JREF a Gay Organization?

[Hawk one]

Originally Posted by dglas

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

Thus endeth the lesson.

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by dglas

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


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

are you interested ?
wanna give me a reacharound ?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

Really?

This is n ot an agreement?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg

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

It's obvious to almost everyone.

What would you call it then?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

!

Bravo!

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

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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

Where have I said anything about misinterpretation of that statement?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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

[quote=Belz...;5407095]I agreed with Jeff's statement that it wasn't hard to understand.

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

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

Very good.

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

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

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

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

Shall I re-post his quote again?

Quote:

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

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

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

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

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

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

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

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

You wouldn't do that would you?

[KoihimeNakamura]

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

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Rika

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

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

[MikeSun5]

what I've noticed lurking on this thread:

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


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

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by dglas

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

DJ is totally going to unfriend you now.

[Belgian thought]

Originally Posted by dglas

Leaving the unbecoming "loonies" snarkiness aside.

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

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

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

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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

That is, after all, a more correct position. Because it clearly can.

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

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

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

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

[Riayn]

Originally Posted by dglas

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

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

Sorry, still not offended or feeling discriminated by that statement.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Very good.

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

Irrelevant. People can BE theists even if they use the tools of science, or even conclude that theism is true using the tools of science. It doesn't matter that you or I think they are wrong, they are welcome to discuss these isues here. I do believe this is what he meant.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

That is, after all, a more correct position. Because it clearly can.

Hey, Mercutio! Haven't seen you in a while. Glad to see you back.

[dglas]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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

As for the alleged tread topic?
This does not address the OP.
But, defense reflex noted. I know it well. THAT'S the point of the OP.

Really, just about everyone gets it. Now why won't they recognize it? Is it because it is James Randi who did it?

[dglas]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

DJ is totally going to unfriend you now.

That is his right, of course, but if he has the acuity I think he has, he'll recognize what I'm saying. But then ... I have been disappointed before.

Of course, he could check my profile and causes at any point to see where I stand on issues respecting homosexuality. In fact, mine is one of the very few "everyone can see" profiles (if I read the settings properly). Anyone could check.

Perhaps it of note that I do not intend to unfriend him.

[Cavemonster]

dglas,
Can you link to where you first saw the published sentence that offends you so much?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

That is, after all, a more correct position. Because it clearly can.

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

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

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

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

Well said.


Or in hipster parlance..... "lizard".

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by dglas

So, let's review this thread...

You understand, I hope, that others view this thread very differently than you do. Have you considered the possibility that there may be merit in other peoples' viewpoints here, in the same way that you want other people to consider yours?

[kuroyume0161]

Here is the meat of your OP:

Originally Posted by dglas

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

Here is my answer:

"No, we do not."

Word games and contextual exercises aren't the hallmarks of being skeptical. The original 'offending statement' upon which this OP is based wasn't a 'policy statement' (and it wasn't Alan who alerted me to it - I read the original foray at the time it was happening). It was a clarification wherein one wasn't required but instead provoked. Sort of like your provocation (I get the idea). Your brevity and lack of reference in the OP to the original provocation just confused the matter for some and has put you into the light of being a bit disingenuous about the motivation for the post (whether rightfully or not).

I agree that the original 'foray' was not handled tactfully by the organization. But you should have made reference to the foray for those who may have had no knowledge of it and its connectivity to the OP. And, of course, the original provocation had the air of 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' about it which just oozed 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything'. Silence is sometimes golden.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by dglas

Now some suggest, and often in insulting language, there is another way of viewing the statement such that it is perfectly neutral - which, of course, is not to the point. I am perfectly capable of reading it that way, but realize it is disingenuous to do so.

So you know full well what the statement meant, but you choose to take umbrage at it?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Irrelevant. People can BE theists even if they use the tools of science, or even conclude that theism is true using the tools of science. It doesn't matter that you or I think they are wrong, they are welcome to discuss these isues here. I do believe this is what he meant.

Fair enough, people believe all kinds of weird ****,

Originally Posted by Mercutio

That is, after all, a more correct position. Because it clearly can.

This should be interesting, away you go....

Originally Posted by Mercutio

The tools of science require one to follow the evidence, no? They do not, however, provide the evidence. Evidence, of course, comes from the environment a given person is in. Variability being part of reality, it is conceivable, perhaps inevitable, that a given person, let alone a person whose environment is steeped in religion will not encounter the same evidence as any other given person.

Ignorance is strength, to be sure, but one of the real commandments of the bible is seek and ye shall find.

If I'm looking for a lost kid, I'd be leaving no stone unturned; if I'm looking for a god, I'd be looking at the stones as well.

You have, however, outlined neatly why YECs exist - the evidence isn't necessarily that easy to find and if you don't bother looking too hard, you can kid yourself into thinking the earth is 6014 years old.

Avoiding science doesn't seem to be very relevant, but let's go on...

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Indeed, it is conceivable, perhaps inevitable, that the preponderance of the evidence may be overwhelmingly convincing (depending on one's decision criteria) and utterly at odds with another person's.

"depending on one's decision criteria"? Doesn't sound any relation to science, although some AGW deniers could use it pretty well. Dean Radin's built a whole career on it, so I'll concur that it works, but it ain't science.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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

Bold assertions do not a science make.

Thus far, you're great explanation of why people ignore large parts of science, refuse to accept evidence, make bold assertions and make stupid statements, but all you're doing is displaying an ignorance of what science actually is.

I'm probably not the best person to state fully what it is, but assertions, belief and argument aren't in it.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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

This is a surprising plea for ignorance as a defence. I don't believe there is such a thing as "short-run science". Calling scientific misconception "science" is pretty disingenuous, in my view.

I would have bet you were smarter than that, so you've cost me a dollar.

You've made a great case for misuse of science excusing belief.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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

While it's on-topic to the OP, no part of my argument involves gay analogies, so I'll leave it for dglas.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

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

Wagg has eggs?

Is he/she a hermaphrodite, or whatever the politically correct form of address is nowadays; intersex?

I'll have to change my approach; maybe I'm being too direct?

[Doubt]

dglas,

You have stated that people who disagree with you are closed minded. IIRC, you have also stated that we are not thinking.

Okay, teach us. Build a syllogism that supports your reasoning. Be prepared to defend it.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

dglas, I do not see where I attacked you.

My response is below. Please let me know how that is a personal attack, any more than implying I'm, um, stupid, is.

If I did attack, or even be as rude to you as you were to me, show me. I apologize in advance, as it was not my intention. I just think you're wrong.

The "is everyone wrong but you" line wasn't exactly the most blossoming olive branch I've ever seen, but I'm not 100% sure I'd call it a personal attack.

It is wrong though. I've said before that I disagree with the atheist comment. I don't find it exclusionary so much as that I agree with The Atheist in that evidence-based rational skepticism only leads one place, religiously speaking.

[Geek Goddess]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

It is wrong though. I've said before that I disagree with the atheist comment. I don't find it exclusionary so much as that I agree with The Atheist in that evidence-based rational skepticism only leads one place, religiously speaking.

I agree, and think that people who find science leads them to god are doing it wrong, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. In anything.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Geek Goddess

I agree, and think that people who find science leads them to god are doing it wrong, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. In anything.

Forgive me, but I don't see why you used the word 'but' in that sentence.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I don't find it exclusionary so much as that I agree with The Atheist in that evidence-based rational skepticism only leads one place, religiously speaking.

I agree that based on the evidence we have today, this is true.

However, let's suppose that tomorrow some incontrovertible evidence of a divine creator manifested itself.

If JREF is truly a skeptical organization, it keeps right on going with its goal of getting everyone to make evidence-based decisions.

If JREF is truly an atheist organization, it either stubbornly sticks to atheism despite the new evidence or, more likely, simply goes away.

I like to think that JREF would keep going strong. Cthulhu's appearance over San Francisco wouldn't suddenly make homeopathy effective, nor would it invalidate the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution, etc.

So in my preferred view of the world, JREF is not a fundamentally atheist organization. Atheism is a reasonable, provisional conclusion based on JREFs tenets, but that's all.

[Geek Goddess]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Forgive me, but I don't see why you used the word 'but' in that sentence.

"and" ?

I don't think science will ever prove god exists. It would have, by now.

Unlike Fundies, I will change my mind if ever presented with sufficient evidence. However, I shall not being holding my breath.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

If JREF is truly an atheist organization, it either stubbornly sticks to atheism despite the new evidence or, more likely, simply goes away.

That only works if you define atheists as idiots who take non-belief as faith and deny evidence that contradicts it.

I don't.

I think the skeptical position now is atheism. If the evidence changes (hah) then the skeptical position will change.

@GeekGoddess: I was just wondering why you thought that being open to new evidence served as a qualifier to your agreement. If it didn't, that's cool.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is a surprising plea for ignorance as a defence. I don't believe there is such a thing as "short-run science". Calling scientific misconception "science" is pretty disingenuous, in my view.

I would have bet you were smarter than that, so you've cost me a dollar.

You've made a great case for misuse of science excusing belief.

My science deals with real people in a real world; real people recognize ignorance in hindsight, if at all (otherwise it wouldn't be ignorance, would it?). "Scientific misconception" is a nice term; do you have a way, other than hindsight, by which you identify it? Could you tell us which current experimental results are actually type I error, and which are true results? Cos that's pretty much what you are asking of scientists.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

That only works if you define atheists as idiots who take non-belief as faith and deny evidence that contradicts it.

I don't.

I think the skeptical position now is atheism. If the evidence changes (hah) then the skeptical position will change.

I agree. And that's why I consider JREF to be a fundamentally skeptical organization and not fundamentally an atheist organization. If atheism and skepticism were in conflict, we'd go with skepticism.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I agree. And that's why I consider JREF to be a fundamentally skeptical organization and not fundamentally an atheist organization. If atheism and skepticism were in conflict, we'd go with skepticism.

Yet once again you raise the specter of the fundamentalist atheist. Such a creature has yet to be spotted, so it's doubtful an organization could subscribe to their philosophy.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

My science deals with real people in a real world; real people recognize ignorance in hindsight, if at all (otherwise it wouldn't be ignorance, would it?). "Scientific misconception" is a nice term; do you have a way, other than hindsight, by which you identify it? Could you tell us which current experimental results are actually type I error, and which are true results? Cos that's pretty much what you are asking of scientists.

No, you're now just moving further away from the point.

What you're after is something along the lines of the AGW debate where there is clear disagreement between scientists and while you or I might make a coherent case for AGW being real and verifiable, it's quite forgiveable that some people get confused. It is, however, not particularly relevant.

In the case of god/s, we've had several thousand years of claims, every single one of which has been thoroughly investigated and failed - as regards physical claims anyway.

The question was "what science leads to theism".

You've failed to answer it, instead presenting a miasma of obfuscation showing that faux science can lead to theism.

Instead of me finding what category 1 errors have occurred, either give some real world examples of how science leads to theism, or you just avoid the subject like the others who have accepted the premise without any evidence whatsoever.

[Riayn]

Dglas, I think you raised an interesting question about the statement that JREF is not an atheist organisation being taken the wrong way by some atheists and implying that they are not welcome. I don't share your viewpoint, but it would have been an interesting discussion.

Unfortunately, you chose to demonstrate your viewpoint in way that came across as extremely inflammatory and homophobic. Therefore, the credibility you might have had was immediately lost resulting in forum members responding to you in the way that they did, myself included.

Sometimes it is useful to shock people to get them thinking about in a different way about a topic, but most of the times it backfires. Here it has backfired in a spectacular fashion.

[not daSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Riayn

Sometimes it is useful to shock people to get them thinking about in a different way about a topic, but most of the times it backfires. Here it has backfired in a spectacular fashion.

And how.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, you're now just moving further away from the point.

Translation: "I think you're beginning to derail my derail."

Originally Posted by Riayn

Sometimes it is useful to shock people to get them thinking about in a different way about a topic, but most of the times it backfires. Here it has backfired in a spectacular fashion.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Instead of me finding what category 1 errors have occurred, either give some real world examples of how science leads to theism, or you just avoid the subject like the others who have accepted the premise without any evidence whatsoever.

If only there were some nationally known figure, say the director of the NIH or something, who had written something about how scientific discovery represents an opportunity to worship, and whose progress was scientist first, becoming religious.

If there were, I am sure he would eat his porridge the wrong way, or there would be some other way to dismiss his self description.

But if someone like that existed, you would never need to ask for examples.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Yet once again you raise the specter of the fundamentalist atheist. Such a creature has yet to be spotted, so it's doubtful an organization could subscribe to their philosophy.

Please re-read. I am "raising the specter" of atheist organizations and I believe that there is strong evidence for exactly such things.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I agree. And that's why I consider JREF to be a fundamentally skeptical organization and not fundamentally an atheist organization. If atheism and skepticism were in conflict, we'd go with skepticism.

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Yet once again you raise the specter of the fundamentalist atheist. Such a creature has yet to be spotted, so it's doubtful an organization could subscribe to their philosophy.

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Please re-read. I am "raising the specter" of atheist organizations and I believe that there is strong evidence for exactly such things.

Sorry, quixotecoyote, but I agree with dasmiller here. The phrase "a fundamentally skeptical organisation" is not the same thing as "a fundamentalist atheist". One can still use the adverb "fundamentally" without referring to fundamentalist beliefs. It's like me saying "I am a fundamentally lazy person". That says nothing about my beliefs, only the extent to which I am lazy.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Yet once again you raise the specter of the fundamentalist atheist. Such a creature has yet to be spotted, so it's doubtful an organization could subscribe to their philosophy.

There are fundamentalist atheists. They're sometimes called militant atheists.