at least logical reasons not to reject the idea out of hand. Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

Chaos

20th August 2007, 08:06 AM

It is highly relevant, because we are talking about atheists vs. religious people.

The exchange between you and me was about whether or not amoral people are necessarily a danger to society.

I'm not shifting the goalposts. But it makes no sense to talk about the (lack of) morality of atheists unless you also talk about the (perceived higher) morality of religious people.

But I wasn´t talking about that all, damn it.

Why else do you think this is such an important point to some religious people? They really think they have the upper hand when it comes to morality. Yet - and the evidence show this - they don't, quite contrary.

I did read it, and I agree completely. There is just more to it than that.

I know. It just wasn´t what I was talking about with you.

Social stigma may be compelling enough to keep atheists from committing crimes, or it may not. There is no reason to think it would apply more to atheists than religious people, though. Whatever reasons there may be, it certainly results in less jail time.

I never claimed that it applied more to atheists than to religious. Stick to what I said, and adress that. Otherwise there is no point in us having a discussion here.

Caius Textor

20th August 2007, 08:17 AM

Many of those that posit a deity do not worship at all, and do not claim proof. They argue that there are logical reasons to suppose some kind of deity, or at least logical reasons not to reject the idea out of hand. Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

I have never seen any of those "logical reasons" stand the test of reason itself. The ones I heard were more like excuses but, heck, I would gladly consider those arguments if they were presented.

CFLarsen

20th August 2007, 09:36 AM

The exchange between you and me was about whether or not amoral people are necessarily a danger to society.

But I wasn´t talking about that all, damn it.

I know. It just wasn´t what I was talking about with you.

I never claimed that it applied more to atheists than to religious. Stick to what I said, and adress that. Otherwise there is no point in us having a discussion here.

I never said you did, and I have addressed what you said.

However, you responded to my post #93, where I specifically spoke about atheists vs religious people, and morality. When you brought up social stigma, I pointed out that it applies to everyone. You then got all angry and condescending, even accusing me of "shifting the goalposts".

I didn't. If you don't want to talk about morality and religious people, don't. But don't tell me what I can and cannot talk about. If I want to make a point about religious people and morality, I sure don't need your permission.

DRBUZZ0

20th August 2007, 01:02 PM

There is definitely an issue of "Where does one draw the line" in how skeptism addresses religion.

Clearly, and based on the battles fought in the past, I think most in the skeptical movement do have a very real problem with religion being used to further a scam or to keep people away from mainstream medicine or science.

I have a problem with creationism in public schools. I have a problem with Popoff selling his cancer-curing debt-eliminating "holy water." And I have a problem with some of the more militant Evangelical groups trying to inject their belief systems into politics.

But that's just me. I'm not sure where one draws the line as an individual or as a group/movement. I don't have a problem with religion in general and I don't see it as conflicting with skeptism, as long as it stays within the bounds of not being an outright scam or excuse to oppose reason, science and secular politics.

I am just not sure if there is any way that a consensus can be arrived of what sorts of religious activities reach the point where they are legitimate targets for a skeptical organization.

Most importantly though, I do not think that people who go to church on sundays should be made to feel they are unwelcome within the JREF or the skeptical community. I suppose that's partially Randi's dig, when it comes to this foundation, but *I* have no problem with them and I would imagine many here also have no problem with such persons and may even fit that.

UnrepentantSinner

20th August 2007, 04:47 PM

"the JREF is not an atheist organisation" does not mean the same thing as "the JREF is a theistic organisation", just as the statement "I do not believe in god" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe that there is no god", perhaps part of the JREFs mission should be to educate people on what such statements of belief and lack of belief actually mean.

This is an absolutely brilliant iteration of part of why I started this thread. Thank you.

Cuddles

21st August 2007, 02:36 AM

Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

Nonsense. I don't believe unicorns exist. That doesn't mean I think unicorns cannot exist. It simply means that there is no evidence that they do exist and therefore the logical position is to assume they don't until evidence that they do is provided. I don't believe gods exist. That doesn't mean I think gods cannot exist.

Atheism is the position that something doesn't exist, not that it can't exist.

athon

21st August 2007, 04:16 AM

Saying that “the JREF is not an atheist organisation” is no more taking a position than saying “the JREF is not a Newcastle United fan club, there is nothing to stop either Interesting Iain or Ducky supporting the JREF (a Magpies supporter IIRC, and a NUFC despiser respectively) despite the fact that one position may be considered more rational than the other. That does not mean that the JREF cannot hold a position on the design of St James’s park, or the decisions taken by Sam Allardyce if those topics come up in relation to something which the JREF does take a stance on.

I'll back you up here Brodski.

The JREF, as a skeptical group, should provide no preformed conclusions on things, even if the people within it as individuals do. Skepticism isn't a conclusion but a tool to understanding the universe. The JREF communicates the use of skepticism, IMO, not offering a conclusion they have arrived at using it.

If used well, others should come to similar conclusions. But the JREF sells the tools and not the product.

Athon

athon

21st August 2007, 04:21 AM

Nonsense. I don't believe unicorns exist. That doesn't mean I think unicorns cannot exist. It simply means that there is no evidence that they do exist and therefore the logical position is to assume they don't until evidence that they do is provided. I don't believe gods exist. That doesn't mean I think gods cannot exist.

Atheism is the position that something doesn't exist, not that it can't exist.

Small distinction, but beside the point in terms of the argument.

Think of it this way; is it more accurate to see the JREF mission as to tell people that there is no God, or to communicate how skepticism works, and they use it to work out there is no God? Because there is a massive difference.

Athon

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 06:23 AM

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 06:27 AM

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 06:29 AM

The same can be said for a political party.

Certainly not either of the major U.S. political parties, wherein candidates incessantly prattle on about how important their imaginary friend is to their morality, and sense of morality.

brodski

21st August 2007, 06:30 AM

This is really confusing to me, the JREF is clearly and atheist organization. Religion plays no part in the JREF's goals, fund raising, or membership. There's no religious criteria for its admission as a member or its actions. It's a completely secular institution. What it isn't is anti-theist or religious. The JREF isn't in the business of attacking religion, or in promoting it. Religion is irrelevant to the actions of the JREF, religious claims are examined as rigorously as any others, when they are testable.

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.

You are conflating the terms secular and atheist. The JREF clearly is secular, as it is not a religious institution, however to claim that it is atheist is to claim that the JREF has taken a stance on the existence of god(s) in general. It has not, it has taken a stance on specific religious claims, but that is not the same thing at all.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 06:43 AM

Certainly not either of the major U.S. political parties, wherein candidates incessantly prattle on about how important their imaginary friend is to their morality, and sense of morality.

Are there religious criteria for admission as a member?

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 07:02 AM

Are there religious criteria for admission as a member?

From the 2004 Democratic party platform. (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf)

This year, as we celebrate these anniversaries, we recommit to the spirit of service that secured these breakthroughs and the values they embody: all of our people should have the opportunity to fulfill all of their potential, and each of us should be as equal in the eyes of the law as we are in the eyes of God.

That's funny, I thought we were all equal under the law.

That is the America we believe in. That is the America we are fighting for. That is the America we will build together – one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Together, we can make America safer, stronger, and more respected. We can do it in a way that safeguards all the greatness of America by protecting our people, securing our homeland, and
reinforcing our values – faith and family, duty and service, individual freedom and a common purpose to build one nation under God

The great promise of America is simple: a better life for all who work for it. No matter who you are, where you come from, or what you believe, as an American, you live in a land that offers you all the possibilities your hard work and God-given talent can bring.

God gave America extraordinary natural gifts; it is our responsibility to protect them.

That is how we will ensure that God's gifts of nature bless all of God's children for
generations to come.

The Republican party platform. (http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf)

We applaud President Bush’s efforts to promote the generous and compassionate work of America’s faith-based and neighborhood charities.

A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will
restore the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit federal court jurisdiction; for example, in instances where judges are abusing their power
by banning the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

RONALD REAGAN
believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free.
He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of.
He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer.
He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the world.
As Ronald Wilson Reagan goes his way, we are left with a joyful hope he shared.
May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.

The Democratic party couches their platform in religious language, and the Republican party has overtly religious goals. Now, it is entirely fair to say that you can be a member of either party and be an atheist, but both parties serve religious interests, and state religious justification for their goals.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 07:38 AM

But not a criterion.

You can be secular and not atheist. E.g., JREF doesn't concern itself with religion, unless it is about a testable claim.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:00 AM

But not a criterion.

You can be secular and not atheist. E.g., JREF doesn't concern itself with religion, unless it is about a testable claim.

That is precisely why the JREF is an atheist organization. Rather than being purely secular and advoiding the issue of religion all together, the JREF treats religious claims equally with all other claims.

brodski

21st August 2007, 08:11 AM

That is precisely why the JREF is an atheist organization. Rather than being purely secular and advoiding the issue of religion all together, the JREF treats religious claims equally with all other claims.

In what way does “treats religious claims equally with other claims” equal atheism? If you can show where the JREF has taken a stance on theism and deism in general rather than debunking specific claims you may have a case.
Imagine this, the JREF $1,000,0000 was won by someone who proved conclusively that an omnipotent, omniscient creator being existed (highly unlikely would be an undergarment, but bear with me). It would still be treating religious claims equally with non religious claims, but would you still claim that eth JREF was an atheist organisation?

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:23 AM

In what way does “treats religious claims equally with other claims” equal atheism? If you can show where the JREF has taken a stance on theism and deism in general rather than debunking specific claims you may have a case.
Imagine this, the JREF $1,000,0000 was won by someone who proved conclusively that an omnipotent, omniscient creator being existed (highly unlikely would be an undergarment, but bear with me). It would still be treating religious claims equally with non religious claims, but would you still claim that eth JREF was an atheist organisation?

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. The JREF is not merely secular. It does not avoid religion, it actively tests religious claims as much as any other sort of claim. Atheist means, "without religion," and religion is not part of the JREF in any way, but unlike a secular organization, it doesn't delicately skirt the issue of religious nonsense.

ETA:

Brodski, I think if you're going to say I'm confounding atheism and seculairsm, you're confoudning atheism and antitheism.

brodski

21st August 2007, 08:25 AM

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. The JREF is not merely secular. It does not avoid religion, it actively tests religious claims as much as any other sort of claim. Atheist means, "without religion," and religion is not part of the JREF in any way, but unlike a secular organization, it doesn't delicately skirt the issue of religious nonsense.

“atheism” does not mean “without religion” despite that being the linguistic route, any more than “sinister” means left handed.

Atheism means taking a stance on the existence of gods in general. The JREF takes no such stance.

ETA, by your definition agnostics and desists would be “atheists” (as they are “without religion”) whereas Buddhists in general would not be.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:30 AM

“atheism” does not mean “without religion” despite that being the linguistic route, any more than “sinister” means left handed.

Atheism means taking a stance on the existence of gods in general. The JREF takes no such stance.

ETA, by your definition agnostics and desists would be “atheists” (as they are “without religion”) whereas Buddhists in general would not be.

So even though atheism means "without religion" you contest that it doesn't? Based on what, negative connotations I imagine? That's just bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people, like avoiding using the word "nigardly."

ETA:

Excuse me, which Buddhists are without religion? Those who subscribe to the philosophy of Buddhism, utterly devoid of gods, spirits, karma, reincarnation, and Dharma? That's a very small minority.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 08:47 AM

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 08:51 AM

“atheism” does not mean “without religion”

Ehhhh...yes. That's exactly what it means.

despite that being the linguistic route, any more than “sinister” means left handed.

Sinister means pertaining to the left side of something.

Atheism means taking a stance on the existence of gods in general.

We've had this discussion before. Atheism doesn't require a taking a stance.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:54 AM

No. All testable religious claims.

Yes, religious claims are treated equally with all other claims. Untestable claims are never tested.

Duh.

Chaos

21st August 2007, 09:25 AM

I never said you did, and I have addressed what you said.

However, you responded to my post #93, where I specifically spoke about atheists vs religious people, and morality. When you brought up social stigma, I pointed out that it applies to everyone. You then got all angry and condescending, even accusing me of "shifting the goalposts".

I didn't. If you don't want to talk about morality and religious people, don't. But don't tell me what I can and cannot talk about. If I want to make a point about religious people and morality, I sure don't need your permission.

I responded to your assumption that anyone who says atheists are immoral also necessarily says atheists are a danger to society.

I debunked that assumption of yours, and you STILL cannot bring yourself to admit that. You can make all the points you want, BUT if you make these points INSTEAD of admitting you were wrong, it becomes painfully obvious that you are trying to avoid admitting your were wrong.

brodski

21st August 2007, 09:25 AM

Ehhhh...yes. That's exactly what it means.
no it doesn't, it means disbelieving in gods not religion.

Sinister means pertaining to the left side of something.
and drumstick means "leg" yes?

We've had this discussion before. Atheism doesn't require a taking a stance. yes it does.

brodski

21st August 2007, 09:31 AM

So even though atheism means "without religion" no it doesn't it means having a non theistic belief. That is a belief in an interventionist god.

Based on what, negative connotations I imagine? nope, based on a meaningful definition of atheist.

That's just bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people, like avoiding using the word "nigardly." I'd try brick, or at a push sticks, next time, the big bad wolf may be along to blow that down any moment....

Excuse me, which Buddhists are without religion? Those who subscribe to the philosophy of Buddhism, utterly devoid of gods, spirits, karma, reincarnation, and Dharma? That's a very small minority.
Thats my point, Buddhists aren't without religion, but they are without god- religion and belief in god are not the same things at all.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 09:36 AM

no it doesn't, it means disbelieving in gods not religion.

and drumstick means "leg" yes?

yes it does.

Nå.

brodski

21st August 2007, 09:37 AM

Nå.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up then :rolleyes:

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 10:02 AM

no it doesn't, it means disbelieving in gods not religion.

That is an equally valid definition, but by no means the only one.

and drumstick means "leg" yes?

Way to poison the well. You ought to be ashamed.

yes it does.

And a person who grows up isolated from religion, and who has no religious beliefs is, what? Atheist. Without religion.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 10:04 AM

no it doesn't it means having a non theistic belief. That is a belief in an interventionist god.
nope, based on a meaningful definition of atheist.

Based on your personal definition, into which reality dares not tread, I'd say.

Thats my point, Buddhists aren't without religion, but they are without god- religion and belief in god are not the same things at all.

Which Buddhists? You're still being as vauge as you possibly can.

brodski

21st August 2007, 10:58 AM

That is an equally valid definition, but by now means the only one.
I'm glad you agree.

Way to poison the well. You ought to be ashamed.
It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

And a person who grows up isolated from religion, and who has no religious beliefs is, what? Atheist. Without religion.

You are still harping on about religion, I'm talking about gods, and it's clear to me that people are able to invent the concept of god on their own, without external social pressure. How do you think the idea got started in the first place?

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 11:00 AM

It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

It is well poisoning and by doing it you as much as admit you are incapable of debating this subject without resorting to cheap rhetorical tricks.

You are still harping on about religion, I'm talking about gods, and it's clear to me that people are able to invent the concept of god on their own, without external social pressure. How do you think the idea got started in the first place?

Your question is not germaine to the discussion.

brodski

21st August 2007, 11:01 AM

Based on your personal definition, into which reality dares not tread, I'd say. say what you like. You are the one who started talkign about atheism in reference to religion rather than gods. A position which you have not yet shown any support for.

Which Buddhists? You're still being as vauge as you possibly can.

tell you what, you come up with a major Buddhist sect which invokes god as part of the Buddhist teachings, not a sect which is compatible[ with theistic belief, a sect whcih is intrinsically theistic. It seems to be your claim that Buddhists are not atheists, support it.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 11:07 AM

say what you like. You are the one who started talkign about atheism in reference to religion rather than gods. A position which you have not yet shown any support for.

tell you what, you come up with a major Buddhist sect which invokes god as part of the Buddhist teachings, not a sect which is compatible[ with theistic belief, a sect whcih is intrinsically theistic. It seems to be your claim that Buddhists are not atheists, support it.

It's entirely possible for a religion to be without a god, and thus "atheist," I grant you.

ETA:

I'm just unclear what that has to do with your point. The JREF is also without god.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 11:19 AM

I responded to your assumption that anyone who says atheists are immoral also necessarily says atheists are a danger to society.

I debunked that assumption of yours, and you STILL cannot bring yourself to admit that. You can make all the points you want, BUT if you make these points INSTEAD of admitting you were wrong, it becomes painfully obvious that you are trying to avoid admitting your were wrong.

I think you are somewhat confused as to what "debunking" means. It doesn't mean categorically stating that the other party is wrong, and then get angry because the other party comes up with a valid counterargument.

It cannot be merely social stigma that keeps atheists out of jail. Social stigma also applies to religious people, and there is no reason to think religious people consider social stigma a less important factor.

And, if atheists are immoral - which was Corpse Crunchers claim - why would they care about social stigma anyway? Being immoral means that you don't give a hoot about good or bad, or what is right or wrong. Such people are inherently a danger to society - which I sure hope you agree with.

So, no, you haven't "debunked" my point.

CFLarsen

21st August 2007, 11:23 AM

It speaks to CFL's ability to understand the meanings of English words and is therefore relevant to this debate.

Since when does inability to master a language completely (especially for those who English isn't their native language) give you the right to mock people?

Perhaps you should take a look at what "sinister" means, before you point your finger accusingly at non-native English speakers.

Yes, I checked. You should, too.

athon

21st August 2007, 05:19 PM

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.

The JREF is also not a football organisation, a food organisation, or a political body. Yet these are not advertised in any way either. Technically, you could indeed call the JREF 'atheist' as it has no theistic approach. However, I feel the discussion here is reaching deeper than a surface description of the JREF's philosophy.

To officially describe it as 'atheist' and include this statement in its mission would mean it would be offering atheism as a conclusion the public should adopt. This, IMO, is not skepticism at all, no more than if the JREF asked the public to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster or alien visitation. Skepticism is distinct from the conclusion it produces, even though it can be assumed that if applied rigorously the same conclusions should be met.

Athon

Jeff Corey

21st August 2007, 06:05 PM

Since when does inability to master a language completely (especially for those who English isn't their native language) give you the right to mock people?

Perhaps you should take a look at what "sinister" means, before you point your finger accusingly at non-native English speakers.

Yes, I checked. You should, too.
CF, you are quite adroit and dextrous when it comes to languages. And that's not a left-handed compliment. That would be gauche and sinister.
It seems that your left brain knows what your other hand is doing.

Caius Textor

21st August 2007, 06:11 PM

Jeff Corey

21st August 2007, 06:34 PM

Caius Textor

21st August 2007, 06:46 PM

I´m clearly talking about the position of each particular religion and how they deal with themselves, not the abstract general concept of "religion".

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 06:53 PM

To officially describe it as 'atheist' and include this statement in its mission would mean it would be offering atheism as a conclusion the public should adopt. This, IMO, is not skepticism at all, no more than if the JREF asked the public to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster or alien visitation. Skepticism is distinct from the conclusion it produces, even though it can be assumed that if applied rigorously the same conclusions should be met.

Athon

I agree, but I'm not suggesting the JREF announce itself as an atheist organization. Rather, I'm objecting to the announcement that is "is not an atheist organization." That strongly implies that it is religious in some way, which it clearly is not.

Jeff Corey

21st August 2007, 06:55 PM

I´m clearly talking about the position of each particular religion and how they deal with themselves, not the abstract general concept of "religion".

But they all quibble with eachother, don't they? The +iants have been known for killing in the name of The Prince of Peace.

Mercutio

21st August 2007, 07:01 PM

Religions are about dogmas that cannot be discussed. There is no doubting in religion. If there is questioning and doubting, it´s something else.
Religions will tolerate questions and doubts up until when they threaten its very core. Then it will react violently. In our days it´s good publicity to pretend your religion is "open-minded." They show their true faces eventually, though.

Being skeptical towards religion is anti-religious in itself.

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian, our pastor quite actively encouraged us to question and doubt. He was utterly convinced that questioning would lead us to the same place it led him--to an absolute faith in the bible.

I did question, and did doubt, and did ask. Initially, the questioning and doubting were answered in the ways common to that community, and the good and honest people of that community did their best to answer. I was encouraged always to question. Untested belief is weak.

I continued to question. My church continued to tell me to question.

In my case, after many years, my questioning led to atheism. In my sister's case, her questioning led to belief.

No one in my church ever threatened me for questioning. No one ever "reacted violently". These were honest, good people. I disagree with them now, but that does not make them any less honest and good.

I suggest that it is not good skepticism to paint "Religions" as if they were some monolithic entity; it is worse still to then impose our stereotypes on them and react to those stereotypes rather than the real people who make up these religions.

Caius Textor

21st August 2007, 07:02 PM

But they all quibble with eachother, don't they? The +iants have been known for killing in the name of The Prince of Peace.

Yes, of course, exactly because they don´t question their principles/guides/whatever. They take them dogmatically and, in their most vicious forms, "preach" with sword blades and cannon balls. Believe my book or else!

Particular religions can´t stop fighting with each other because they all try to occupy the same economical/political niche.

Caius Textor

21st August 2007, 07:14 PM

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian [...]

Why do you offer anedoctal evidence?

In any case, I´m not talking about the particular religious person. The particular religious institutions promote and support basic, fundamental, central and indebatable DOGMAS. If you want to question the veracity of such dogmas, hell, you don´t have faith in them! FAITH is not the path, it´s the end-point. It doesn´t matter how you got there. The fact is that faith is believing without questioning. As an example, The Catholic Church wants you to say that there is only one true god and that his son died for us. They don´t want you to learn The Five Ways and get to that conclusion. They uphold a dogmatic belief in a metaphysical entity, not a rational view towards reality.

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 07:14 PM

I disagree strongly.

Back when I was a christian, our pastor quite actively encouraged us to question and doubt. He was utterly convinced that questioning would lead us to the same place it led him--to an absolute faith in the bible.

Then he obviously wasn't questioning his assumptions.

There is no chain of reasoning which leads to god which does not start with god as a presumption.

Mercutio

21st August 2007, 07:34 PM

Why do you offer anedoctal evidence?

Because you made a global claim. One counter-example is enough to falsify it.

Mercutio

21st August 2007, 07:35 PM

Then he obviously wasn't questioning his assumptions.
Because he does not come to the same conclusion you do?

There is no chain of reasoning which leads to god which does not start with god as a presumption.Ergo, a belief in god could never have arisen in the first place.

Might want to rethink.

MLynn

21st August 2007, 07:53 PM

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:03 PM

Because he does not come to the same conclusion you do?
Ergo, a belief in god could never have arisen in the first place.

Might want to rethink.

I will happily change my tune if you can show me a logically coherent and parsimonius chain of reasoning, which presumably he took.

Until then, I'll say he was deluding himself.

Hokulele

21st August 2007, 08:08 PM

Mercutio

21st August 2007, 08:17 PM

I will happily change my tune if you can show me a logically coherent and parsimonius chain of reasoning, which presumably he took.
I have no access to his reasoning, nor the evidence to which he was exposed.

Until then, I'll say he was deluding himself.
False dichotomy. He may have been perfectly logical and still deluded.

One of the classic studies (authors presently elude me) in the perseverance of belief looked at Australian Med School students and Evolution. Most (all?) of them professed to believe in evolution...but at the time of their admission, a substantial proportion of them had an understanding of evolution that could best be described as Lamarkian. Over their med school career, with additional exposure to the evidence... they maintained these Lamarkian beliefs. All new information was put into old cubbyholes.

These med students would have claimed to believe in evolution. Were they deluded?

ImaginalDisc

21st August 2007, 08:23 PM

I have no access to his reasoning, nor the evidence to which he was exposed.

False dichotomy. He may have been perfectly logical and still deluded.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to unpack that.

As for the Med students, without meaning any offense to medical doctors on whose skills we all rely, medical doctors are not evolutionary scientists. A keen and accurate understanding of evolution is not required in the execution of their professional duties. There is little reason to expect their understanding of evolution to be better than that of any other education person.

The Atheist

21st August 2007, 09:42 PM

If you were to privately poll the entire 2800+ active member list, I doubt that the points you listed would be a majority opinion.

I wouldn't be betting too much on that premise.

The poll I ran came out at almost 50/50 to the statement: "All religion is bad and causes harm".

Hokulele

21st August 2007, 09:57 PM

I wouldn't be betting too much on that premise.

The poll I ran came out at almost 50/50 to the statement: "All religion is bad and causes harm".

Sure, less than 10% of the active member list responding to a flawed poll that had nothing to do with MLynn's bullet points is really helpful. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, you did post that poll with an agenda, and several of the responses you received were influenced by that agenda. In addition, it was posted in probably the most partisan section of the forum. I think if a well-designed, private poll were sent to the active membership, most would respond that they aren't anti-theists, and that all theists aren't morons. Sorry MLynn, I am paraphrasing here, so if I didn't convey your intent, please correct me.

Corpse Cruncher

22nd August 2007, 12:48 AM

If the Jref is educational and that is its main aim. Then shouldn't it be a bland state or neutral. That said it should be predominantly honest. If it is run by atheists then it should state this is so.

Stating it is run by atheists is not the same as saying only atheists are welcome is it?

I would rather be a member of a site that says, we are atheists, that is our choice however it is our policy that everybody is welcome here. We ask that you use our resources to educate yourself with. Or something along those lines.

Isn't that better than hiding behind some partial veneer masking the true atheist wood? I would have thought that was an exercise in damage limitation if there was one?

Probably off-topic but has atheism evolved? Natural for it to have. I took the view an atheist was one who did not need god or religion. Perhaps I have mistaken atheism for what it is?

CFLarsen

22nd August 2007, 12:55 AM

The Atheist

22nd August 2007, 01:12 AM

Sure, less than 10% of the active member list responding to a flawed poll that had nothing to do with MLynn's bullet points is really helpful. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, you did post that poll with an agenda, and several of the responses you received were influenced by that agenda. In addition, it was posted in probably the most partisan section of the forum. I think if a well-designed, private poll were sent to the active membership, most would respond that they aren't anti-theists, and that all theists aren't morons. Sorry MLynn, I am paraphrasing here, so if I didn't convey your intent, please correct me.

Given that 10% of the membership responded, I'm not so sure that it can be just swept away as a flawed poll. I deliberately left no room for movement, becuase I didn't expect anywhere near 50% to agree with the statement. That nearly 50% did is quite telling - unless you're suggesting that lots of members are so dishonest they'd vote according to likes and dislikes rather than what they believe.

I'm not saying it would carry through the whole membership at that rate, but I suspect you might fond a lot higher ratio of anti-theists than you think.

Are you saying that you have to be an atheist if you are a skeptic?

Are you saying you don't?

If it's ok for a "skeptic" to be a theist, can a person who believes in homeopathy or psychics also be a "skeptic"?

CFLarsen

22nd August 2007, 01:32 AM

Are you saying you don't?

If it's ok for a "skeptic" to be a theist, can a person who believes in homeopathy or psychics also be a "skeptic"?

You can be a skeptic and be a deist at the same time.

It all comes down to making a testable claim.

Darat

22nd August 2007, 02:14 AM

The Atheist

22nd August 2007, 02:29 AM

You can be a skeptic and be a deist at the same time.

It all comes down to making a testable claim.

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all. Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.

Goodo, we have that sorted out.

Mercutio

22nd August 2007, 04:39 AM

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to unpack that.
Sorry--it was late. What I was thinking was "garbage in, garbage out" (because it is the common phrase, not because any particular view is garbage)--that is, he could be perfectly logical, but by working with incomplete evidence still end up at a false position. So, granted, I am using two different meanings of "deluded".

As for the Med students, without meaning any offense to medical doctors on whose skills we all rely, medical doctors are not evolutionary scientists. A keen and accurate understanding of evolution is not required in the execution of their professional duties. There is little reason to expect their understanding of evolution to be better than that of any other education person.The point of the paper (again, sorry, it was late) is that their additional exposure during their schooling did not magically reverse their earlier false beliefs, but was assimilated into them. In addition, the example demonstrates that just because one has come to the right conclusion (in this case, evolution), that does not mean that they came there through skeptical analysis of the evidence.

So anyway, my intent was to show two sides of the same coin, then go to bed. At least I did the going to bed part.

Mercutio

22nd August 2007, 04:44 AM

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all. Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.
Are you suggesting that these things are, in principle, untestable? It seems they only turn untestable when Randi shows up; other than that, every believer has seen tons of proof...

There is a big difference, and I suspect you already know this, between something that is untestable in principle, and making post hoc excuses that render something unfalsifiable after the fact.

ImaginalDisc

22nd August 2007, 04:46 AM

Sorry--it was late. What I was thinking was "garbage in, garbage out" (because it is the common phrase, not because any particular view is garbage)--that is, he could be perfectly logical, but by working with incomplete evidence still end up at a false position. So, granted, I am using two different meanings of "deluded".

I was wondering, I used the word parsimonious for just that reason.

The point of the paper (again, sorry, it was late) is that their additional exposure during their schooling did not magically reverse their earlier false beliefs, but was assimilated into them. In addition, the example demonstrates that just because one has come to the right conclusion (in this case, evolution), that does not mean that they came there through skeptical analysis of the evidence.

So anyway, my intent was to show two sides of the same coin, then go to bed. At least I did the going to bed part.

Educated people can be just as stupid as everyone else. As a correct understanding of evolution isn't required to be a good doctor, there's no reason to except them to have one.

Unless that fellow has discovered a heretofore unknown parsimonious chain of reason which leads to god without starting there, I'm pretty sure he's fooling himself. Proof to the contrary is welcome.

CFLarsen

22nd August 2007, 05:04 AM

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all.

Not at all. If you don't like my answer about what a skeptic is, don't ask me the question.

Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Doesn't he? How can a theist not make testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.

Same applies: How can any of these not make testable claims?

Mercutio

22nd August 2007, 05:36 AM

Educated people can be just as stupid as everyone else. As a correct understanding of evolution isn't required to be a good doctor, there's no reason to except them to have one.
One would expect that people exposed to advanced biology courses to show some understanding of evolution. You are giving these doctors much more leeway than you give the pastor. Their belief is wrong, despite exposure to appropriate evidence. His belief is wrong, because of exposure to inappropriate evidence. Which of them is following the available evidence? Which of them are being skeptics?

Unless that fellow has discovered a heretofore unknown parsimonious chain of reason which leads to god without starting there, I'm pretty sure he's fooling himself. Proof to the contrary is welcome.
Any chain of reasoning is subject to the data available. He is not fooling himself, he is being fooled by his community. I cannot offer any definitive proof; all I can do is attest that he earnestly and frequently advocated questioning of matters of faith and belief, and looking for evidence.

Reptiliano

22nd August 2007, 07:14 AM

Perhaps I'm just being picky about semantics, or maybe I'd just been living under the proverbial rock for a while, but I'd never actually heard the word "skeptic" used in the religious sense this much. My primary exposure to that word (in the "skeptical" form) really came from news reports and current events, more often than not from business reports, of all things.

Atheism appears to be a belief system wherein there is definitely no God, and theism is the opposite. Perhaps we have a right to be skeptical about both?

ImaginalDisc

22nd August 2007, 09:29 AM

One would expect that people exposed to advanced biology courses to show some understanding of evolution. You are giving these doctors much more leeway than you give the pastor. Their belief is wrong, despite exposure to appropriate evidence. His belief is wrong, because of exposure to inappropriate evidence. Which of them is following the available evidence? Which of them are being skeptics?

Why are you needlessly entangling the issues of evolution and belief in god? Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity of life. It has nothing to do with the issue of the existence of god. The question of where life originated is not answered by evolution, that's a question of ambiogenesis. Proving evolution to be true does not disprove god, and neither does it preclude god. Even if god actually had caused life to initially arise on the planet some 3 billion years ago, evolution would still have taken place.

You're just trying to change the subject. Unless your pastor has evidence for god, he's delusional.

P.S. Medical students recieve an undergraduate level understanding of evolution in their pre-med programs. I'm not aware of higher level classes specifically regarding evolution for M.D.'s. I've recieved an undergraduate level understanding of chemistry, but I'm sure if you asked me about the details of some randomly selected chemical theory or pinciple, I'd be as likely to goof as any other educated person. I'm studying ecology, and a precise and accurate understanding of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, for example, isn't required in my field.

Any chain of reasoning is subject to the data available. He is not fooling himself, he is being fooled by his community. I cannot offer any definitive proof; all I can do is attest that he earnestly and frequently advocated questioning of matters of faith and belief, and looking for evidence.

One's community has no bearing on hard evidence. Oxygen has the same poperties for everyone, regardless of the company they keep. You are obfuscating the issue. Where is your pastor's teleological argument which points directly to god, with iron clad reasoning and proof? Does he use some other justification? Where are his facts, his proofs? I'd love to see them. If he doesn't have any such thing, when he claims that doubt and reasoning lead him to god he's just whistling Dixie.

P.S. However earnest he may have been, he was simply wrong. If he had anything meaningful to contribute which would settle the question of the existence of god, I doubt very much he'd keep mum about it.

Mercutio

22nd August 2007, 11:19 AM

Why are you needlessly entangling the issues of evolution and belief in god?
[snip]
You're just trying to change the subject. Unless your pastor has evidence for god, he's delusional.
[snip]
One's community has no bearing on hard evidence. Oxygen has the same poperties for everyone, regardless of the company they keep. You are obfuscating the issue.
I obviously have not made myself clear. Yes, there are piles and piles of overwhelming evidence in favor of Evolution. Yet these students apparently did not approach it critically. They came to a conclusion that agrees (on the face of it) with this evidence: they accepted evolution as Theory and fact. But they did so, if you will, delusionally. Their acceptance of evolution was due to faith in what some authority told them, not in an understanding of the evidence.

One's community has no bearing on hard evidence? Does not one's community have bearing on one's access to this evidence? I am not obfuscating, I am pointing out that we live in a real world, where if you ask for evidence, the evidence you get depends on whom you ask.

Just for clarity, do you also think these medical students were delusional in their beliefs?

Where is your pastor's teleological argument which points directly to god, with iron clad reasoning and proof? Does he use some other justification? Where are his facts, his proofs? I'd love to see them. If he doesn't have any such thing, when he claims that doubt and reasoning lead him to god he's just whistling Dixie.

P.S. However earnest he may have been, he was simply wrong. If he had anything meaningful to contribute which would settle the question of the existence of god, I doubt very much he'd keep mum about it.
He did preach, so he was not keeping mum about it. His evidence quite clearly does not reach your standards, but it certainly moved congregations.

If one does not have access to the science behind emotion, intense and overwhelming emotional reactions can be both powerful and mysterious. They are evidence--but of what? If you ask V.S. Ramachandran, they are evidence of the action of particular dopamine channels in the brain; if you ask Billy Graham, they are evidence of god's touch. (the difference is, if you ask each of them how they know this, you get vastly different answers. But asking the question in the first place is an act of skepticism, and it is one no matter which environment you were in--the one with Ramachandran or the one with Graham.)

DRBUZZ0

22nd August 2007, 12:22 PM

This is really confusing to me, the JREF is clearly and atheist organization. Religion plays no part in the JREF's goals, fund raising, or membership. There's no religious criteria for its admission as a member or its actions. It's a completely secular institution. What it isn't is anti-theist or religious. The JREF isn't in the business of attacking religion, or in promoting it. Religion is irrelevant to the actions of the JREF, religious claims are examined as rigorously as any others, when they are testable.

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.

That doesn't make the JREF an atheist organization anymore than it makes "Citizens for safer railroad crossings" or any other organization which is non-religious in nature atheistic.

Secular, yes, but atheistic? I would not go that far.

Clearly there are some atheistic undertones, based on Mr. Randi's coments on the subject, the fact that skepticism seems to have some things in common with atheism and such. But I don't see how this makes it an "Atheist" organization.

Hokulele

22nd August 2007, 12:24 PM

Given that 10% of the membership responded, I'm not so sure that it can be just swept away as a flawed poll. I deliberately left no room for movement, becuase I didn't expect anywhere near 50% to agree with the statement. That nearly 50% did is quite telling - unless you're suggesting that lots of members are so dishonest they'd vote according to likes and dislikes rather than what they believe.

I'm not saying it would carry through the whole membership at that rate, but I suspect you might fond a lot higher ratio of anti-theists than you think.

My point was that your poll was about being anti-theism, and MLynn's post was about certain posters being anti-theist. This is very similar to the Christian viewpoint of the difference between hating the sinner and hating the sin.

The Atheist

22nd August 2007, 12:51 PM

Are you suggesting that these things are, in principle, untestable? It seems they only turn untestable when Randi shows up; other than that, every believer has seen tons of proof...

There is a big difference, and I suspect you already know this, between something that is untestable in principle, and making post hoc excuses that render something unfalsifiable after the fact.

I'll answer this along with the next reply, which is the same.

Not at all. If you don't like my answer about what a skeptic is, don't ask me the question.

"Care" is the word, not "like". I reached a decison last week that anyone is welcome to lay out what a "skeptic" may believe in, because the word "sceptic" has been re-defined to include only people who have no theistic or deistic beliefs.

Doesn't he? How can a theist not make testable claims?

Gosh, you don't know many christians, do you? Most of them make no testable claims.

Same applies: How can any of these not make testable claims?

Ok, let's get to the meat of it all.

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

Anyway, these would seem to all be completely untestable claims:

A liberal christian version of god.

This version of god has no input into the world today, with his last visible action being the ressurrection of Jesus. Given that being 2000 years ago, the claim is untestable.

Therefore, a theist can be a "skeptic".

Psychics talking to dead people.

Unless the psychic makes a testable claim, e.g. "Your grandfather was named Mike and worked in a sawmill", that psychic may be classed as a "skeptic".

Astrology

As long as an astrologer makes no testable claim, e.g. "You will get married next year", an astrologer may be classed as a "skeptic".

UFOlogist.

A person could be 100% convinced that aliens visit earth regularly for the reason of anally-probing humans and be a "skeptic". In fact, this one probably goes well beyond skepticism, since there are large numbers of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.

Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

The Atheist

22nd August 2007, 12:54 PM

My point was that your poll was about being anti-theism, and MLynn's post was about certain posters being anti-theist. This is very similar to the Christian viewpoint of the difference between hating the sinner and hating the sin.

Eh? You've answered your own question - the two subjects are identical: anti-theism. Almost 50% of respondents qualify under that term.

Darat

22nd August 2007, 12:55 PM

...snip...

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

...snip...

Who is this "#2 'skeptic' in the JREF is a deist" ?

Hokulele

22nd August 2007, 12:56 PM

Eh? You've answered your own question - the two subjects are identical: anti-theism. Almost 50% of respondents qualify under that term.

Once again, you are conflating theism with theists. Please re-read MLynn's post.

CFLarsen

22nd August 2007, 01:26 PM

"Care" is the word, not "like". I reached a decison last week that anyone is welcome to lay out what a "skeptic" may believe in, because the word "sceptic" has been re-defined to include only people who have no theistic or deistic beliefs.

By whom?

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

Where does a deist make testable claims?

A liberal christian version of god.

This version of god has no input into the world today, with his last visible action being the ressurrection of Jesus. Given that being 2000 years ago, the claim is untestable.

Therefore, a theist can be a "skeptic".

Wrong. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Psychics talking to dead people.

Unless the psychic makes a testable claim, e.g. "Your grandfather was named Mike and worked in a sawmill", that psychic may be classed as a "skeptic".

Wrong. When a psychic claims to be talking to dead people, that is testable.

Astrology

As long as an astrologer makes no testable claim, e.g. "You will get married next year", an astrologer may be classed as a "skeptic".

Wrong. An astrologer makes by definition testable claims, since astrology is based on the claim that the planets' position in certain constellations influence and rule our lives.

UFOlogist.

A person could be 100% convinced that aliens visit earth regularly for the reason of anally-probing humans and be a "skeptic". In fact, this one probably goes well beyond skepticism, since there are large numbers of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

Wrong. Aliens visiting Earth regularly, anally probing humans, is a testable claim.

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.

Wrong. A ghost is a testable claim.

Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

You have been proven wrong.

Darat

22nd August 2007, 01:33 PM

...snip...

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.

Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

The Atheist

22nd August 2007, 02:55 PM

Who is this "#2 'skeptic' in the JREF is a deist" ?

He's a retired half-colonel named Bidlack and I understand that he's a deist. Whether or not he's #2 is a moot point, but I think he's probably the next best-known JREF personality behind Randi.

Once again, you are conflating theism with theists. Please re-read MLynn's post.

No, I'm not conflating anything. Theists practice theism.

Where does a deist make testable claims?

Please learn to read what is written - I said that they make no testable claims.

Wrong. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Even for you, that's quite absurd. How can you test it 2000 years ago? Since we don't have the ability to travel in time and test those claims, they are untestable. Thanks for confirming my point - liberal christians can be "skeptics".

Wrong. When a psychic claims to be talking to dead people, that is testable.

Absurd answer again. How is it testable? Your assertion that it's testable is quite laughable. Certainly, some "psychics" may make testable claims, but some don't.

Wrong. An astrologer makes by definition testable claims, since astrology is based on the claim that the planets' position in certain constellations influence and rule our lives.

Total ignorance of astrology noted. Try again; several astrologers make only untestable claims.

Wrong. Aliens visiting Earth regularly, anally probing humans, is a testable claim.

Oh, let's see it, I'm ready for a good laugh. How do you propose testing that?

Wrong. A ghost is a testable claim.

Dumbest comment yet.

Given your total inability to do anything but make assertions, backed purely by your position as a bloke who claims not to be the Uber-skeptic, try to actually present an argument with some bases next time. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy that some believers in astrology, psychics, ghosts and god/s may be "skeptics".

You have been proven wrong.

No, I'm sorry, chappie, but that's not how it works. You have made a series of unfounded assertions. The only thing you've proven is your total inability to back your points with either facts or honesty.

Nothing new.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

No, I didn't miss that at all, unless there's some particular meaning of the word "ghost" I'm unfamiliar with.

Feel free to explain what you actually believe in - given that you've approached the matter "skeptically".

Cheers.

CFLarsen

23rd August 2007, 12:00 AM

He's a retired half-colonel named Bidlack and I understand that he's a deist. Whether or not he's #2 is a moot point, but I think he's probably the next best-known JREF personality behind Randi.

If Hal is a deist who doesn't make testable claims, what is the problem?

If it is a moot point if he is #2 or not, why bring it up? Is it because you didn't know he was a deist, but thought he was a theist?

Even for you, that's quite absurd. How can you test it 2000 years ago? Since we don't have the ability to travel in time and test those claims, they are untestable. Thanks for confirming my point - liberal christians can be "skeptics".

No, they can't. There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. The time difference is irrelevant.

Absurd answer again. How is it testable? Your assertion that it's testable is quite laughable. Certainly, some "psychics" may make testable claims, but some don't.

It is testable, because we can see if the information is more than just cold reading. E.g., pointing to a will, hidden somewhere.

Total ignorance of astrology noted. Try again; several astrologers make only untestable claims.

Name one, and provide a full account of their claims. Also, explain how they can make untestable claims.

Oh, let's see it, I'm ready for a good laugh. How do you propose testing that?

Capture an alien. Get evidence from their ship. Actually observe someone being beamed through their ceiling.

Dumbest comment yet.

Not at all. We can film a ghost, or sometimes talk to one. Technically, there is little difference between a ghost and a psychic talking to dead people.

Given your total inability to do anything but make assertions, backed purely by your position as a bloke who claims not to be the Uber-skeptic, try to actually present an argument with some bases next time. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy that some believers in astrology, psychics, ghosts and god/s may be "skeptics".

It seems as if you consider quite a lot of the paranormal/supernatural beliefs untestable, and therefore outside the scope of skepticism.

Which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

Corpse Cruncher

23rd August 2007, 12:29 AM

Argh - I keep hearing different opinions about who's a "real" skeptic and who isn't:

* Only anti-theists can be skeptics
* Being an atheist isn't enough - you must be "anti."
* Believers are buffoons and idiots who are to be laughed at because they aren't enlightened enough to see "the truth."

I used to think I was somewhat welcome here, but lately the atmosphere here has been really intense. I don't know what to do.
If that is the case then, probably, less people will turn to skepticism for answers to questions they have. So might lead on to the end of skepticism.

Has this place for you taken on the appearence of an extreme fundamentalist state?

Could I ask you why you feel you feel that you are personally are unwelcome here or made to feel such? I am not interested in names just the why.

Nobody should be laughed out, nobody should be belittled for their beliefs. If they force those beliefs on others then I hope they reap what they sowed.

Skepticism is a tool like a calculator. Can it applied to every day life? I would say yes that is my opinion and I do apply it. Others through their posts have shown possibly that it can't.

Another member asked whether I was confusing skepticism with cynicism. I honestly do no know. Perhaps I am being cynical rather than skeptical?

My concern is the use of the term 'skeptic'. Can it be used in the same lines as Christian, Psychologist, Politician etc? If so can a Christan call themselves a skeptic basing on their beliefs? My answer to the latter is no for me. Same applies to those who channel the dead, etc; they are equally not skeptics. They use skepticism but are not skeptics.

Corpse Cruncher

23rd August 2007, 12:32 AM

Are you saying that you have to be an atheist if you are a skeptic?
Whatever I say you will twist to suit your purpose of arguing for the sake of it.

So let's say in this instance:

I am
I am not.

The Atheist

23rd August 2007, 12:41 AM

If Hal is a deist who doesn't make testable claims, what is the problem?

None at all, I was agreeing that deists can be "skeptics". Unfortunately, they won't qualify as sceptics.

If it is a moot point if he is #2 or not, why bring it up? Is it because you didn't know he was a deist, but thought he was a theist?

No, I was pretty confident that he is a deist, I brought it up, because he's clearly very close to James Randi and accordingly, it's highly unlikely that people connected with JREF will rubbish his claims. (whatever they might be)

No, they can't. There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. The time difference is irrelevant.

:dl:

Oh my word. You should read some of your stuff sometime.

Ok, the claim is testable. How are you going to test it?

It is testable, because we can see if the information is more than just cold reading. E.g., pointing to a will, hidden somewhere.

Ah, I see. While I accept that "skeptics" must obey your guidelines, I didn't realise that psychics must as well. It seems that you're talking about an entirely different type of psychic to me, but I didn't realise that all psychics make identical, testable claims. Thanks for clearing that misconception up! Gosh, you are clever at this, aren't you? I must point out to a couple of people I know who claim to be psychic that they're doing it all wrong. I'll pass on the SkepticReport e mail so they don't mess it up in the future.

Name one, and provide a full account of their claims. Also, explain how they can make untestable claims.

Shirley Russell, Joanne Smith, Janet Cornwall. That's three for a start. They claim that astrology consists of guidelines to live by depending upon one's astrological chart. They don't attempt to predict the future.

If you can find a testable claim in there, go for it and I'll give you one or other of their phone numbers.

Capture an alien. Get evidence from their ship. Actually observe someone being beamed through their ceiling.

Way to be deliberately obtuse. How can a mere human capture an alien life form which is infinitely more intelligent than us, with recourse to technology totally unknown on earth.

Try again.

Not at all. We can film a ghost, or sometimes talk to one. Technically, there is little difference between a ghost and a psychic talking to dead people.

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

It seems as if you consider quite a lot of the paranormal/supernatural beliefs untestable, and therefore outside the scope of skepticism.

Quite right, although "some" would be a better description than "quite a lot".

Fortunately, scepticism doesn't have that problem. Scepticism demands proof before claims are accepted, putting the onus on the claimant rather than the "skeptic" who will seek to find a testable claim to debunk.

Sceptics don't wate time like that, they just say, "Show me the proof or run home to mummy."

Which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

Ones which can be tested. Unlike "skeptics", sceptics don't generalise.

Darat

23rd August 2007, 01:13 AM

...snip...

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

...snip...

Again - Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

The Atheist

23rd August 2007, 01:25 AM

It would depend on the definition - for example I have stated many a time here that I believe that ghosts exists and I have arrived at that conclusion by what I consider is skeptical reasoning.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

Again - Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

Yep, I saw it the first time.

And the second time...

And the third...

Maybe you could be so jolly decent as to enlighten me on what constitutes the particular form of "ghost" your skeptical reasoning has led to.

I get the drift that you recognise only one form - it would just be far more interesting if I knew which one that was.

Cheers.

Darat

23rd August 2007, 01:34 AM

Take it to another thread, that is derailing this thread. I was only interested in correcting your mistaken use of me as an example in this thread.

The Atheist

23rd August 2007, 02:26 AM

Take it to another thread, that is derailing this thread. I was only interested in correcting your mistaken use of me as an example in this thread.

Done. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2896608#post2896608)

CFLarsen

23rd August 2007, 03:11 AM

Whatever I say you will twist to suit your purpose of arguing for the sake of it.

So let's say in this instance:

I am
I am not.

A non-answer.

None at all, I was agreeing that deists can be "skeptics". Unfortunately, they won't qualify as sceptics.

If you are referring to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91169), well..you don't get to redefine terms, and then tell people they are wrong.

No, I was pretty confident that he is a deist, I brought it up, because he's clearly very close to James Randi and accordingly, it's highly unlikely that people connected with JREF will rubbish his claims. (whatever they might be)

That makes no sense.

You bring up Hal's presence as "#2" at JREF as a problem for JREF. Then, when you learn that Hal is a deist, it suddenly isn't a problem anymore.

That sounds like you didn't know Hal was a deist.

:dl:

Oh my word. You should read some of your stuff sometime.

Ok, the claim is testable. How are you going to test it?

You should read what I said: There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Ah, I see. While I accept that "skeptics" must obey your guidelines, I didn't realise that psychics must as well. It seems that you're talking about an entirely different type of psychic to me, but I didn't realise that all psychics make identical, testable claims. Thanks for clearing that misconception up! Gosh, you are clever at this, aren't you? I must point out to a couple of people I know who claim to be psychic that they're doing it all wrong. I'll pass on the SkepticReport e mail so they don't mess it up in the future.

First, it isn't my guidelines. You asked how psychics could be tested, and I told you ways to do it.

Second, what "type" of psychic are you talking about?

Shirley Russell, Joanne Smith, Janet Cornwall. That's three for a start. They claim that astrology consists of guidelines to live by depending upon one's astrological chart. They don't attempt to predict the future.

That's exactly what they do, when they tell people that the planets' positions in the sky guide people's lives. That's a measurable influence.

If you can find a testable claim in there, go for it and I'll give you one or other of their phone numbers.

Why?

Way to be deliberately obtuse. How can a mere human capture an alien life form which is infinitely more intelligent than us, with recourse to technology totally unknown on earth.

Try again.

Even humans, "infinitely more intelligent" than a Portuguese man-of-war, can be killed by it.

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

Does he claim evidence of them?

Ones which can be tested. Unlike "skeptics", sceptics don't generalise.

Then, don't: Be specific. Which can be tested?

The Atheist

23rd August 2007, 03:33 AM

A non-answer.

Glad you admit it at last.

Pipirr

23rd August 2007, 08:03 AM

Any evidence that the JREF is officially a 'skeptical organization'?

CFLarsen

23rd August 2007, 11:47 AM

Glad you admit it at last.

What "type" of psychic are you talking about?

Why would you give me phone numbers to the psychics you mentioned?

Does Darat claim evidence of ghosts?

Specifically, which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

The Atheist

23rd August 2007, 12:18 PM

What "type" of psychic are you talking about?

Why would you give me phone numbers to the psychics you mentioned?

Does Darat claim evidence of ghosts?

Specifically, which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

No, I'm sorry, I have no need of three or four pages of being on the carousel with you, I've already shown that your position is absurd.

If you figure out how a claim of a happening 2000 years ago is testable - in reality - feel free to get back to me. In the meantime, I see no point in bothering with any of the lesser bits.

Corpse Cruncher

24th August 2007, 01:04 AM

A non-answer.
No there are two answers given.

None you wanted but then as far as I know the world is still revolving around the sun.

six7s

24th August 2007, 03:36 AM

Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

Unfortunately, for the self-styled Grammar Stalins, the rest of the (real) world will need to be informed via a forum frequented by more than just a select few

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t54.html)

A word gets into the dictionary by being used. That's the only way.

Lexicographers - the people who make dictionaries - don't make words; they find them and record them.

They are like the entomologist who goes into the rain forest looking for new species of beetles.

Similarly, you can't invent a word and petition to have it admitted into the dictionary.

You can invent a word and use it, of course, and if your word catches on it might end up in the dictionary some day.

However, this is extremely unlikely.

UnrepentantSinner

24th August 2007, 04:17 AM

What "type" of psychic are you talking about?

Why would you give me phone numbers to the psychics you mentioned?

Does Darat claim evidence of ghosts?

Specifically, which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

Can we get this thread back to the OP which is the public face of organized skepticism re: atheism and how it might effect recruitment/educational efforts.

CFLarsen

24th August 2007, 05:03 AM

A split is fine with me.

Gurdur

24th August 2007, 06:50 AM

I take it that the JREF is still not an atheist organization.

six7s

24th August 2007, 06:58 AM

Even the atheists are praying for an answer on that one ;)

UnrepentantSinner

24th August 2007, 07:36 AM

A split is fine with me.

Thanks. And I think the discussion you guys are having is one that warrents attention, but it's off topic from what I was hoping to discuss in this thread. :)

Darth Rotor

24th August 2007, 09:26 AM

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.
Try practicing skepticism rather then belief in skepticism, and you'll have both a better parallel statement, and a better idea of why a skeptic can also choose to adhere to a religion.

I'll offer that being an agnostic is a natural partner to skepticism, as one understands that there is so much one simply doesn't know, and either does, or doesn't, find out.

DR

Darth Rotor

24th August 2007, 09:28 AM

Because, if you are religious, religion forms your most basic understanding of how the world works. It permeates every aspect of your life.
I at first thought this a Clausian Distribution of Straw, but maybe assertion is closer to your holding that all religious people put sugar on their porridge, wear kilts, and sing "Scotland The Brave" when the pipes play it.

Your statement as made is false, and fallacious, and can only be considered remotely valid as your perception of how religious people function. If that is how you perceive them, then I have to ask: broad brush much, Claus?

I'll also offer that when people discuss "strong atheism" and "weak atheism," we can as well discuss "strong Christians" and "Strong Muslims" and "Strong Mormons" as well as those who are far more loose, and more casual, in their practices and beliefs. There is nothing monolithic, nor homogenous, about religious people, be they monotheist, polytheist, or pastatheist. :)

DR

CFLarsen

24th August 2007, 09:36 AM

Strawman. And by the way, that is false as a utile statement, and can only be considered remotely valid as your perception of how religion works.

Broad brush much, Claus?

DR

How does religion not form your most basic understanding of how the world works?

Chaos

24th August 2007, 10:01 AM

Even the atheists are praying for an answer on that one ;)

Atheists are, pretty much by definition, not on speaking terms with anyone who answers prayers.

Me, I don´t pray. I just silently wonder.

Darth Rotor

24th August 2007, 12:21 PM

How does religion not form your most basic understanding of how the world works?
Because I was raised agnostic, Claus. Can you list the imbedded assumptions in your question?

The other matter is that some people treat their religion as a philosophy, and as a moral guideline, and do not feel bound by your narrow redefinition of their, or any, religion in any way, shape, or form.

Hello, Claus, not everyone accepts the world as viewed through your eyes.

Deal with it.

Oh, and while I am at it, I'll return your stupid question with a stupid question: how does you being Danish not make you an axe murderer? Let's follow the silly bouncing ball, shall we?

Some Danes were Vikings, and some Vikings used axes, and some killed people in Viking raids, therefore, you being a Dane means you kill people with axes, and are thus an axe murderer by virture of being Danish.

That's equivalent to your silly notion of autoassociation.

Heck, let's go for another.

Apples have skin, I have skin, therefore I am an apple.

Heck, let's go one further.

I breath air, you breath air, therefore you are me and I am the Walrus, and you are Paul. (Reference lyrics to Glass Onion, The Beatles)

DR

CFLarsen

24th August 2007, 12:29 PM

Because I was raised agnostic, Claus.

Not you you. You as in religious people.

Darth Rotor

24th August 2007, 12:34 PM

Not you you. You as in religious people.
I'll not arrogate to myself the role of spokesman for religious people, for the simple reason that I can't, and that is part of the problem with your overly broad generalization.

You choose to render the differences moot in order to prop up your No True Scotsman position on how "religious people" do or do not approach the world.

I have had my fun, I hope you have a lovely weekend.

Cheers.

DR

CFLarsen

24th August 2007, 12:44 PM

I'll not arrogate to myself the role of spokesman for religious people, for the simple reason that I can't, and that is part of the problem with your overly broad generalization.

Nobody is asking you to be a spokesman for religious people.

You choose to render the differences moot in order to prop up your No True Scotsman position on how "religious people" do or do not approach the world.

Not at all. It should have been clear to all that obviously I was talking about religious people.

But, I see you have nothing to say on that issue.

Darth Rotor

24th August 2007, 07:28 PM

But, I see you have nothing further to say on that issue.
There, fixed it for ya.
Nobody is asking you to be a spokesman for religious people.
Oh?
How does religion not form your most basic understanding of how the world works?
Because I was raised agnostic, Claus.
Not you you. You as in religious people.
Ya could have fooled me.

DR

The Atheist

24th August 2007, 07:33 PM

Not you you. You as in religious people.

I'll not arrogate to myself the role of spokesman for religious people, for the simple reason that I can't, and that is part of the problem with your overly broad generalization.

Nobody is asking you to be a spokesman for religious people.

There are times when even the laughing dog doesn't begin to convey the irony, the humour and the goal-post-shifting of just a couple of sentences from the Hero of Skepticism.

Nor the derision it deserves.

The Atheist

24th August 2007, 07:34 PM

Ya could have fooled me.

DR

Beat me to it!

*****!

UnrepentantSinner

24th August 2007, 07:58 PM

How does religion not form your most basic understanding of how the world works?

One thing I've noticed when working with TEs in the Crevo debate is that a lot of them are fine with having the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the workings of the Universe. They just think God set those laws in place. They also seem to take a pragmatic approach to their faith apart from salvation issues (Thank God for unanswered prayers).

I know a Christian physicist, geneticist and paleontologist and they do their day job just like you and I do. They just don't sleep late on Sundays.

CFLarsen

25th August 2007, 12:12 AM

Oh?

Ya could have fooled me.

That's a very interesting response.

We cannot say anything about a certain group of believers unless we belong to it?

Does that mean you think the articles on Rob Lancaster's site about Sylvia Browne are worthless? Or any of Randi's writings on believers?

One thing I've noticed when working with TEs in the Crevo debate is that a lot of them are fine with having the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the workings of the Universe. They just think God set those laws in place. They also seem to take a pragmatic approach to their faith apart from salvation issues (Thank God for unanswered prayers).

I know a Christian physicist, geneticist and paleontologist and they do their day job just like you and I do. They just don't sleep late on Sundays.

That's precisely it: They think that God formed everything in the Universe.

cj.23

25th August 2007, 03:25 AM

To be honest while the JREF forum (as distinct from the JREF) has in the short time i have been posting had many fun debates about religion, there appears to be a sudden plethora of proselytising theists and vocal atheists arguing it out. Is this just me, or has something changed? If so, what? I post a lot on the Dawkins forum, and am as happy discussing atheism versus theism as anyone i think, but it just seems to becoming a dominant theme here which is a bit of a shame in some ways. Is this just a perception error on my part?

cj x

brodski

25th August 2007, 08:14 AM

The Atheist

25th August 2007, 01:26 PM

Toppics here tend to go in cycles, I agree, at the moment there are a lot of hardline Athiest/ tehist deates at the meoment, but tehy will die down and a new flavour of the month will spring up.

Now, I know you're in a Grammar War, but some of these tactics were disallowed at the Gevena Covnetion of '93!]

2 pm Saturday; what are you on?

:bgrin:

You might be right on the cyclical nature, though.

I'm surprised this thread's gone on for so long. Randi's always maintained that he has never wanted it to be an atheist organisation, despite being a fairly strong atheist himself.

Carry on...