The JREF is not an atheist organization

UnrepentantSinner · 15th August 2007, 06:21 PM

Is this a correct statement and should it have any effect on our approach to the public face of organized skepticism? If it is not a correct statement, should the JREF change its mission statement to reflect this fact.

Wowbagger · 15th August 2007, 06:31 PM

I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct.

prewitt81 · 15th August 2007, 07:20 PM

Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14

UnrepentantSinner · 15th August 2007, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct.

I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum. My being an atheist on Christianforums doesn't have any effect on the mission of that organization.

UnrepentantSinner · 15th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by prewitt81

Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14

I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists.

tsg · 15th August 2007, 08:17 PM

Short answer: no.

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

ImaginalDisc · 15th August 2007, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner;

I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists.

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

prewitt81 · 15th August 2007, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

Agreed. We've made a label out of an action.

UnrepentantSinner · 15th August 2007, 08:27 PM

Excellent and highly appropriate quip prewitt. I like it.

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that.

prewitt81 · 15th August 2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that.

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.

Miss Anthrope · 15th August 2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by prewitt81

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

Originally Posted by Caius Textor

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

Originally Posted by Caius Textor

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

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum.

So was I.

Caius Textor · 15th August 2007, 09:15 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.

UnrepentantSinner · 15th August 2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Caius Textor

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

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.

Originally Posted by Darat

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

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

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

Originally Posted by MortFurd

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

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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

Originally Posted by Caius Textor

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

Originally Posted by prewitt81

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

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

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.

Originally Posted by Beady

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

Originally Posted by prewitt81

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

Originally Posted by prewitt81

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

Originally Posted by Darat

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

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

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.

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

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

Originally Posted by brodski

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

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

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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

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

Originally Posted by brodski

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.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher

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."

15th August 2007, 06:21 PM	#1
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	The JREF is not an atheist organization Is this a correct statement and should it have any effect on our approach to the public face of organized skepticism? If it is not a correct statement, should the JREF change its mission statement to reflect this fact.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

15th August 2007, 06:31 PM	#2
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,520	I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

15th August 2007, 07:20 PM	#3
prewitt81 Notoriously Glorious Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,208	Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14
	__________________ Knowledge is Power! "If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

15th August 2007, 08:10 PM	#4
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by Wowbagger I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct. I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum. My being an atheist on Christianforums doesn't have any effect on the mission of that organization.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

15th August 2007, 08:15 PM	#5
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by prewitt81 Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14 I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

15th August 2007, 08:17 PM	#6
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Short answer: no. Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

15th August 2007, 08:19 PM	#7
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner; I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists. No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

15th August 2007, 08:21 PM	#8
prewitt81 Notoriously Glorious Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,208	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition. Agreed. We've made a label out of an action.
	__________________ Knowledge is Power! "If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

15th August 2007, 08:27 PM	#9
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Excellent and highly appropriate quip prewitt. I like it. Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition. That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

15th August 2007, 08:41 PM	#10
prewitt81 Notoriously Glorious Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,208	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that. 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.
	__________________ Knowledge is Power! "If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

15th August 2007, 08:48 PM	#11
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by prewitt81 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.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

15th August 2007, 08:53 PM	#12
Caius Textor Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht - The Netherlands Posts: 344	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.
	__________________ Caio B. F. W. Abramo Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas - Etica Nicomachea I,4,1096a16

15th August 2007, 09:08 PM	#13
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,659	Originally Posted by Caius Textor 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.

15th August 2007, 09:12 PM	#14
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by Caius Textor 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.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

15th August 2007, 09:14 PM	#15
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,520	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum. So was I.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

15th August 2007, 09:15 PM	#16
Caius Textor Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht - The Netherlands Posts: 344	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.
	__________________ Caio B. F. W. Abramo Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas - Etica Nicomachea I,4,1096a16

15th August 2007, 10:35 PM	#17
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by Caius Textor 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.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

16th August 2007, 12:26 AM	#18
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Skepticism isn't about atheism any more than it is about contrarianism, although I'm sure we have plenty of those around as well.

16th August 2007, 12:29 AM	#19
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	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.

16th August 2007, 12:42 AM	#20
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	OK lets look at this skeptically. What is the evidence that the JREF is an "atheist organisation"?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

16th August 2007, 12:59 AM	#21
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher 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. Originally Posted by Darat 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?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

16th August 2007, 01:10 AM	#22
MortFurd Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: An American in Germany Posts: 1,975	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher 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.
	__________________ Ace Baker gets pwned by Shrinker, and I get an Avatar.

16th August 2007, 01:46 AM	#23
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by MortFurd 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.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

16th August 2007, 01:57 AM	#24
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

16th August 2007, 01:58 AM	#25
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by Caius Textor 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.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

16th August 2007, 02:43 AM	#26
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	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.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

16th August 2007, 04:25 AM	#27
prewitt81 Notoriously Glorious Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,208	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.
	__________________ Knowledge is Power! "If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

16th August 2007, 05:36 AM	#28
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Originally Posted by prewitt81 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

16th August 2007, 05:37 AM	#29
Caius Textor Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht - The Netherlands Posts: 344	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner 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. Originally Posted by Beady 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.
	__________________ Caio B. F. W. Abramo Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas - Etica Nicomachea I,4,1096a16

16th August 2007, 05:51 AM	#30
Caius Textor Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht - The Netherlands Posts: 344	Originally Posted by prewitt81 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.
	__________________ Caio B. F. W. Abramo Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas - Etica Nicomachea I,4,1096a16

16th August 2007, 06:29 AM	#31
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,520	Originally Posted by prewitt81 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!!"
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

16th August 2007, 06:36 AM	#32
Corpse Cruncher Guest Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In the great cooking pot in the sky. Posts: 3,811	Originally Posted by Darat 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.
	Last edited by Corpse Cruncher; 16th August 2007 at 06:42 AM.

16th August 2007, 06:50 AM	#33
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074	Originally Posted by tkingdoll 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?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,074

16th August 2007, 06:55 AM	#34
Caius Textor Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht - The Netherlands Posts: 344	Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher 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. Originally Posted by Corpse Cruncher 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?
	__________________ Caio B. F. W. Abramo Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas - Etica Nicomachea I,4,1096a16

16th August 2007, 06:57 AM	#35
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by brodski 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 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.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie