The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Jeff Wagg]

SNIP... 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.

Your list of those people will vary with other people's lists.

 

[Collin Merenoff]

I feel much better now. And I retract my statements about police and law.

I don't have evidence for G-d, or a good explanation for my belief, and I don't pretend to. I have some bad explanations, but you'll never see them on this forum.

I'm not a fundamentalist. Although I'm not a pantheist or a deist either, my religion is almost minimal. In particular, I believe in evolution and (almost) natural selection, the separation of Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc. and State, and the separation of religion and science.

Politically, I am mostly what Conservatives would call a Radical Liberal, except for some opinions on taxation (which I assume don't apply to this forum).

 

[six7s]

Politically, I am mostly what Conservatives would call a Radical Liberal, except for some opinions on taxation (which I assume don't apply to this forum).

So you have less than 42 rifles and have never killed more than an 26 illegal immigrants in any one financial year?

Collin, your above post reads like a breath of fresh air in comparison with your earlier efforts

I see no reason why you won't be welcome here, and who knows, maybe one day the label sceptic won't look too gooey... although be wary of the 'One True Scotsman' brand - they'll rip every last hair from your body if you try to pull one off

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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?

Perhaps she could answer, but no, she was quite active in the forum and was quite familiar with attitudes towards religion she might encounter there. You must have missed the point I was trying to make (which Lonewulf summarizes in his quote below.)

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

Oh, everything. We must unquestioningly accept every single claim by every single person and not engage in any inquiry lest we hurt peoples feelings...

The point is not that we're to avoid investigation or criticism. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Tact is what I advocate.

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.

There wasn't any of the latter that occured, IIRC, during that particular encounter, but I think she heard enough of the latter to turn her off further involvement with TAM for the weekend.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'd also note for some of the newer folks, this isn't an issue that just suddenly came up.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17040
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51358
It's been an ongoing issue.

 

[Chaos]

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

Which one was that?

And, assuming the Holy Spirit in question is the one proposed by Christianity, I definitely deny it inasfar as it involves testable claims... until and unless these claims are, one day, proven.

*snip*
Where do they say all that?

At TAM. You were there, remember? Hitchens said, "If you are religious, you flew those planes into the World Trade Center." For example.

Hal is religious. Hitchens knew that, because Hal had said so. Therefore Hitchens accused Hal of "flying those planes into the World Trade Center".

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, by all means, do so. And then CHALLENGE THEIR CLAIMS. Inviting people to make woo-woo claims and then cheering them has NOTHING to do with skepticism.

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

Then you´ve spent the crucial parts of TAM with your fingers stuck in your ears. Hitchens and Penn have said it very clearly that they consider religious people, those who believe in god, to be terrorists - even explicitly to be involved in the 9/11 attacks. These attacks constitute mass murder.
Parts of the audience - Hal, Kittynh, MLynn, to name just three - are religious people, and do believe in god. Therefore Penn and Hitchens accused these people of mass murder.

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..."

It might be interesting for you to know that Penn states at TAM that those who believe in god are "freakin´ retards". (except that he didn´t say "freakin´" - you know the kind of language Penn uses) And again, the audience cheered him enthusiastically.

 

[Lonewulf]

It might be interesting for you to know that Penn states at TAM that those who believe in god are "freakin´ retards". (except that he didn´t say "freakin´" - you know the kind of language Penn uses) And again, the audience cheered him enthusiastically.

The guy that has a show called "Bullspit!" actually called a group of people retards? Tell me it ain't so!

Either way, I wasn't defending Penn, but however from what I've seen of Hitchen's message in most other forms of media, he's very elegant and interesting in how he portrays his viewpoint. I haven't attended TAM, and I wouldn't hang the guy for a single statement.

 

[Smiledriver]

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.

Indeed, the JREF not to metion Randi himself cleary sees the value in a free marketplace of ideas. I would suggest that is why it attracts as diverse a set of intellectuals as it does.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which one was that?

Rebecca, during her presentation, encouraged the audience to participate in the ongoing "I deny the Holy Spirit" campaign. You can read more about it here.

It got thunderous applause. What do you think of that?

And, assuming the Holy Spirit in question is the one proposed by Christianity, I definitely deny it inasfar as it involves testable claims... until and unless these claims are, one day, proven.

Your criticism of the anti-religious people at TAM doesn't mention testable claims. Your criticism is solely about their decidedly firm stance against religion, period.

At TAM. You were there, remember? Hitchens said, "If you are religious, you flew those planes into the World Trade Center." For example.

Hal is religious. Hitchens knew that, because Hal had said so. Therefore Hitchens accused Hal of "flying those planes into the World Trade Center".

I don't have the TAM 5 DVD, and I can't remember that he did. For now, I'll take your word for it, but I expect you to provide evidence, of course.

Assuming you are right, then Hitchens clearly spoke too strongly. Such a statement is not warranted.

Yes, by all means, do so. And then CHALLENGE THEIR CLAIMS. Inviting people to make woo-woo claims and then cheering them has NOTHING to do with skepticism.

Rest assured that Sylvia Browne's claims would be challenged at TAM. That's the whole idea of inviting her and her ilk.

Then you´ve spent the crucial parts of TAM with your fingers stuck in your ears.

Such criticism cannot be taken seriously. As you know, I have been an eager and very active participant in all TAMs, both as an attendee, and as member of the volunteer team.

Hitchens and Penn have said it very clearly that they consider religious people, those who believe in god, to be terrorists - even explicitly to be involved in the 9/11 attacks. These attacks constitute mass murder.
Parts of the audience - Hal, Kittynh, MLynn, to name just three - are religious people, and do believe in god. Therefore Penn and Hitchens accused these people of mass murder.

I do have the TAM 2, 3 and 4 DVDs, however. Can you tell me which lectures either Hitchens or Penn said that they believe religious people to be terrorists - even explicitly to be involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Do they mean deists?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Your criticism of the anti-religious people at TAM doesn't mention testable claims. Your criticism is solely about their decidedly firm stance against religion, period.

Sorry to snip but this precise issue is the one I have been making a stink about all this time.

The criticism of the anti-religious attitude expressed at TAMs and on the forum isn't about their testable claims. I have made numerous posts critical of testable religious claims (my current on-line raison d'etre is Creationism and Evolution), critical of, well, marginally testable claims (prayer efficacy) and critical of Church/State issues and how fundamentalism is a dangerous aspect to humanity.

At the same time I have been vocally (or at least textually ) critical of those who are anti-religious since TAM2 or before. So what?

My problem isn't with those people having an anti-religious attitude per se, it's with how they express it and the tact with which they express it at functions like TAM - again, not an atheist conference, but a skeptics conference - and on the forum - again, not because I agree with the religious folks, but because I think it will drive them away before we can make progress with them.

The anti-religious attitude of some of the more militant atheists at TAM or on the forum isn't a problem in the academic sense... it's a problem with PR. And as I noted with my anecdote about Sparklecat above, it's not necessarily fatal, but why should we take the chance?

 

[Chaos]

Rebecca, during her presentation, encouraged the audience to participate in the ongoing "I deny the Holy Spirit" campaign. You can read more about it here.

It got thunderous applause. What do you think of that?

Can you PLEASE stop derailing the discussion? This "I deny the Holy Spirit" thing and the Blasphemy Challenge have nothing to do with Hitchens´ and Penn´s claims.

Your criticism of the anti-religious people at TAM doesn't mention testable claims. Your criticism is solely about their decidedly firm stance against religion, period.

I have explained, in detail, what my criticism is. If you chose to distort my statements, fine, but then our discussion ends right here, period.

I don't have the TAM 5 DVD, and I can't remember that he did. For now, I'll take your word for it, but I expect you to provide evidence, of course.

I don´t have the TAM 5 DVD, either, but I wasn´t talking about TAM 5, specifically. I wonder what gave you that idea.

Assuming you are right, then Hitchens clearly spoke too strongly. Such a statement is not warranted.

A miracle has happened! You have admitted that a (so-called) skeptic might possibly have been wrong! Hallelujah!

Rest assured that Sylvia Browne's claims would be challenged at TAM. That's the whole idea of inviting her and her ilk.

Then why not challenge Penn´s claims and Hitchens´ claims? Do they get a free ride because they say things you like?

Such criticism cannot be taken seriously. As you know, I have been an eager and very active participant in all TAMs, both as an attendee, and as member of the volunteer team.

And yet you claim not to remember key statements by people who have been speakers at TAM again and again?

I do have the TAM 2, 3 and 4 DVDs, however. Can you tell me which lectures either Hitchens or Penn said that they believe religious people to be terrorists - even explicitly to be involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Do they mean deists?

Then watch the DVDs. Penn´s "religious people are freakin´ retards" was at TAM2 - IIRC at one of the panel discussions.
I think Hitchens´ remark and Penn´s other remark were during one of the TAM 3 panel discussions.

They didn´t qualify anything. "Religious people", and "If you believe in god", that´s what they said.

 

[CFLarsen]

The anti-religious attitude of some of the more militant atheists at TAM or on the forum isn't a problem in the academic sense... it's a problem with PR.

You're going to find all types of skeptics at a big conference such as TAM. It's impossible to make a list that will please everyone.

And as I noted with my anecdote about Sparklecat above, it's not necessarily fatal, but why should we take the chance?

She did seem to turn out alright...

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you PLEASE stop derailing the discussion? This "I deny the Holy Spirit" thing and the Blasphemy Challenge have nothing to do with Hitchens´ and Penn´s claims.

Why not? It happened at TAM, it was extremely critical of religious people - in fact, it is designed to piss religious people off - and got a very positive response from the audience.

If you criticize Hitchens and Penn for being overtly critical of religious people at TAM, you should be similarly critical of Rebecca's very popular promotion of the Blasphemy Challenge at TAM.

I don't understand why you think those are different issues.

I have explained, in detail, what my criticism is. If you chose to distort my statements, fine, but then our discussion ends right here, period.

Huh? How am I distorting anything?

I don´t have the TAM 5 DVD, either, but I wasn´t talking about TAM 5, specifically. I wonder what gave you that idea.

Well, we're in luck, then, since I have the TAM2-4 DVDs. Do you?

A miracle has happened! You have admitted that a (so-called) skeptic might possibly have been wrong! Hallelujah!

Sarcasm aside, I do that when I see it.

Then why not challenge Penn´s claims and Hitchens´ claims? Do they get a free ride because they say things you like?

Of course they don't. But I think you are confusing claims with opinions. Clearly, neither Hitchens or Penn mean that all people with religious beliefs were active participants in the 9/11 attacks. Apparently, they are of the opinion that if you are religious, you are at least partly responsible for what other religious people do.

You call that a claim. How do you suggest we test such a claim?

And yet you claim not to remember key statements by people who have been speakers at TAM again and again?

I don't claim to remember each and every sentence made by speakers at TAM, no. However - since I have the DVDs, we can check to see if you are right.

Then watch the DVDs. Penn´s "religious people are freakin´ retards" was at TAM2 - IIRC at one of the panel discussions.

I think Hitchens´ remark and Penn´s other remark were during one of the TAM 3 panel discussions.

They didn´t qualify anything. "Religious people", and "If you believe in god", that´s what they said.

You "think", if you recall correctly - yet, you criticize me because I can't remember each and every word from all speakers at all TAMs.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Perhaps she could answer, but no, she was quite active in the forum and was quite familiar with attitudes towards religion she might encounter there. You must have missed the point I was trying to make (which Lonewulf summarizes in his quote below.)

Maybe I am not understanding what the problem is:

"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"

There is nothing in there that appears to be rude, or offensive, or less than tactful. I can see how it could be done in that manner, and maybe it was and that is the information I am missing.

If you think even raising the subject is a problem I disagree completely. If it was the manner in which it was raised, then I can't disagree as I have no information on that.

 

[Gurdur]

You're going to find all types of skeptics at a big conference such as TAM. It's impossible to make a list that will please everyone.

However, it is entirely possible to do a somewhat better job of sensible and desired balance, perhaps, which would seem to be the point in question.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You're going to find all types of skeptics at a big conference such as TAM. It's impossible to make a list that will please everyone.

And, for the 1000th time it seems... my concern isn't with the speakers or the content of their speeches per se, but with how they/it might effect our PR effort to spread skepticism and hopefully organized skepticism.

She did seem to turn out alright...

I know bud. I witnessed it real time on the former Christianforums.com.

Maybe I am not understanding what the problem is:

"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"

There is nothing in there that appears to be rude, or offensive, or less than tactful. I can see how it could be done in that manner, and maybe it was and that is the information I am missing.

If you think even raising the subject is a problem I disagree completely. If it was the manner in which it was raised, then I can't disagree as I have no information on that.

Focusing on your third and last paragraph, it wasn't the subject, it was the tone and tenor. I'm sorry if I don't recall precise transcripts of conversations that occured over 3 years ago, but I remember the feeling Sparklecat had after 3 days of TAM, rooming with MoeFaux, which she avoided Saturday and Sunday because of (IIRC) reasons of her religiousness.

As noted she wound up what we would consider "O.K.", but there are numerous examples of people who have been turned off of organized Skepticism because of forum or TAM emphasis - perceived or real - on atheism... again, based on tact or approach more than a simple avoidance of the issue... and isn't that contrary to the aims of JREF, organized skepticism and skeptics in general.

Last night at work I came up with some quip which I can't replicate this moring but basically it was "we can eliminate people visiting psychics a lot faster than we can eliminate religion... we can work on the latter after getting rid of the former."

Or something like that.

 

[CFLarsen]

However, it is entirely possible to do a somewhat better job of sensible and desired balance, perhaps, which would seem to be the point in question.

And, for the 1000th time it seems... my concern isn't with the speakers or the content of their speeches per se, but with how they/it might effect our PR effort to spread skepticism and hopefully organized skepticism.

Atheism - especially the Penn/Hitchens version - is present, but not something that permeates TAM.

Let's not overreact here.

Last night at work I came up with some quip which I can't replicate this moring but basically it was "we can eliminate people visiting psychics a lot faster than we can eliminate religion... we can work on the latter after getting rid of the former."

Or something like that.

That's why I keep a pen and notepad next to my bed. Not that it helps much with the quality....

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Focusing on your third and last paragraph, it wasn't the subject, it was the tone and tenor. I'm sorry if I don't recall precise transcripts of conversations that occured over 3 years ago, but I remember the feeling Sparklecat had after 3 days of TAM, rooming with MoeFaux, which she avoided Saturday and Sunday because of (IIRC) reasons of her religiousness.

That's fine, nobody expects you to. However I wasn't there, so I have to go simply on what you posted to describe the incident. From that post it appeared to me that you were more concerned with the subject matter (where you mentioned specifics like suggesting a more athiest focus and inviting Matt & Trey) than about style (which was not mentioned beyond a reference to "badmouthing" of religious believers).

As I said, if it is about the way it was done, I can't agree or disagree as I wasn't there.

 

[JanisChambers]

I think it is a good idea not to simply Label the JREF. We have to draw a powerful contrast to the more dogmatic of attitudes that the organization sets out to debunk. The scientific method, that is objectively and openly questioning even the most sacred, is the only way to defend ourselves from Woo Artists and circular thinking.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

As I said, if it is about the way it was done, I can't agree or disagree as I wasn't there.

Basically what I have is an anecdote based on a few days events almost 4 years ago so I fully understand. I'll try and contact Sparklecat and have her offer her commentary.

Claus, you make great points, but again, it's about the tone and tenor, not about the content per se. Specifically from TAM3 I enjoyed Penn's advocacy of atheism, I didn't appreciate his chastizement of Unitarians and specifically the woman attendee.