The JREF is not an atheist organization

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

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
This is really confusing to me, the JREF is clearly and atheist organization. Religion plays no part in the JREF's goals, fund raising, or membership. There's no religious criteria for its admission as a member or its actions. It's a completely secular institution. What it isn't is anti-theist or religious. The JREF isn't in the business of attacking religion, or in promoting it. Religion is irrelevant to the actions of the JREF, religious claims are examined as rigorously as any others, when they are testable.

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

The same can be said for a political party.
 
CFLarsen said:
The same can be said for a political party.
Click to expand...

Certainly not either of the major U.S. political parties, wherein candidates incessantly prattle on about how important their imaginary friend is to their morality, and sense of morality.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
This is really confusing to me, the JREF is clearly and atheist organization. Religion plays no part in the JREF's goals, fund raising, or membership. There's no religious criteria for its admission as a member or its actions. It's a completely secular institution. What it isn't is anti-theist or religious. The JREF isn't in the business of attacking religion, or in promoting it. Religion is irrelevant to the actions of the JREF, religious claims are examined as rigorously as any others, when they are testable.

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

You are conflating the terms secular and atheist. The JREF clearly is secular, as it is not a religious institution, however to claim that it is atheist is to claim that the JREF has taken a stance on the existence of god(s) in general. It has not, it has taken a stance on specific religious claims, but that is not the same thing at all.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Certainly not either of the major U.S. political parties, wherein candidates incessantly prattle on about how important their imaginary friend is to their morality, and sense of morality.
Click to expand...

Are there religious criteria for admission as a member?
 
CFLarsen said:
Are there religious criteria for admission as a member?
Click to expand...

From the 2004 Democratic party platform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican party platform.

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

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

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

The Democratic party couches their platform in religious language, and the Republican party has overtly religious goals. Now, it is entirely fair to say that you can be a member of either party and be an atheist, but both parties serve religious interests, and state religious justification for their goals.
 
But not a criterion.

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

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

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

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

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

ETA:

Brodski, I think if you're going to say I'm confounding atheism and seculairsm, you're confoudning atheism and antitheism.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. The JREF is not merely secular. It does not avoid religion, it actively tests religious claims as much as any other sort of claim. Atheist means, "without religion," and religion is not part of the JREF in any way, but unlike a secular organization, it doesn't delicately skirt the issue of religious nonsense.
Click to expand...

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

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

ETA, by your definition agnostics and desists would be “atheists” (as they are “without religion”) whereas Buddhists in general would not be.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
“atheism” does not mean “without religion” despite that being the linguistic route, any more than “sinister” means left handed.

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

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

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

ETA:

Excuse me, which Buddhists are without religion? Those who subscribe to the philosophy of Buddhism, utterly devoid of gods, spirits, karma, reincarnation, and Dharma? That's a very small minority.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
That is precisely why the JREF is an atheist organization. Rather than being purely secular and advoiding the issue of religion all together, the JREF treats religious claims equally with all other claims.
Click to expand...

No. All testable religious claims.
 
brodski said:
“atheism” does not mean “without religion”
Click to expand...

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

brodski said:
despite that being the linguistic route, any more than “sinister” means left handed.
Click to expand...

Sinister means pertaining to the left side of something.

brodski said:
Atheism means taking a stance on the existence of gods in general.
Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before. Atheism doesn't require a taking a stance.
 
CFLarsen said:
I never said you did, and I have addressed what you said.

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

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

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

I debunked that assumption of yours, and you STILL cannot bring yourself to admit that. You can make all the points you want, BUT if you make these points INSTEAD of admitting you were wrong, it becomes painfully obvious that you are trying to avoid admitting your were wrong.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
So even though atheism means "without religion"
Click to expand...
no it doesn't it means having a non theistic belief. That is a belief in an interventionist god.
Based on what, negative connotations I imagine?
Click to expand...
nope, based on a meaningful definition of atheist.
That's just bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people, like avoiding using the word "nigardly."
Click to expand...
I'd try brick, or at a push sticks, next time, the big bad wolf may be along to blow that down any moment....

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

Back
Top Bottom