The JREF is not an atheist organization

[chillzero]

Umm.. nobody is throwing you out of anywhere.

And, atheism is not a pre-requisite to being a skeptic, in my opinion. I know several christian skeptics, and while I have no interest in their religious beliefs, I am not going to condemn them for them. Unless, of course they start using religion as a means to fleece money from people, or some other such scam.

I may be disappointed that they do not extend their skepticism to religion, but some things that we are ingrained with from birth can be hard to let go of. I will not dismiss them for that.

Nobody is (or should) be trying to 'save' you, or convert you, or any such, and you are not going to be persecuted here for your religion. Nobody should tell you that you can't study science because you are religious.

I'm sorry you feel unwelcome - perhaps you should come out of this thread temporarily, and browse through some of the other sections - Community, or General Skepticism, perhaps. Gain a little more perspective on the forum as a whole.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you don't like some people's criticisms of your beliefs, maybe you SHOULD leave. I rather doubt you'd survive in a place like the JREF for long, just because you'd probably be quickly wound up like a spring. Also, if logical fallacies make you upset, maybe you should leave again... they're pretty darn prevalent here.

No offense, but this IS an open forum, and I don't think I'd much like the moderators banning people for criticizing religion, as much as I wouldn't like them to ban people for criticizing atheism. I mean, I suppose you mean this as a general appeal to people to try to show them the error of their ways, but most people aren't even going to see this thread. And many more will join without seeing it. "Neopositivists" that attack your position on religion will probably be around, and I don't see any way to limit them other than making good arguments that cause them to rethink their position, or forcibly silencing them.

All that's being done to ostracize you is the voicing of personal opinions. While I admit that I find that there are too many people on this forum that I entirely dislike (I don't mind fundamentalists as they're good for a chuckle, but the people in the politics forum are outright atrocious), you will always encounter individuals who have a mindset that you don't particularly agree with, and be willing to express that opinion in an aggressive and insulting manner.

As for religious people feeling unwelcome in scientific communities, I don't quite see a lot of that going on; I've read quite a few times where a scientist expresses faith in the Christian God (and not the Einsteinian pantheistic belief, which is just a form of weak atheism really). However, it's hard to be a fundamentalist and a good scientist at the same time, from my perspective. To me, that causes a powerful cognitive dissonance. For instance, it's impossible to be a Young Earth Creationist and simultaneously be a "good" geologist; to be a "good" geologist and predict timescales using rocks, eventually you'll be looking at rocks that are older than you think the Universe is! Cognitive dissonance.

It's not hard to be, say, a deist or a "weak" theist, or even a moderate theist (one that doesn't base their entire source of knowledge based on a "holy" book, for instance), and continue to practice scientific principles, of course. I'd like to see evidence that these people are necessarily being ostracized from the scientific "community".

Either way, personally, I like the militant agnostic form of thinking; I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[Hal Bidlack]

If you don't like some people's criticisms of your beliefs, maybe you SHOULD leave. I rather doubt you'd survive in a place like the JREF for long, just because you'd probably be quickly wound up like a spring. Also, if logical fallacies make you upset, maybe you should leave again... they're pretty darn prevalent here.

No offense, but this IS an open forum, and I don't think I'd much like the moderators banning people for criticizing religion, as much as I wouldn't like them to ban people for criticizing atheism. I mean, I suppose you mean this as a general appeal to people to try to show them the error of their ways, but most people aren't even going to see this thread. And many more will join without seeing it. "Neopositivists" that attack your position on religion will probably be around, and I don't see any way to limit them other than making good arguments that cause them to rethink their position, or forcibly silencing them.

All that's being done to ostracize you is the voicing of personal opinions. While I admit that I find that there are too many people on this forum that I entirely dislike (I don't mind fundamentalists as they're good for a chuckle, but the people in the politics forum are outright atrocious), you will always encounter individuals who have a mindset that you don't particularly agree with, and be willing to express that opinion in an aggressive and insulting manner.

As for religious people feeling unwelcome in scientific communities, I don't quite see a lot of that going on; I've read quite a few times where a scientist expresses faith in the Christian God (and not the Einsteinian pantheistic belief, which is just a form of weak atheism really). However, it's hard to be a fundamentalist and a good scientist at the same time, from my perspective. To me, that causes a powerful cognitive dissonance. For instance, it's impossible to be a Young Earth Creationist and simultaneously be a "good" geologist; to be a "good" geologist and predict timescales using rocks, eventually you'll be looking at rocks that are older than you think the Universe is! Cognitive dissonance.

It's not hard to be, say, a deist or a "weak" theist, or even a moderate theist (one that doesn't base their entire source of knowledge based on a "holy" book, for instance), and continue to practice scientific principles, of course. I'd like to see evidence that these people are necessarily being ostracized from the scientific "community".

Either way, personally, I like the militant agnostic form of thinking; I don't know, and neither do you.

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome, as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

 

[chillzero]

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome, as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

Hal, are you including my post in that?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

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.

I don't understand why you think I'm playing loose with the word 'atheism'.

While I agree with what you're conclusions about the universe, we must be adamant that there is NO DOGMA IN SKEPTICISM. "Skeptics should be a 6" is dogma. Skeptics SHOULD be whatever they think and feel is right. The point of skepticism is not to form a conclusion, but to always question those conclusions you do form, in the face of new evidence. For all I know the "believers" have evidence that I don't. I have to respect that.

Moreover, I think the bigger problem, at least insofar as skeptics are concerned, is "what is the definition of god?" How can I answer if I believe in something if there's no good definition for it? And yes, I'm making that claim, there is NO good definition for god.

 

[tkingdoll]

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome, as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

But this is a thread about religious beliefs and atheism. Of course it's going to be slightly unpalatable to some theists. There are many more atheists and agnostics here than theists and deists. But the vast majority of posts in this forum are not about atheism, and never mention atheism.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.)

This comment reminds me of two and a half things which turned me off JREF for a while. Jami, while a beleiver, isn't particlarly religious, nor have I heard her in the 16 years I've known her espouse anything particularly woo, was turned off the first night of TAM to the extent that she didn't participate in anything that first time, at TAM3 or on TAA2 other than Hal's Hamilton presentation. That's the half.

At TAM2, I remember sitting with some folks in the Tuscany lounge area who were commenting on how JREF and TAM needed more of an atheist focus and perhaps we should invite Matt and Trey. Sparklecat, who was a Christian at the time, was visibly uncomfortable and I invited her up to my shared suite with Girl6 to watch TV and get away from the badmouthing of religious believers. She, eventually, thanks to Old Schooler MartinM, who she went to live with in Scotland, became an atheist, but we could just have easily lost her to fundamentalism due to the perceived attacks on her faith... all the while being a perfectly good skeptic when it came to the paranormal and specific claims about the supernatural. That's one.

Two occured at TAM3 when Margaret Downey, while looking absolutely fetching in her nurse outfit, really turned me off with her presentation that basically was about atheism and suggested that people who were superstitious were mentally ill. I disagree vehemently. The superstitious are ignorant and need to be educated (note JREF), not told they are mentally ill.

These combination of things really turned me off JREF and I'm an atheist. It's right there in my user ID - UnrepentantSinner. While I agree completely with Jeff that atheism is, most likely, a logical conclusion of skepticism - at least weak atheism - I am concerned about how much it seems to be a "test" for what constitutes a skeptic (and have been so since 2003) or how JREF, at TAMs, might be propigating that attitude.

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.

That's one of the strangist things about the Atheist Orthodoxy crowd here. While Dr. Laura and the Skeptics Society parted ways on the issue of religion, JREF has not only embraced people with religious beliefs as members and interns, but made them part of the board of directors... see below.

If you don't like some people's criticisms of your beliefs, maybe you SHOULD leave.

Lonewulf, I like you a lot and enjoy your updates from Germany (it's been 23 years since I've been there and I miss it so you remind me of good days) but we... and yeah, I'm playing the Old School card... have been debating this issue years before you ever even joined the forum so I think it's the height of hubris for you to suggest that others should leave.

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome, as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

See above. You are missed, though if I never have to put up with your puns again I can die a happy atheist.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Nnnnnope.

Do you claim evidence of whatever god you believe in?

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 are very welcome on this forum, regardless of what is in your head. But you can't expect the other 14,479 members to be exclusively positive about you. People are diverse, and thank Naomi Campbell's butt for that.

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?

Have you considered that it isn't people who make some religious people "unwelcome" in scientific communities, but science itself? Surely, you are aware of how science has constantly removed one religious false belief after another.

Not because science is out to get religion, but simply because that's how science works? It finds answers, regardless of what people believe?

Divisiveness has been spreading throughout the world ever since George W. Bush entered office.

Oh, please! You should have been around when the Beatles broke up. That's when everything started to go to hell: Watergate. Disco. Shaun Cassidy.

Get some perspective, man.

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.

It is. If you look around, you will see many claims having been investigated here, and a number of false beliefs being run into the ground by hard evidence. And, of course, the occasional woo has met his match here as well.

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.

With almost 15,000 people of all kinds, from all over the world, you expected conformity? Pardon me for being so straightforward, but...wasn't that a wee bit naive of you?

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.

What gave you the idea that everyone here is a neopositivist?

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.

OK, now you are wandering onto very thin ice here. You may be disappointed not to find almost 15,000 people who would agree with you on everything, but to claim that people are being thrown out of the JREF Forum for being Jewish is fundamentally wrong.

Nobody has ever been "thrown out" because of their beliefs. Nobody.

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?

 

[CFLarsen]

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome, as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

That's OK. We can still hang out together. According to some "real" skeptics, I'm not a "real" skeptic either...

While I agree with what you're conclusions about the universe, we must be adamant that there is NO DOGMA IS SKEPTICISM.

(cough)

That's a dogma.

(cough)

"Skeptics should be a 6" is dogma. Skeptics SHOULD be whatever they think and feel is right. The point of skepticism is not to form a conclusion, but to always question those conclusions you do form, in the face of new evidence. For all I know the "believers" have evidence that I don't. I have to respect that.

And we have to stress - because this has clearly not registered everywhere - that if people don't claim evidence of their beliefs...

Moreover, I think the bigger problem, at least insofar as skeptics are concerned, is "what is the definition of god?" How can I answer if I believe in something if there's no good definition for it? And yes, I'm making that claim, there is NO good definition for god.

The closest I have seen is Naomi Campbell's butt.

You gotta admit that's a pretty persuasive definition...

 

[Chaos]

I don't understand why you think I'm playing loose with the word 'atheism'.

While I agree with what you're conclusions about the universe, we must be adamant that there is NO DOGMA IS SKEPTICISM. "Skeptics should be a 6" is dogma. Skeptics SHOULD be whatever they think and feel is right. The point of skepticism is not to form a conclusion, but to always question those conclusions you do form, in the face of new evidence. For all I know the "believers" have evidence that I don't. I have to respect that.

For all I know, they´re pulling it out of their asses. I cannot respect that. When I ask, "please show me the evidence", again and again and freakin´ again, and believers come up with NOTHING AT ALL, I feel I am no longer obliged to respect those parts of their beliefs that are based on testable claims.

Moreover, I think the bigger problem, at least insofar as skeptics are concerned, is "what is the definition of god?" How can I answer if I believe in something if there's no good definition for it? And yes, I'm making that claim, there is NO good definition for god.

As I´ve said in my previous post, on the gods proposed by the major religions - call him a "god of testable claims", if you want - it would be extremely hard to justify - skeptically and logically, that is - any other position than Dawkin´s #7, "does not exist as proposed".
On the other hand, god as described by Hal in his talk, one who is there and listens but does not interfere - call him a "god of patient listening" - position #7 would be, IMHO, untenable. Sure, it´s quite likely that it doesn´t exist, but we don´t KNOW either way. And thus, towards people like Hal, we have no business acting like we´re way smarter than they are.

And, just like Hal and UnrepentantSinner have said, it is very discouraging that, for all the claims of not being an atheist organization and of welcoming believers, people like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jilette are allowed to demonize religious people on stage at TAM. And it is even more discouraging that they do so accompanied by the roaring applause of the audience. As skeptics we should know better than to tolerate, even support, a load of unskeptical bullflop, just because it is directed at people we tend not to like.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

For all I know, they´re pulling it out of their asses. I cannot respect that. When I ask, "please show me the evidence", again and again and freakin´ again, and believers come up with NOTHING AT ALL, I feel I am no longer obliged to respect those parts of their beliefs that are based on testable claims.



As I´ve said in my previous post, on the gods proposed by the major religions - call him a "god of testable claims", if you want - it would be extremely hard to justify - skeptically and logically, that is - any other position than Dawkin´s #7, "does not exist as proposed".
On the other hand, god as described by Hal in his talk, one who is there and listens but does not interfere - call him a "god of patient listening" - position #7 would be, IMHO, untenable. Sure, it´s quite likely that it doesn´t exist, but we don´t KNOW either way. And thus, towards people like Hal, we have no business acting like we´re way smarter than they are.

And, just like Hal and UnrepentantSinner have said, it is very discouraging that, for all the claims of not being an atheist organization and of welcoming believers, people like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jilette are allowed to demonize religious people on stage at TAM. And it is even more discouraging that they do so accompanied by the roaring applause of the audience. As skeptics we should know better than to tolerate, even support, a load of unskeptical bullflop, just because it is directed at people we tend not to like.

Edited to add: You are not obliged to respect anything. It's also interesting to look at it a different way.. "Is there any value in holding that belief?" That's quite a bit different from "truth." Free will comes to mind, and that's recursive.

We will always have controversial people come to TAM. The speakers on the stage do NOT speak for the JREF. They're people who have some things in common with the goals of the JREF, and often have views that differ. We try to find people who are interesting and provocative. If you judge the JREF by a few of the dozens and dozens of speakers we've had, there's no hope.

The "roaring applause" is another issue. If we have strong atheist speakers, they will attract strong atheist attendees. Penn is an entertainer.. he IS entertaining. He will, if he's doing his job right, always get thunderous applause. That doesn't mean I agree with him, or Randi agrees with him, or that ALL of his views are in direct alignment with those of the JREF.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Penn & Teller and Hitchens are useful to skeptics. They make provocative points that require you to think. Agreeing with them is never required.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

(cough)

That's a dogma.

(cough)

No need for language games Claus. The meaning was clear. If you prefer, I can reword it as..

"There shall be no dogma in skepticism save this statement"

If someone wants to debate that point, have at it. It should be challenged.

 

[scribble]

On the other hand, god as described by Hal in his talk, one who is there and listens but does not interfere - call him a "god of patient listening" - position #7 would be, IMHO, untenable. Sure, it´s quite likely that it doesn´t exist, but we don´t KNOW either way. And thus, towards people like Hal, we have no business acting like we´re way smarter than they are.

from "The Demon-Haunted World"

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty pain cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatles fire, and no dragon at all?

From an interview with American Athiests:

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

All I'd like to add is that Lonewulf's comment was clearly "if you will be offended, perhaps you want to leave" /NOT/ "I want you to leave." The difference is critical, and nothing he said is worth getting offended over. The latter would be offensive, but is /clearly/ not what he meant.

-Chris

 

[Lonewulf]

This response, and the one above it, are prime examples of why I feel increasingly less welcome [...]

Because I don't like moderators banning or warning people for their opinions alone?


Be more specific. What actually makes you feel so unwelcome?

[...]as a non-atheist, here in the forum, and in the JREF in general. And why I am increasingly cutting my interactions with "real" skeptics.

make of that what you wish.

I have.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

At TAM2, I remember sitting with some folks in the Tuscany lounge area who were commenting on how JREF and TAM needed more of an atheist focus and perhaps we should invite Matt and Trey. Sparklecat, who was a Christian at the time, was visibly uncomfortable and I invited her up to my shared suite with Girl6 to watch TV and get away from the badmouthing of religious believers.

I don't get it - she went to a skeptical event but was not expecting to meet people (apparently in an informal discussion in a lounge area) who were skeptical about religion?

What other subjects that could be the subject of skeptical enquiry should we stay away from to avoid upsetting people?

She, eventually, thanks to Old Schooler MartinM, who she went to live with in Scotland, became an atheist

Nice to see the Kirk is as effective as ever. Has she been asked if she is a Protestant or Catholic athiest yet?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd just like to note that there is a key difference between being skeptical about religion, and making generalized insults on people that are religious.

There's a difference between, "I don't believe this, and this is why", "I'm skeptical of this, and this is why", and "Man, religious people are so stupid! Anyone who believes in God is a total moron..."

I'm not saying that the latter was necessarily the conversation that was going on in the particular case cited above, I'd just like to note that there are various ways of "badmouthing" religion, from my perspective, and some are more insulting to people than others.

 

[Chaos]

Edited to add: You are not obliged to respect anything. It's also interesting to look at it a different way.. "Is there any value in holding that belief?" That's quite a bit different from "truth." Free will comes to mind, and that's recursive.

Now you´re making more sense.

We will always have controversial people come to TAM. The speakers on the stage do NOT speak for the JREF. They're people who have some things in common with the goals of the JREF, and often have views that differ. We try to find people who are interesting and provocative. If you judge the JREF by a few of the dozens and dozens of speakers we've had, there's no hope.

I don´t have a problem with being provocative, as such. Dawkins and Dennett are, in their own way, at least as provocative as Hitchens and Penn.

The problem I have with Hitchens and Penn is, the things they say are not just provocative, they are wrong. They have said, in so many words, that every religious person, everyone who believes in god, is by definition a terrorist. Such a statement is so unskeptical, I don´t know where to being to explain how much.

Think about it. Penn says that Hal Bidlack is a terrorist. Hitchens says that Hal Bidlack flew those planes into the World Trade Center. If that is skepticism, I prefer woo-woos. If this is what atheism is supposed to be like, I think I´d rather become a born-again Christian.

The "roaring applause" is another issue. If we have strong atheist speakers, they will attract strong atheist attendees. Penn is an entertainer.. he IS entertaining. He will, if he's doing his job right, always get thunderous applause. That doesn't mean I agree with him, or Randi agrees with him, or that ALL of his views are in direct alignment with those of the JREF.

Both Hitchens and Penn have made statements, such as the above, that clearly demonstrate that they were not reached through critical thinking.

Last time I checked, the TAMs were a skeptical conference, which sort of implies that such throroughly unskeptical crap as uttered by Penn and Hitchens on those occasions would at least be instantly challenged by the other attendees, or at least by the VIPs present. But, nope, they got applause.

Yes, Penn is an entertainer, and he *is* entertaining, whenever he isn´t busy accusing part of the audience of mass murder. But that should not give him carte blanche to be a woo-woo about something, and be praised for it.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Penn & Teller and Hitchens are useful to skeptics. They make provocative points that require you to think. Agreeing with them is never required.

Then please find some people who use skepticism and critical thinking in order to make provocative points. And spare us of those who simply demonize those who, as a group, tend to be unpopular with the audience.

 

[Lonewulf]

The problem I have with Hitchens and Penn is, the things they say are not just provocative, they are wrong. They have said, in so many words, that every religious person, everyone who believes in god, is by definition a terrorist.

Do you have a particular cite in mind?

I just read through God is Not Great by Hitchens, and I have yet to come across any such statement.

 

[CFLarsen]

And, just like Hal and UnrepentantSinner have said, it is very discouraging that, for all the claims of not being an atheist organization and of welcoming believers, people like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jilette are allowed to demonize religious people on stage at TAM. And it is even more discouraging that they do so accompanied by the roaring applause of the audience. As skeptics we should know better than to tolerate, even support, a load of unskeptical bullflop, just because it is directed at people we tend not to like.

What do you think of the roaring applause the "I deny the Holy Spirit" demonstration got at TAM5?

No need for language games Claus. The meaning was clear. If you prefer, I can reword it as..

"There shall be no dogma in skepticism save this statement"

If someone wants to debate that point, have at it. It should be challenged.

No, I like that one. Tongue-in-cheek. Very good!

I don´t have a problem with being provocative, as such. Dawkins and Dennett are, in their own way, at least as provocative as Hitchens and Penn.

The problem I have with Hitchens and Penn is, the things they say are not just provocative, they are wrong. They have said, in so many words, that every religious person, everyone who believes in god, is by definition a terrorist. Such a statement is so unskeptical, I don´t know where to being to explain how much.

Think about it. Penn says that Hal Bidlack is a terrorist. Hitchens says that Hal Bidlack flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Where do they say all that?

Both Hitchens and Penn have made statements, such as the above, that clearly demonstrate that they were not reached through critical thinking.

Last time I checked, the TAMs were a skeptical conference, which sort of implies that such throroughly unskeptical crap as uttered by Penn and Hitchens on those occasions would at least be instantly challenged by the other attendees, or at least by the VIPs present. But, nope, they got applause.

If we want a lively and interesting TAM, we should not merely invite those whom we know will tell us things we already agree with. That would be preaching to the choir - something we absolutely must avoid.

Not only are Hitchens and P&T very interesting to listen to, we should definitely also invite major woos, like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Benny Hinn, Dean Radin and Gary Schwartz to TAM.

Yes, Penn is an entertainer, and he *is* entertaining, whenever he isn´t busy accusing part of the audience of mass murder.

Whoa... I have been to all TAMs, and I have never heard anyone accuse part of the audience of mass murder.

 

[chillzero]

All I'd like to add is that Lonewulf's comment was clearly "if you will be offended, perhaps you want to leave" /NOT/ "I want you to leave." The difference is critical, and nothing he said is worth getting offended over. The latter would be offensive, but is /clearly/ not what he meant.

-Chris

Precisely.
And my post - the one above it - was (I thought) clearly a friendly one. I was trying to point out that not all skeptics are aggressively anti-religion. I was saying that I was sorry the poster felt unwelcome, and tried to extend more of a welcome. I asked him to hang around - try out the rest of the forum.

What was so offensive about that?