The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Mercutio]

Then he obviously wasn't questioning his assumptions.

Because he does not come to the same conclusion you do?

There is no chain of reasoning which leads to god which does not start with god as a presumption.

Ergo, a belief in god could never have arisen in the first place.

Might want to rethink.

 

[MLynn]

Argh - I keep hearing different opinions about who's a "real" skeptic and who isn't:

* Only anti-theists can be skeptics
* Being an atheist isn't enough - you must be "anti."
* Believers are buffoons and idiots who are to be laughed at because they aren't enlightened enough to see "the truth."

I used to think I was somewhat welcome here, but lately the atomsphere here has been really intense. I don't know what to do.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Because he does not come to the same conclusion you do?
Ergo, a belief in god could never have arisen in the first place.

Might want to rethink.

I will happily change my tune if you can show me a logically coherent and parsimonius chain of reasoning, which presumably he took.

Until then, I'll say he was deluding himself.

 

[Hokulele]

Argh - I keep hearing different opinions about who's a "real" skeptic and who isn't:

* Only anti-theists can be skeptics
* Being an atheist isn't enough - you must be "anti."
* Believers are buffoons and idiots who are to be laughed at because they aren't enlightened enough to see "the truth."

I used to think I was somewhat welcome here, but lately the atomsphere here has been really intense. I don't know what to do.

I think it is a matter of a few individuals who speak louder (and more often) than others that can drive this. If you were to privately poll the entire 2800+ active member list, I doubt that the points you listed would be a majority opinion. I would hope that if you could avoid those people/areas of the forum that make you uncomfortable, there would be much left to which you would want to contribute. Every time someone leaves the forum, I think we have all lost something. Well, other than DavidJayJordan.

 

[Mercutio]

I will happily change my tune if you can show me a logically coherent and parsimonius chain of reasoning, which presumably he took.

I have no access to his reasoning, nor the evidence to which he was exposed.

Until then, I'll say he was deluding himself.

False dichotomy. He may have been perfectly logical and still deluded.

One of the classic studies (authors presently elude me) in the perseverance of belief looked at Australian Med School students and Evolution. Most (all?) of them professed to believe in evolution...but at the time of their admission, a substantial proportion of them had an understanding of evolution that could best be described as Lamarkian. Over their med school career, with additional exposure to the evidence... they maintained these Lamarkian beliefs. All new information was put into old cubbyholes.

These med students would have claimed to believe in evolution. Were they deluded?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I have no access to his reasoning, nor the evidence to which he was exposed.

False dichotomy. He may have been perfectly logical and still deluded.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to unpack that.

As for the Med students, without meaning any offense to medical doctors on whose skills we all rely, medical doctors are not evolutionary scientists. A keen and accurate understanding of evolution is not required in the execution of their professional duties. There is little reason to expect their understanding of evolution to be better than that of any other education person.

 

[The Atheist]

If you were to privately poll the entire 2800+ active member list, I doubt that the points you listed would be a majority opinion.

I wouldn't be betting too much on that premise.

The poll I ran came out at almost 50/50 to the statement: "All religion is bad and causes harm".

 

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't be betting too much on that premise.

The poll I ran came out at almost 50/50 to the statement: "All religion is bad and causes harm".

Sure, less than 10% of the active member list responding to a flawed poll that had nothing to do with MLynn's bullet points is really helpful.

On a more serious note, you did post that poll with an agenda, and several of the responses you received were influenced by that agenda. In addition, it was posted in probably the most partisan section of the forum. I think if a well-designed, private poll were sent to the active membership, most would respond that they aren't anti-theists, and that all theists aren't morons. Sorry MLynn, I am paraphrasing here, so if I didn't convey your intent, please correct me.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

If the Jref is educational and that is its main aim. Then shouldn't it be a bland state or neutral. That said it should be predominantly honest. If it is run by atheists then it should state this is so.

Stating it is run by atheists is not the same as saying only atheists are welcome is it?

I would rather be a member of a site that says, we are atheists, that is our choice however it is our policy that everybody is welcome here. We ask that you use our resources to educate yourself with. Or something along those lines.

Isn't that better than hiding behind some partial veneer masking the true atheist wood? I would have thought that was an exercise in damage limitation if there was one?

Probably off-topic but has atheism evolved? Natural for it to have. I took the view an atheist was one who did not need god or religion. Perhaps I have mistaken atheism for what it is?

 

[CFLarsen]

If the Jref is educational and that is its main aim. Then shouldn't it be a bland state or neutral. That said it should be predominantly honest. If it is run by atheists then it should state this is so.

Stating it is run by atheists is not the same as saying only atheists are welcome is it?

I would rather be a member of a site that says, we are atheists, that is our choice however it is our policy that everybody is welcome here. We ask that you use our resources to educate yourself with. Or something along those lines.

Isn't that better than hiding behind some partial veneer masking the true atheist wood? I would have thought that was an exercise in damage limitation if there was one?

Probably off-topic but has atheism evolved? Natural for it to have. I took the view an atheist was one who did not need god or religion. Perhaps I have mistaken atheism for what it is?

Are you saying that you have to be an atheist if you are a skeptic?

 

[The Atheist]

Sure, less than 10% of the active member list responding to a flawed poll that had nothing to do with MLynn's bullet points is really helpful.

On a more serious note, you did post that poll with an agenda, and several of the responses you received were influenced by that agenda. In addition, it was posted in probably the most partisan section of the forum. I think if a well-designed, private poll were sent to the active membership, most would respond that they aren't anti-theists, and that all theists aren't morons. Sorry MLynn, I am paraphrasing here, so if I didn't convey your intent, please correct me.

Given that 10% of the membership responded, I'm not so sure that it can be just swept away as a flawed poll. I deliberately left no room for movement, becuase I didn't expect anywhere near 50% to agree with the statement. That nearly 50% did is quite telling - unless you're suggesting that lots of members are so dishonest they'd vote according to likes and dislikes rather than what they believe.

I'm not saying it would carry through the whole membership at that rate, but I suspect you might fond a lot higher ratio of anti-theists than you think.

Are you saying that you have to be an atheist if you are a skeptic?

Are you saying you don't?

If it's ok for a "skeptic" to be a theist, can a person who believes in homeopathy or psychics also be a "skeptic"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you saying you don't?

If it's ok for a "skeptic" to be a theist, can a person who believes in homeopathy or psychics also be a "skeptic"?

You can be a skeptic and be a deist at the same time.

It all comes down to making a testable claim.

 

[Darat]

Argh - I keep hearing different opinions about who's a "real" skeptic and who isn't:

* Only anti-theists can be skeptics
* Being an atheist isn't enough - you must be "anti."
* Believers are buffoons and idiots who are to be laughed at because they aren't enlightened enough to see "the truth."

I used to think I was somewhat welcome here, but lately the atomsphere here has been really intense. I don't know what to do.

MLynn - Hokulele said most of what I can say however just wanted to add as far as I am concerned (of course just as a fellow Member) everyone is just as much welcome here as they have ever been. Sure some people professing a religious belief do get a hard time - but I don't think that arises because they have a religious belief but because of their quite specific claims and then how they interact with others.

And as Admin - to quote from the Mod Team's directions:

.... There is no Mod team or “official” Forum position on any argument, claim or opinion – our role is never to judge or take Mod action based on the merits of any claim, argument or opinion ....

 

[The Atheist]

You can be a skeptic and be a deist at the same time.

It all comes down to making a testable claim.

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all. Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.

Goodo, we have that sorted out.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to unpack that.

Sorry--it was late. What I was thinking was "garbage in, garbage out" (because it is the common phrase, not because any particular view is garbage)--that is, he could be perfectly logical, but by working with incomplete evidence still end up at a false position. So, granted, I am using two different meanings of "deluded".

As for the Med students, without meaning any offense to medical doctors on whose skills we all rely, medical doctors are not evolutionary scientists. A keen and accurate understanding of evolution is not required in the execution of their professional duties. There is little reason to expect their understanding of evolution to be better than that of any other education person.

The point of the paper (again, sorry, it was late) is that their additional exposure during their schooling did not magically reverse their earlier false beliefs, but was assimilated into them. In addition, the example demonstrates that just because one has come to the right conclusion (in this case, evolution), that does not mean that they came there through skeptical analysis of the evidence.

So anyway, my intent was to show two sides of the same coin, then go to bed. At least I did the going to bed part.

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all. Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.

Are you suggesting that these things are, in principle, untestable? It seems they only turn untestable when Randi shows up; other than that, every believer has seen tons of proof...

There is a big difference, and I suspect you already know this, between something that is untestable in principle, and making post hoc excuses that render something unfalsifiable after the fact.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry--it was late. What I was thinking was "garbage in, garbage out" (because it is the common phrase, not because any particular view is garbage)--that is, he could be perfectly logical, but by working with incomplete evidence still end up at a false position. So, granted, I am using two different meanings of "deluded".

I was wondering, I used the word parsimonious for just that reason.

The point of the paper (again, sorry, it was late) is that their additional exposure during their schooling did not magically reverse their earlier false beliefs, but was assimilated into them. In addition, the example demonstrates that just because one has come to the right conclusion (in this case, evolution), that does not mean that they came there through skeptical analysis of the evidence.

So anyway, my intent was to show two sides of the same coin, then go to bed. At least I did the going to bed part.

Educated people can be just as stupid as everyone else. As a correct understanding of evolution isn't required to be a good doctor, there's no reason to except them to have one.

Unless that fellow has discovered a heretofore unknown parsimonious chain of reason which leads to god without starting there, I'm pretty sure he's fooling himself. Proof to the contrary is welcome.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, so a "skeptic" can be a deist, but not a theist, right? You are, after all, the one who decides what "skeptic" means, being the owner of SkepticReport and all.

Not at all. If you don't like my answer about what a skeptic is, don't ask me the question.

Why not a theist, if the theist makes no testable claims?

Doesn't he? How can a theist not make testable claims?

Given that testable claims make the difference, then one could be a believer in astrology, psychics, ghosts, demonic possession and UFO visits to earth and still be a "skeptic" - those things not necessarily making testable claims. In fact, even homeopathy would fit the bill since it's clear that the presence of scepticism negates the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy.

Same applies: How can any of these not make testable claims?

 

[Mercutio]

Educated people can be just as stupid as everyone else. As a correct understanding of evolution isn't required to be a good doctor, there's no reason to except them to have one.

One would expect that people exposed to advanced biology courses to show some understanding of evolution. You are giving these doctors much more leeway than you give the pastor. Their belief is wrong, despite exposure to appropriate evidence. His belief is wrong, because of exposure to inappropriate evidence. Which of them is following the available evidence? Which of them are being skeptics?

Unless that fellow has discovered a heretofore unknown parsimonious chain of reason which leads to god without starting there, I'm pretty sure he's fooling himself. Proof to the contrary is welcome.

Any chain of reasoning is subject to the data available. He is not fooling himself, he is being fooled by his community. I cannot offer any definitive proof; all I can do is attest that he earnestly and frequently advocated questioning of matters of faith and belief, and looking for evidence.

 

[Reptiliano]

Perhaps I'm just being picky about semantics, or maybe I'd just been living under the proverbial rock for a while, but I'd never actually heard the word "skeptic" used in the religious sense this much. My primary exposure to that word (in the "skeptical" form) really came from news reports and current events, more often than not from business reports, of all things.

Atheism appears to be a belief system wherein there is definitely no God, and theism is the opposite. Perhaps we have a right to be skeptical about both?