The JREF is not an atheist organization

Gurdur said:
Pardon me, but I don't think he does, actually. He's quite inconsistant, but his main claim would be no.#1, not 2.
Click to expand...

I'll check when I go home. I am convinced he was quite clear on this, but I may be wrong.
 
Erin said:
Gurdur,

I agree with what you posted and I am quite relieved. I didn't think much of "The God Delusion", I understand what he is saying but it was a little long winded for me. I was also feeling a little concerned about my intro post stating that I was a confirmed atheist, I'm not particularly confirmed about anything at the moment, I have been having a bit of a mental clear out and hope to find something on this board that might help.​
Click to expand...

Well, welcome, Erin!

I wish you all the very best on your own personal travel of life. As to whether you will find much here of help, or not, is an open question. Should you ever feel like discussing things in a thread with me, please send me a PM with link to a thread, and I will turn up in that thread and do my best. I wish you all the very best.
 
chillzero said:
I'll check when I go home. I am convinced he was quite clear on this, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

In the God Delusion, he classed himself as #2 - Sees no evidence for God, lives as if God does not exist but accepts that it is impossible to prove conclusively that there is no God. He states that he would expect very few atheists to class themselves as #1, as this would be a faith-based position.
 
Can someone define "Atheist organisation" for me , in the context of this thread?

If 4 out of 5 employees of a hairdresser's shop do not believe in gods, would that make the shop an "atheist organisation"?

And Chill- You realise posting from work is unethical, possibly immoral and you may burn in Heck for it?
 
Gurdur said:
Pardon me, but I don't think he does, actually. He's quite inconsistant, but his main claim would be no.#1, not 2.
Click to expand...

Not quite.
He is #1 in response to claims about specific gods, but #2 in general.
When specific claims are made it is much easier to show that the evidence is against them, when no specific claim is being made, 2 is a much stronger position.
Different answers to different questions.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Can someone define "Atheist organisation" for me , in the context of this thread?
Click to expand...
One that worker with the aim of furthering atheism.

If 4 out of 5 employees of a hairdresser's shop do not believe in gods, would that make the shop an "atheist organisation"?
Click to expand...
no, no mreo taht it woudl be a Manchester Unitedist shop if 4 out of 5 employees supported man U 9I am rpesuemign that it is a shop in Kent ;) )
And Chill- You realise posting from work is unethical, possibly immoral and you may burn in Heck for it?
Click to expand...
she allready sold her soul to go to TAm 5.5, she may as well get all of the fringe benefits...
 
Mashuna said:
In the God Delusion, he classed himself as #2 - Sees no evidence for God, lives as if God does not exist but accepts that it is impossible to prove conclusively that there is no God. He states that he would expect very few atheists to class themselves as #1, as this would be a faith-based position.
Click to expand...

Yup. He uses a scale of agnosticism from 1 to 7, with 1 being believing fully (knowing) in God's existence, and 7 is believing fully (knowing) that God does not exist. He puts himself at level 6 - "Very low probability, but short of zero, De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' "

Soapy Sam said:
And Chill- You realise posting from work is unethical, possibly immoral and you may burn in Heck for it?
Click to expand...

Yeah... but as brodski pointed out - my soul's long gone. :D
 
The JREF is not an atheist organization. That has been said over and over again.

However, as we're putting together TAM 6, I notice that there are a number of prominent atheist speakers coming. (No, I can't reveal details yet.)

So, why is that? Why are atheists so interested in skepticism?

I'm not going to try to answer that, except to say that atheism is a common end to skeptical thought.

Personally, I'm a #6 on the scale, if anyone is interested.

Also speaking for myself: though I think the conclusion of the #7's is likely the correct one, #7 and #1 seem to have an awful lot in common.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
I'm not going to try to answer that, except to say that atheism is a common end to skeptical thought.
Click to expand...
FSM, I SO misheard you!

I thought you were saying that if you were atheist, you ended your skeptical thoughts; I.E., you weren't very skeptical. XD
 
Gurdur,

Thank you for the welcome and your help last night. I was like a mad woman with a mouse button! But it was fun. Thank you for your best wishes they are much appreciated. I am already discovering lots of useful information.

"Should you ever feel like discussing things in a thread with me, please send me a PM with link to a thread, and I will turn up in that thread and do my best. I wish you all the very best."

Thanks again. And I might just do that.
 
Lonewulf said:
FSM, I SO misheard you!

I thought you were saying that if you were atheist, you ended your skeptical thoughts; I.E., you weren't very skeptical. XD
Click to expand...

Ahh, I should have been more clear than that. What I meant was, skeptical thinking often leads people to the conclusion that there is no god.
 
Darat said:
One I don't agree with your view of the Forum and secondly the Forum is not the JREF and as the various disclaimers make clear "Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors."
Click to expand...

Well, that's just your opinion...
 
Jeff Wagg said:
The JREF is not an atheist organization. That has been said over and over again.

However, as we're putting together TAM 6, I notice that there are a number of prominent atheist speakers coming. (No, I can't reveal details yet.)

So, why is that? Why are atheists so interested in skepticism?

I'm not going to try to answer that, except to say that atheism is a common end to skeptical thought.

Personally, I'm a #6 on the scale, if anyone is interested.

Also speaking for myself: though I think the conclusion of the #7's is likely the correct one, #7 and #1 seem to have an awful lot in common.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think you are using the word "atheism" a bit carelessly here.

While, of course, we can be pretty damn sure that the kinds of gods proposed by pretty much every religion out there do not exist, even Dawkins does not claim that there is positive evidence that god - any kind of god - does definitely NOT exist. Sure, I´ll be the first to admit that we have no idea how such a god could exist - say, the kind of god Hal spoke of at TAM 4. But we cannot prove it does not exist, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, hard atheism, "I am completely certain that there is no god of any kind", is not a position supported by skepticism. A hypothetical hardcore skeptic who does not believe in anything at all and manages not to delude himself about anything at all should therefore end up with position #6 on Dawkins´ scale. Or maybe position #6.5 or #6.9 - but NOT #7, until and unless we discover better evidence.
 
honestly as I've stated before JREF is whatever definition Randi chooses to give it.

He welcomes believers of all sorts into positions of authority and merit in JREF.

Several moderators (including moi) have varying degrees of belief. Tolerance is what is demanded.

JREF is what Randi wants it to be. And he has not only clearly stated it is not an exclusive atheist organization, his tolerance and trust of people that are openly stated believers of varying degrees (including agnostics) is proof of this.
 
I'd like to make a suggestion that may seem quite surprising: The concern expressed on this thread is not about just one motto, but about the entire mission of the forum. This forum is, by definition, open to both skeptics and non-skeptics. This assumes that both skeptics and non-skeptics can use skepticism as a tool. Therefore, there is no reason to expect, or even hope, that this forum will set anyone on the road to being a skeptic, or indeed to change them in any way other than becoming better users of the tool of skepticism.

It is fun to think of this forum as a classroom, but the harsh truth is that this forum is, and should be, a police force, with scientific logic as its weapon. Fraud is a concept of law, not philosophy; and our goal is to subject fraudulent practices to the discipline of finding out what is really going on in them. As a police force, we can reasonably be expected not to use our weapon on ourselves or each other.
 
Collin Merenoff said:
I'd like to make a suggestion that may seem quite surprising: The concern expressed on this thread is not about just one motto, but about the entire mission of the forum. This forum is, by definition, open to both skeptics and non-skeptics. This assumes that both skeptics and non-skeptics can use skepticism as a tool. Therefore, there is no reason to expect, or even hope, that this forum will set anyone on the road to being a skeptic, or indeed to change them in any way other than becoming better users of the tool of skepticism.

It is fun to think of this forum as a classroom, but the harsh truth is that this forum is, and should be, a police force, with scientific logic as its weapon. Fraud is a concept of law, not philosophy; and our goal is to subject fraudulent practices to the discipline of finding out what is really going on in them. As a police force, we can reasonably be expected not to use our weapon on ourselves or each other.
Click to expand...

Who, exactly, are members of this "police force" which cannot question itself?

Am I? Are you?

What makes you think that law sticks entirely to scientific logic?
 
Collin Merenoff said:
This forum is, by definition, open to both skeptics and non-skeptics
Click to expand...

Ermm... huh? 'Non-sceptics' are, by definition, prepared to accept lies, falsehoods, untruths, etc. How does this fit with the stated aim of:

Sure... the paranormal might be true - but fantasising/lying about it (i.e. discussing it in a non-sceptical manner) is hardly in keeping with the above stated aims

Collin Merenoff said:
Therefore, there is no reason to expect, or even hope, that this forum will set anyone on the road to being a skeptic, or indeed to change them in any way other than becoming better users of the tool of skepticism
Click to expand...

I suggest you do some more reading. You will discover that the 'hope' has been realised more often than you currently think/believe/assert

Collin Merenoff said:
It is fun to think of this forum as a classroom, but the harsh truth is that this forum is, and should be, a police force, with scientific logic as its weapon.
Click to expand...

A 'police force'? Huh? How about a community? A self-regulating community? Y'know... like in societies where citizens are encouraged to think - individually and collectively

Scientific logic is a precise and exacting tool that, in skilled and experienced hands, can (and does) disarm non-sceptics of the lies and ignorance that they use to hide from the truth
 
In terms of what I've read about the "definition" of a non-skeptic, I am a non-skeptic simply because I believe in God. Despite my having no intention of discussing religion on this forum, I get the impression that I'm not welcome on this forum simply because of something in my head. If you don't believe I have a soul, what are you trying to save?

You want to convince me that I can't study science unless I give up my religion. You read about a few people who use religion as an excuse to abuse science, and you use them as a stereotype of every religious person interested in science. Have you ever considered that if you didn't make religious people feel unwelcome in scientific communities, they wouldn't be so ignorant?

Divisiveness has been spreading throughout the world ever since George W. Bush entered office. I thought that an intelligent community like this would resist this trend. I thought this forum was a place for people to investigate claims of strange occurences and find out what really happened. I didn't expect to be called deficient because I believe in God. I didn't expect this forum to be a neopositivist cult. I didn't expect to be attacked with nosology and shown the "error of my ways". I didn't expect that the quest to find the truth amid a sea of hoaxes and consipracy theories would be monopolized by a community of prejudice against religion.

You think it's unreasonable to use a phrase like "police force"? So do I. But it's hard to carry on a reasonable discussion with a neopositivist.

Isaac Asimov was a good example of an atheist who was not a neopositivist. Jerry Falwell was a good example of a neopositivist who was not an atheist. So I don't consider your atheism an excuse for neopositivist attacks on other forum members.

We Jews have survived an inquisition from Christians, and we will survive an inquisition from atheists. If you throw us out of forums like this, we will make our own. We have cherished science for many centuries, even as other religions have rejected it. And we will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom