The JREF is not an atheist organization

[UnrepentantSinner]

I was raised in an international class (elementary school) where all mainstream religions were present. 11 years of being taught everyday to respect nonsense. I got wiser, how about you?

I was raised to respect my fellow human beings even if I disagreed with them on things. Hopefully that's something I never "wisen" out of. Other than your sarcasm, I don't know what point your post served. Did you have one?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ah, but the forum remembers. The first time this issue was discussed, it appeared that the majority of members did not want the JREF to be officially atheist. Note that the majority of JREF members are atheist.

And discussions of it have preceeded even that thread - often after earlier TAMs.

 

[dglas]

It's not a disclaimer answer at all. It's a simple yes/no answer.

"Is the JREF an atheist organization?"

"No."

End of story. Some people want elaboration, so the JREF elaborates - but this isn't being "disclaimerish", it's just answering a question.

If someone asked, "Is the JREF a Christian organization", the answer would be the same. This doesn't mean that the JREF is somehow singling out a Christian connection as inherently bad!

Thank you, Checkmite. That's what I suspected.

Then here we go.

Question: Does the JREF place questions of unsupported (unsupportable) woo (AKA: God) beyond the boundaries of its inquiry?

Is the existence of God a "paranormal or supernatural claim?" Please refer:
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/50/40/
What are "the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning..." that is referred to here?

But, let's see if there will be equal denial on other fronts, shall we:

Is the JREF a theist organization?

More to the point: Is the JREF a deist organization?

Putting it bluntly, one person's personal inability to reconcile personal desires with a rigorous doubt-based method of examination should not dictate the parameters of a "skeptical" organization's inquiry. Nor should it be permitted to redefine the method into meaninglessness.

 

[CFLarsen]

Smooth.

Aye.

Not in the light of other premisses that are obvious to me. I.e. JREF is a skeptics org that exist without official refutation of organized religion.

Why would it officially refute organized religion? It doesn't refute Britney Spears either. Both are simply outside the boundaries of JREF.

Ok, then we can start with the fabulous biblical cosmology, my favorite, which is an obvoius copy/paste of the Babylonian cosmology. Easy to debunk, even the xians have noted that. How would you like to measure that up against modern scientific astronomy?

What is it you want to "debunk"? We can "debunk" it inasmuch as we can point to the various false beliefs of yore. In the case of Young Earth Creationists using it to justify their beliefs, we also do that, by countering Creationism.

Anyway, I'm off to a weekend party in the suburbs now, see ya early next week perhaps

'burbian....

Thank you, Checkmite. That's what I suspected.

Then here we go.

Question: Does the JREF place questions of unsupported (unsupportable) woo (AKA: God) beyond the boundaries of its inquiry?

Is the existence of God a "paranormal or supernatural claim?" Please refer:
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/50/40/
What are "the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning..." that is referred to here?

But, let's see if there will be equal denial on other fronts, shall we:

Is the JREF a theist organization?

More to the point: Is the JREF a deist organization?

So, if JREF doesn't actively deny whatever you want it to deny, JREF loses: It should do so! BAAAAD!

If JREF actively denies whatever you want it to deny, JREF loses. That's a "disclaimer"! BAAAAD!

Putting it bluntly, one person's personal inability to reconcile personal desires with a rigorous doubt-based method of examination should not dictate the parameters of a "skeptical" organization's inquiry. Nor should it be permitted to redefine the method into meaninglessness.

JREF is doing neither.

What, in scientific skepticism, enables us to determine that God doesn't exist?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Question: Does the JREF place questions of unsupported (unsupportable) woo (AKA: God) beyond the boundaries of its inquiry?

No, but it places things which are outside the boundries of scientific inquiry - such as the supernatural per se - outside the bounries of its inquiry. As has been pointed out hundreds of times on this forum, specific supernatural claims can be tested, should be and are.

To echo Claus, how exactly do we scientifically debunk God or any theistic belief?

Is the existence of God a "paranormal or supernatural claim?" Please refer:
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/50/40/
What are "the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning..." that is referred to here?

No one here is who realizes the JREF isn't an atheist organization are suggesting that paranormal or supernatural claims should be accepted without question. That is a straw man. We're suggesting that this is an organization dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking, not an atheist group like American Atheists or FFRA. Again, the specific claims can and will be investigated, but the supernatural per se is beyond the scope of the scientific method.

That is unless you can suggest a scientific test for God.

But, let's see if there will be equal denial on other fronts, shall we:

Is the JREF a theist organization?

More to the point: Is the JREF a deist organization?

Why are you posing those questions positively when I specifically crafted the question in the OP negatively? I know what JREF is, it promotes skepticism and critical thinking and members, be they religious or not, should help promote that too. Apart from that, there's question about what JREF is, the question is what it is not when it comes to an official position.

Just because you want JREF to be an atheist organization and to denouce religious belief per se doesn't mean that's what should or will happen.

Putting it bluntly, one person's personal inability to reconcile personal desires with a rigorous doubt-based method of examination should not dictate the parameters of a "skeptical" organization's inquiry. Nor should it be permitted to redefine the method into meaninglessness.

Oddly enough, it seems like it's you who wants to redefine things and that is to turn JREF into another AA or FFRF.

And what's the scientific test for God then?

 

[dglas]

So, if JREF doesn't actively deny whatever you want it to deny, JREF loses: It should do so! BAAAAD!

If JREF actively denies whatever you want it to deny, JREF loses. That's a "disclaimer"! BAAAAD!

Cute.

Not precisely, Claus, because the JREF has already singled out one group to disassociate from. The damage is already done; at this point it is damage-control. Is the JREF prepared to universalize that disassociation in favour of its actual mission, and openly declare the atheism-theism issue a non-starter? That would be my recommendation, but I don't have the ear of the king.

I already stated that a perfectly neutral position was, in my opinion, the most appropriate, but that is not what was taken. The spotlight is on and glaring at atheists as outcast, unclean. It seems to me your objections would most properly be leveled towards the origin of the initial question under consideration, "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" just as mine are.

It is a loaded question that would better have been handled as the trap it was. Instead, the JREF, for presumably unknown reasons, acknowleged the question as legitimate and made a public statement, thereby singling out a particular group and distancing itself from that group. Perhaps it was the design of the question to do this, yes? Maybe?

This may come as a surprise to you, Claus, but I don't want the JREF to lose. You are working from a false premise. I am not arguing that the JREF should come out in favour of atheism. I am saying only that it should not single out atheism for disfavour.

Did it ever occur to you that I might be saying this because I see a position of weakness being provided to those who ARE hostile to the JREF? Of course not. You're just reflexively defensive and want to bicker.

JREF is doing neither.

What, in scientific skepticism, enables us to determine that God doesn't exist?

LOL I'm sorry. Do you imagine I'll be cowed by that superficial a diversionary tactic?

What is the default position for a claim for which there is no evidence? Surely, you of all people needn't be asked this, hmmm? Which of the two claims you allude to here is the extraordinary one? But, of course, that is not the point in question is it, CFDerailer?

What precisely in the purpose of making a point of declaring the JREF is not an atheist organization? That, sir, is the issue.

To understand the idea of NOMA is not necessarily to recognize its legitimacy. Start playing the NOMA game, and suddenly your footing becomes very, very slippery indeed. Are you sure you want to be an advocate of the legitimacy of NOMA? Think carefully....this is dangerous territory.

I am not asking this just of Claus; I am asking this of the JREF.

 

[CFLarsen]

Cute.

Not precisely, Claus, because the JREF has already singled out one group to disassociate from. The damage is already done; at this point it is damage-control.

Nonsense. That way, it's all "damage-control" after any organization disassociates itself from just one thing.

Is the JREF prepared to universalize that disassociation in favour of its actual mission, and openly declare the atheism-theism issue a non-starter? That would be my recommendation, but I don't have the ear of the king.

Why don't you leave it to JREF to define its actual mission?

I already stated that a perfectly neutral position was, in my opinion, the most appropriate, but that is not what was taken. The spotlight is on and glaring at atheists as outcast, unclean. It seems to me your objections would most properly be leveled towards the origin of the initial question under consideration, "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" just as mine are.

No, not at all. I think it is a very relevant question. Certainly, it has been a concern for TAM attendees, so it is good to get a clear statement.

It is a loaded question that would better have been handled as the trap it was. Instead, the JREF, for presumably unknown reasons, acknowleged the question as legitimate and made a public statement, thereby singling out a particular group and distancing itself from that group. Perhaps it was the design of the question to do this, yes? Maybe?

Should JREF not have answered the question?

This may come as a surprise to you, Claus, but I don't want the JREF to lose. You are working from a false premise. I am not arguing that the JREF should come out in favour of atheism. I am saying only that it should not single out atheism for disfavour.

I don't see how you are prepared to make them win. Except by simply ignoring the question. And I don't see how that is a win at all.

Did it ever occur to you that I might be saying this because I see a position of weakness being provided to those who ARE hostile to the JREF? Of course not.

I don't see it as a weakness, quite contrary.

You're just reflexively defensive and want to bicker.

Defensive? Moi?

LOL I'm sorry. Do you imagine I'll be cowed by that superficial a diversionary tactic?

It's not a diversionary tactic. The question goes straight to the core of your argument.

What, in scientific skepticism, enables us to determine that God doesn't exist?

What is the default position for a claim for which there is no evidence? Surely, you of all people needn't be asked this, hmmm? Which of the two claims you allude to here is the extraordinary one? But, of course, that is not the point in question is it, CFDerailer?

*bing*

I see where your confusion comes from. It isn't a question of missing evidence, but a question of whether or not evidence can be found at all.

What precisely in the purpose of making a point of declaring the JREF is not an atheist organization? That, sir, is the issue.

Because they were asked the question.

It's that simple.

To understand the idea of NOMA is not necessarily to recognize its legitimacy. Start playing the NOMA game, and suddenly your footing becomes very, very slippery indeed. Are you sure you want to be an advocate of the legitimacy of NOMA? Think carefully....this is dangerous territory.

I am not asking this just of Claus; I am asking this of the JREF.

That's fine. While you are waiting for Randi's reply (you did email him, didn't you?), you can explain how my "footing" would become very, very slippery indeed, were I to play the "NOMA game".

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The spotlight is on and glaring at atheists as outcast, unclean.

Oh for pete's sake. Virtually everyone who has reponded to the sentiment in the thread title (affirming or rejecting it) has been an atheist or agnostic.

I expect straw man persecution complex hyperbole on Christian forums, but it never ceases to amaze me how often I see on a forum ostensibly comprised of critical thinkers.

 

[chippy]

How many people in this thread argued pro-Christianity? How many people took the opportunity to be as rude and demeaning as possible?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99113&page=4


This thread seals the deal that JREF IS an atheist organization.

 

[CFLarsen]

How many people in this thread argued pro-Christianity? How many people took the opportunity to be as rude and demeaning as possible?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99113&page=4


This thread seals the deal that JREF IS an atheist organization.

From the front page of the forum:

Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors.

JREF and people posting on the JREF Forum are two different things.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How many people in this thread argued pro-Christianity? How many people took the opportunity to be as rude and demeaning as possible?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99113&page=4


This thread seals the deal that JREF IS an atheist organization.

Since I started this thread over concerns of attitudes expressed by forum members regarding the JREF I think I am qualified to ask you a couple of questions.

1. Why does "not being an officially atheist organization" or demanding atheist orthodoxy mean people should be pro-Christian?

2. I take a lot of crap on this forum for using "God-Hater" by people who don't understand what I'm getting at, but it's ironic that you should focus on Christianity. Why is that?

3. The word from JREF staffers (note Remie is a believer) is that JREF is not the same as AA or FFRF, so what comments in the thread makes conclude the organization is officially atheist despite those pronouncements because of some comments from forum members?

4. I am an atheist who has been to 4 Amaz!ng functions, and was, until recently, a paying JREF member. If I supported your conclusion, why would I have started this thread, butted heads with people I like over the topic and continued to post my opinions this far along?

 

[CFLarsen]

2. I take a lot of crap on this forum for using "God-Hater"

[technical mode on]

How can one hate something one doesn't believe exists?

[technical mode off]

 

[dglas]

How many people in this thread argued pro-Christianity? How many people took the opportunity to be as rude and demeaning as possible?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99113&page=4


This thread seals the deal that JREF IS an atheist organization.

And, BINGO!

There you have it. It is not atheists and free-thinkers who aggressively seek to subjugate every other world view; to silence their critics. The us-or-die attitude has always been that of the dogmatist. For the religious there is no middle ground, there is no neutrality. It is inconceivable for them (it is actually part of the dogma) that there be no middle ground. Diversity of thought is evil for them. Do you understand now? Theism cannot be negotiated with, it makes no compromises - that's the nature of absolutism. The very best you can hope for is that it will recognize it is not dominant enough to be openly aggressive; that it will decide to just lie in wait...for now...

Recent US political history is a prime example of this. Not to mention the millennia of world history before that.

This is why equivocating what some so flippantly call "militant atheism" with "fundamentalism" is so absurdly ridiculous, and why it looks so patently foolish to do so. If only it were merely a persecution complex, honestly. For Pete's sake! (Who the hell is Pete anyway?)

The reason the JREF and other skeptical organizations think to openly state they are not atheist organizations is because of the vilification of atheism by theists and contrived variants thereof. They don't want that vilification to cost them potential donations and funding. In short the reason the JREF makes a point to state that it is not an atheist organization is because it is under pressure (everything from economics to puppy-dog eyes) from theists to segregate out the atheists. Rather than suffer the losses in funding, lip service is provided and the atheists are singled out for segregation. Victory for the theist.

By the way, it is not just the "fundies," that artificially contrived "extreme" that is used to naively try to separate out the passive theists from the active theists, it is the vast majority of the theistic (active and passive both) who openly vilify atheism. Are you going to ask for evidence for that, Claus? You'll look foolish doing so. Otherwise, there would be no reason to openly disclaim atheism.

News flash: to the believer doubt itself is the enemy. Even in the carefully disguised, "scientific" version of skepticism, doubt is THE defining property/quality of skepticism. And, for the record, that is not my definition of skepticism (nice try!), it is the definition of skepticism throughout history that holds for all variants of skepticism. If you have true-believers supporting your skeptical organization, it is because they think they can defeat it by gaining influence within it. With any luck they can introduce stuff like NOMA to water down or limit the scope, scale or application of doubt in order to hold their particular true-beliefs immune. Even better if skepticism can be trivialized, made to sound inconsistent, divorced from its defining quality, rendered meaningless, cowardly. Victory for the theist.

Logically, skepticism is neither theist nor atheist, neither affirming nor denying. It is actually "scientific skepticism" that takes the actual leap towards atheism by disdaining non-naturalistic explanations and introducing the idea of empirical evidence as a road to knowledge. We keep it in check by declaring it conditional knowledge. I am not confused, Claus, I am consistent. I understand NOMA reasonably well, I think. It is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination; only the term is relatively recent. (You know, much like "Intelligent Design.") And that puts paid to that CFDerail. I've discussed this enough times in the past. You did not argue that point with me before, only now, when you are seeking to justify and derail. It is not to the point in this thread. If you wish to discuss it elsewhere, we can, but not in this topic. It is not to the point.

And, no, I am not talking to you, Chippy. I know there is no point in trying to negotiate or compromise with you; there's no point in trying to discuss a neutral ground with you. All I can do is hope to keep the guns out of your hands...

 

[CFLarsen]

And, BINGO!

There you have it. It is not atheists and free-thinkers who aggressively seek to subjugate every other world view; to silence their critics. The us-or-die attitude has always been that of the dogmatist. For the religious there is no middle ground, there is no neutrality. It is inconceivable for them (it is actually part of the dogma) that there be no middle ground. Diversity of thought is evil for them. Do you understand now? Theism cannot be negotiated with, it makes no compromises - that's the nature of absolutism. The very best you can hope for is that it will recognize it is not dominant enough to be openly aggressive; that it will decide to just lie in wait...for now...

You can't say anything about JREF's official position based on what people post on this forum.

Recent US political history is a prime example of this. Not to mention the millennia of world history before that.

This is why equivocating what some so flippantly call "militant atheism" with "fundamentalism" is so absurdly ridiculous, and why it looks so patently foolish to do so. If only it were merely a persecution complex, honestly. For Pete's sake! (Who the hell is Pete anyway?)

God.

Ironic, hm?

The reason the JREF and other skeptical organizations think to openly state they are not atheist organizations is because of the vilification of atheism by theists and contrived variants thereof. They don't want that vilification to cost them potential donations and funding. In short the reason the JREF makes a point to state that it is not an atheist organization is because it is under pressure (everything from economics to puppy-dog eyes) from theists to segregate out the atheists. Rather than suffer the losses in funding, lip service is provided and the atheists are singled out for segregation. Victory for the theist.

Nonsense. JREF isn't stating this because it is scared of scaring off donators. JREF is stating this because the question was asked.

By the way, it is not just the "fundies," that artificially contrived "extreme" that is used to naively try to separate out the passive theists from the active theists, it is the vast majority of the theistic (active and passive both) who openly vilify atheism. Are you going to ask for evidence for that, Claus? You'll look foolish doing so. Otherwise, there would be no reason to openly disclaim atheism.

Why would I ask evidence of that? I haven't claimed otherwise.

News flash: to the believer doubt itself is the enemy. Even in the carefully disguised, "scientific" version of skepticism, doubt is THE defining property/quality of skepticism. And, for the record, that is not my definition of skepticism (nice try!), it is the definition of skepticism throughout history that holds for all variants of skepticism. If you have true-believers supporting your skeptical organization, it is because they think they can defeat it by gaining influence within it. With any luck they can introduce stuff like NOMA to water down or limit the scope, scale or application of doubt in order to hold their particular true-beliefs immune. Even better if skepticism can be trivialized, made to sound inconsistent, divorced from its defining quality, rendered meaningless, cowardly. Victory for the theist.

See what I mean? You leave no room for JREF to win. It will always be the theist who wins.

Logically, skepticism is neither theist nor atheist, neither affirming nor denying. It is actually "scientific skepticism" that takes the actual leap towards atheism by disdaining non-naturalistic explanations and introducing the idea of empirical evidence as a road to knowledge. We keep it in check by declaring it conditional knowledge. I am not confused, Claus, I am consistent. I understand NOMA reasonably well, I think. It is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination; only the term is relatively recent. (You know, much like "Intelligent Design.") And that puts paid to that CFDerail. I've discussed this enough times in the past. You did not argue that point with me before, only now, when you are seeking to justify and derail. It is not to the point in this thread. If you wish to discuss it elsewhere, we can, but not in this topic. It is not to the point.

Open a thread, then.

And, no, I am not talking to you, Chippy. I know there is no point in trying to negotiate or compromise with you; there's no point in trying to discuss a neutral ground with you. All I can do is hope to keep the guns out of your hands...

Did you email Randi about this?

Should JREF not have answered the question?

 

[dglas]

Claus, thank you for your suggestion. Here is the letter I sent to Mr. Randi.


"Mr. Randi,

I am a member of the JREF forums and, for the moment, a member of the JREF itself. To this point, I have been very sympathetic to the mission of the JREF. Due to a "conversation" (you know how conversations go on forums) on the forums, I have been challenged by Mr. Larsen to bring a concern I have directly to your attention. I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't accept that challenge.

I would like to respectfully request that the JREF declare itself absolutely neutral with respect to theism/atheism, that these are not to the point of the JREF mission, as opposed to, as I put it, "making a public point" of declaring that the JREF is not an atheist organization. This, in my view, rather than being inclusive, singles out a particular group for disassociation. I understand the delicacy of the balances, but I believe the integrity of the mission is at stake. Perhaps, I am mistaken about the mission.

This email address was provided to me upon my request. I hope that was appropriate. If you find the matter of interest, I would be only too happy to direct you to the conversation in question.

Thank you for your time, sir."

I trust you are satisfied that I have met your challenge?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, thank you for your suggestion. Here is the letter I sent to Mr. Randi.


"Mr. Randi,

I am a member of the JREF forums and, for the moment, a member of the JREF itself. To this point, I have been very sympathetic to the mission of the JREF. Due to a "conversation" (you know how conversations go on forums) on the forums, I have been challenged by Mr. Larsen to bring a concern I have directly to your attention. I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't accept that challenge.

I would like to respectfully request that the JREF declare itself absolutely neutral with respect to theism/atheism, that these are not to the point of the JREF mission, as opposed to, as I put it, "making a public point" of declaring that the JREF is not an atheist organization. This, in my view, rather than being inclusive, singles out a particular group for disassociation. I understand the delicacy of the balances, but I believe the integrity of the mission is at stake. Perhaps, I am mistaken about the mission.

This email address was provided to me upon my request. I hope that was appropriate. If you find the matter of interest, I would be only too happy to direct you to the conversation in question.

Thank you for your time, sir."

I trust you are satisfied that I have met your challenge?

I didn't challenge you to ask Randi. You asked JREF in post #386. I merely pointed out that you should address JREF directly.

Should JREF not have answered the question?

 

[dglas]

I didn't challenge you to ask Randi. You asked JREF in post #386. I merely pointed out that you should address JREF directly.

Actually you did. Twice.
Done and done.

Should JREF not have answered the question?

I answered that several times already. Feel free to look back at my recommendations for an answer.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

[technical mode on]

How can one hate something one doesn't believe exists?

[technical mode off]

I'm an atheist too Claus, and don't you think I've heard that 1000 times before?

You're a smart guy, it's a rhetorical device. Why do you think I use it?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would like to respectfully request that the JREF declare itself absolutely neutral with respect to theism/atheism, that these are not to the point of the JREF mission, as opposed to, as I put it, "making a public point" of declaring that the JREF is not an atheist organization. This, in my view, rather than being inclusive, singles out a particular group for disassociation. I understand the delicacy of the balances, but I believe the integrity of the mission is at stake. Perhaps, I am mistaken about the mission.

How could you miss the point of this thread by such a large margin?

It appears your persecution complex clouding your discernment again. Go back and read responses on the first page again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually you did. Twice.
Done and done.

Why do you feel you have to have been challenged to take action? It is your gripe.

It looks very much indeed as if you have some persecution complex.

I answered that several times already. Feel free to look back at my recommendations for an answer.

"No", then. (If I'm wrong, just tell me)

What do you think the reaction would be, if JREF simply didn't answer the question?

I'm an atheist too Claus, and don't you think I've heard that 1000 times before?

You're a smart guy, it's a rhetorical device. Why do you think I use it?

.....is that a rhetorical question?