The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Caius Textor]

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

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

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

 

[RemieV]

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

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

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

 

[athon]

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

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

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

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

Athon

 

[Darat]

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

 

[Darat]

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

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

Why even consider adding another label?

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

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

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

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

(Edited for words.)

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

Well it seems Randi has forgotten what it means.

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

 

[CFLarsen]

Well it seems Randi has forgotten what it means.

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

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

 

[Chaos]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

You got 'splainin' to do.

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

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

 

[GimmePepsi]

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

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

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chaos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CFLarsen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

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

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

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

Yes I think I can see what you are saying here. Try this and see if this helps or more likely not explains my drift.

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

They are following some skeptical applications but are not skeptics.

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

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

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

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

Is that of help?

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

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Is that of help?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

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

 

[brodski]

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

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

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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