What about the religious organizations?

[RemieV]

Couldn't agree more, I'd never say anyone's smart simply because they are atheist/rationalist/etc.ist. "Stupid" is the wrong epithet too, but the most convenient one.

But yes, I do genuinely have great difficulty in crediting christians with intelligence. I deal with highly intelligent people all the time and it staggers me how many of them are christian, the concept is so blindingly obvious that I portray them as stupid just to get the kind of reaction you've seen. If atheists get this righteous, how righteous do you think christians get? To me, christianity is best summed up by Monty Python's Holy Grail crossed with the parrot sketch.

Fortunately, I know I'm right and there's no assumption involved! There is no god and I know that as sure as I know that the sun is around 150M km away, made of hydrogen and very hot. I know it as I know that rain will fall and the sea is salt. The fact that there is no god is as simple as 2 + 2.

As to tolerance, I take that from the christians themselves. What kind of monumental arrogance does it need to believe that you are the chosen one of a god and that anyone who doesn't accept your god is going to perish while you will have everlasting life? I believe that makes the level of arrogance I display very tame in comparison. Jesus and all the prophets of the bible forbid any tolerance of other, or non-religious positions - god's way or the low way. It's even one of the ten commandments for Bob's sake! Tell me why christianity, with zero tolerance of other religions, deserves anything like respect. Its adherents are free to choose their god, but they won't get any respect from me for it.

I don't even know where to begin. You cannot be positive there is no God (well, you personally can be positive, but what I mean is, you can't have proof positive) just as you can't have any proof that there is. That doesn't mean because you can't prove that there isn't that your statements are invalid, it just means that whether god exists or not is up for grabs. People say "Anything is possible" for a reason, and being skeptical doesn't mean shutting down alternate ways of thinking. It means asking for proof, and being in a position to accept that proof or refute it should there ever be an opportunity. Believers are closed-minded a lot of times. Skeptics are close-minded a lot of times. Really, everyone is so convinced their opinion is right that it's no wonder most believers really dislike skeptics and vice versa.

It makes no sense that you refuse to respect someone just because they don't respect you. It seems a silly way of looking at things. "You are intolerant of me, so I'll be intolerant of you!"

 

[Beth]

Here we go: from Skeptical Inquirer, 1992. Susan Blackmore's article on Psychic Experiences: Psychic Illusions. She does point out that the wording of the question influences the resposne rate. As high as 80% in some surveys.

She specifically cites a Gallup poll that shows 25% of Americans claim to be telepathic. This is dated. I'd be interested to see something more current. (I predict an increase from 25%.)

Thanks. I'll check it out.

 

[blutoski]

This would seem to apply to BOTH "new age" claims, and religious supernatural claims as well. No where does it exclude religious claims, and most, if not all, religious make supernatural claims.

And many have been attacked as a result into investigating the claims of "religious leaders" that claim to have some "God-given" power. Several have been threatened by the Benny Hill Ministries, to same some, and he is one of the current staples of modern Christianity.



So, on the stance of going after supernatural claims and para-science claims, the stance by JREF appears to include those by religions as well.

So, if it wants to be effective in promoting the non-rationallity of following such non-scientificly-proven beliefs as truths, then it must not be bias in who's claims it exposes (meaning that it cannot limit it to just "new age" and ignore religion).

Yes. Which was my point. I was pointing out that none of the goals of skeptical organizations are to push an atheist agenda. It is important to point out that "God does not exist," is also a supernatural claim. It is the role of the JREF to invite you to prove it.

 

[blutoski]

This would seem to apply to BOTH "new age" claims, and religious supernatural claims as well. No where does it exclude religious claims, and most, if not all, religious make supernatural claims.

Also: further to my previous accusation that you are cherry-picking. You left this out:

Randi states:

I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization;

and

We are not, as an organization, atheists

and

I do not, and I will not, allow my serious atheistic beliefs to interfere with the operation of the JREF. My rationality and my sincerity will not allow me that conceit. The JREF embraces persons of many different varieties of philosophy; there are even two Buddhists among us, though I doubt any Holy Rollers have joined our ranks. We don’t ever ask about religious preferences, because we recognize that all persons have value in the overall picture of our population.

Just sayin'.

 

[blutoski]

Several have been threatened by the Benny Hill Ministries, to same some, and he is one of the current staples of modern Christianity.

Is that the congregation where the women have to chase the pastor, runing around topless, in fast-forward?

To saxophone music?

 

[blutoski]

Is that the congregation where the women have to chase the pastor, runing around topless, in fast-forward?

To saxophone music?

I remember his last sermon: "When you live life with a big L, and drink with a big D, you should expect to suffer pain with a big P."

 

[kitakaze]

Is that the congregation where the women have to chase the pastor, runing around topless, in fast-forward?

To saxophone music?

Thank topless women I wasn't the only one thinking that. It just keeps seeming more and more serendipitous that I watched V For Vendetta for the first time today. I liked the little Benny Hill nod they had in that.

 

[snooziums]

My mistake. I was referring to Benny Hinn.

Orlando Christian Center, Dec. 31st, 1989.

"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."

- Benny Hinn.

May 2nd, 2000 - This Is Your Day

"And I know, that I know, that I know, we are about to see the greatest manifestations of God's presence ever! A prophetess named Ruth Heflin sent me a word recently and told me to get ready, to see, physical manifestations of Christ on the platforms in our crusades, that people will have visions of the Lord in the meetings. Those things have happened in the past, I know. In a Thialagua (spelling?) meeting one time in Africa, the Lord appeared to a - to the whole crowd! It is about to begin happening, I know it too! Expect it, to happen also, in your own home!"

- Benny Hinn.

But most tragic:

Tuesday, May 2, 2000
Sick baby dies at Benny Hinn crusade

By NATION Reporter
An ailing four-month-old baby died on Sunday at the "miracle'' crusade graced by American Evangelist Benny Hinn, police reported yesterday.

Baby Clondin Adhiambo was taken to the crusade at the University of Nairobi grounds by her mother, Lorraine Atieno to be "healed", police said.

"According to her mother, the baby girl had been suffering from an undisclosed ailment since she was born," a senior police officer said.

He said the baby's condition worsened at the prayer venue and she was taken to MP Shah Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

Scores of Christian faithful who attended the "miracle" crusade later claimed to have been healed.

And to think that many millions of people around the world watch Benny Hinn on TBN. He is one of then most popular pastors currently living. And people are following his every word.

Now, if that is not scary, then there is no way any "new age" belief could be, as none can compare to that.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't even know where to begin. You cannot be positive there is no God (well, you personally can be positive, but what I mean is, you can't have proof positive)

Yes indeed, this is where Extreme Atheists and sceptics diverge. Sceptics, by their very nature demand proof. This is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" question and, quite frankly, it's rubbish. Do you live your life like that, demanding proof of everything? Or, do you still accept that Santa may exist?

It makes no sense that you refuse to respect someone just because they don't respect you. It seems a silly way of looking at things. "You are intolerant of me, so I'll be intolerant of you!"

My lack of respect stems primarily for my lack of respect for grown-ups who still believe in Santa and carry around a cuddly-blanky. The fact that they direspect everyone else is just an added bonus.

 

[RemieV]

I find it much more satisfying to wait for definitive answers than assume that I can imagine the answer to everything just because it makes sense to me. I have all sorts of feelings and emotions regarding things. I don't let that cloud my judgment. Do I think Santa exists? Sure, he's a historical figure. Saint Nicholas was a Bishop who gave gifts to the poor. Do I think that he comes down chimneys every Christmas? No, not really. The point of Santa Claus is to keep that tradition alive, and honor the history of the man.

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism[1] (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider) refers to

an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

I think I fall in very well, actually. Just because I don't fit your definition of a skeptic doesn't mean I'm not one. To me, skepticism is a questioning of beliefs. If you make a decision, you are no longer questioning.

 

[blutoski]

Yes indeed, this is where Extreme Atheists and sceptics diverge. Sceptics, by their very nature demand proof. This is the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" question and, quite frankly, it's rubbish. Do you live your life like that, demanding proof of everything? Or, do you still accept that Santa may exist?

My lack of respect stems primarily for my lack of respect for grown-ups who still believe in Santa and carry around a cuddly-blanky. The fact that they direspect everyone else is just an added bonus.

Actually, I think you're failing to respect the fact that there is a wide range of belief categorized as 'religious'. The fallacy of composition, if you will. You are also, as far as I can tell, preaching violence as part of your methods.

Skeptics would be correct to consider people with this view to be just one more bigoted fundamentalist. Skeptics don't welcome people with this approach. It's counter to the humanist aims that are aligned with skepticism.

There are organizations for people with your beliefs: atheist organizations. I can provide a list, if you're interested.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, I think you're failing to respect the fact that there is a wide range of belief categorized as 'religious'. The fallacy of composition, if you will. You are also, as far as I can tell, preaching violence as part of your methods.

Well, that statement would be living proof of assumption being the mother of all ****ups. No way, no how, do I condone or practice violence; ever.

Skeptics would be correct to consider people with this view to be just one more bigoted fundamentalist. Skeptics don't welcome people with this approach. It's counter to the humanist aims that are aligned with skepticism.

See above, you are mis-categorising me completely. Having said that, I agree with some of that, and said so - that sceptics have different goals and ideals to me.

There are organizations for people with your beliefs: atheist organizations. I can provide a list, if you're interested.

Not interested in the least, thanks, all of the atheist organisations I wish to belong to, I already do. Your attitude of platitude and condescention don't do anything for you.

 

[blutoski]

Well, that statement would be living proof of assumption being the mother of all ****ups. No way, no how, do I condone or practice violence; ever.

Not much of a war, then, is it?

See above, you are mis-categorising me completely. Having said that, I agree with some of that, and said so - that sceptics have different goals and ideals to me.

Not interested in the least, thanks, all of the atheist organisations I wish to belong to, I already do.

So why are you wasting our time?

 

[The Atheist]

Not much of a war, then, is it?

Yeah, wimps eh? We leave all the actual violence to christians and muslims.

So why are you wasting our time?

I'd be asking why you are wasting your time, actually. You're the one sitting around writing inane replies to someone you've pre-judged.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not really. The main reason is that he's obviously aware he's lying.

There's a similar debate about this regarding placebos: the end does not justify the means.

You can't say he obviously knows he's lying. There are plenty of these guys who believe in their 'gift'. What's your evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And they'd be jerks. But that's not the solitary function of 'religion', and anyway, statistically, most of the people they're visiting are already religious. Fight the predators, not their victims.

What? I have religious folks at my door once a month. They are not just going to relatives' houses or whatever it is you are claiming here.

Seems more like an excuse here rather than a debate point. Certainly people going to psychics 'believe' before they give up their money, and I've never had a psychic soliciting at my door or even on the phone.

 

[RemieV]

Skeptigirl, I think blutoski means that statistically pretty much everyone is already religious. But I could be wrong.

blutoski did not, for example, say "Most of the people they are visiting belong to the same church or denomination".

 

[scotth]

I don't even know where to begin. You cannot be positive there is no God (well, you personally can be positive, but what I mean is, you can't have proof positive) just as you can't have any proof that there is.

I think that depends on how you actually define God.

The common Christian vision of God is plainly and utterly false. I cannot refute the fuzzy/distant (and fairly worthless in my opinion) vision of God presented by some deists, but the God of the Christian bible is positively excluded.

The world does not look or behave like what is described in the bible.

The Christian bible is (contrary to popular belief) in many ways a 'scientific' theory. That is, a great many statements within can be emperically compared to reality. The world (and universe for that matter) plainly do not operate as dictated and predicted by the bible.

I feel quite justified in stating positively that the God of the bible does not exist.

I cannot say that there is no God at all, when the defintion could be almost anything. But the Christian God is well enough defined to see that it is plainly in disagreement with observation.

 

[Pup]

Prior to this marketing effort, academic interest in phonics had dropped off completely, based on evidence it did not meet expectations. It still doesn't.

You didn't address Rudolf Flesch's "Why Johnny Can't Read." Are you saying there was a Scientology motive behind his writing and publication? Or are you saying it had little influence on teaching methods at the time?

I'm sure Scientologists have adopted his book after the fact, since any group with an agenda will adopt things which support their view, but I'm talking about its original publication.

 

[blutoski]

You didn't address Rudolf Flesch's "Why Johnny Can't Read." Are you saying there was a Scientology motive behind his writing and publication? Or are you saying it had little influence on teaching methods at the time?

I'm sure Scientologists have adopted his book after the fact, since any group with an agenda will adopt things which support their view, but I'm talking about its original publication.

Original publication was sincere, and had influence in a phonics revival. That was, what, the 1960s?

Since then, Scientology has pushed it as a trojan horse into the education system.

Sort of like how Seven Habits is a trojan horse for Mormonism into the enterprise.