The JREF is not an atheist organization

[CFLarsen]

Claus, which groups of participants constitute "The JREF"?

People, mostly. I'm fairly certain there is a reptilian among, though.

Which groups did you have in mind?

 

[hammegk]

I don't know who comprises "The JREF". That's why I asked.

With all those posts I thought you would have an answer. Sorry.

 

[kmortis]

Yes. And?

Well, you asked who of the JREF is a theist. Last time I checked, Hal is a deist, which has been and probably will continue to be a theist.

I don't know of any Buddhist or Wiccans, tho. I'm not a member yet, but when I join at least one Discordian will be a member at that point; and I'm certain that I'm not the first.

The point is, I can understand why, even with a plurality of members being atheists, the JREF considers themselves to NOT be an atheist organization. Just like the US gubbamint isn't supposed to be theist or atheist. The JREF is staying silent, agnostic even. It IS possible to be a "good" skeptic and a theist. Nowhere does the skeptic credo say that you have to be a skeptic in every portion of your life.

Do we even HAVE a credo?

Look, I was a skeptical theist, of varying stripes, for many many years. After my fundy phase, I resolved to never let my religion cloud my thinking. I eventually became an atheistic agnostic (to be totally honest), which is where I sit now. I could hear a good argument tomorrow in favor of the existence of a deity. I doubt that will happen, but it could. Hell, Claus, I agree with many of the points you've made in this thread, if that's possible, ANYTHING is.

dglas,
You're conflating issues. The JREF will examine, critically, the testable claims of a religion. That doesn't mean that the JREF HAS to be atheistic. There are many people who have looked at the same set of evidence (and maybe some others that we don't know about) and have reached a different conclusion.

This does not make them a "bad" skeptic. It may, in our minds, make them wrong, but it doesn't make them any less skeptical than anyone else.

But we've been down this road before, haven't we? Didn't get anywhere last time either, did I?

 

[kmortis]

I don't know who comprises "The JREF". That's why I asked.

With all those posts I thought you would have an answer. Sorry.

No, Claus doesn't give answers, just myocardial infarctions.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know who comprises "The JREF". That's why I asked.

And I asked you which groups you had in mind.

Well, you asked who of the JREF is a theist. Last time I checked, Hal is a deist, which has been and probably will continue to be a theist.

A deist is a theist? How so?

 

[Apology]

Maybe you just aren't giving the theists enough time to think. If you don't drive them away right off, some of the logic might rub off on them.

 

[kmortis]

A deist is a theist? How so?

It's that whole believing in a god thing, really. I know it's all complex, what with definitions and all that, but...

...you see when a mommy belief and a daddy belief love each other VERY MUCH...no, that's not right.

...you see a deist is a thiest who thinks that their god left in disgust...um, no that's some African tribal.


I'll just fall back on a quote from Wikipedia:

Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience. This is in contrast to fideism which is found in religions like Judaism, many forms of Christianity, or Islam which rely on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people.

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most Deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

So, yeah, Deists ARE theists by virtue of believing in a god. The fact that they think that the god is stand-offish doesn't stop them from being theistic, just...making a rational compromise.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's that whole believing in a god thing, really. I know it's all complex, what with definitions and all that, but...

...you see when a mommy belief and a daddy belief love each other VERY MUCH...no, that's not right.

...you see a deist is a thiest who thinks that their god left in disgust...um, no that's some African tribal.


I'll just fall back on a quote from Wikipedia:


So, yeah, Deists ARE theists by virtue of believing in a god. The fact that they think that the god is stand-offish doesn't stop them from being theistic, just...making a rational compromise.

And yet, Wiki says this about theists:

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

There is a difference between believing in god and believing in the existence in god.

 

[kmortis]

And yet, Wiki says this about theists:



There is a difference between believing in god and believing in the existence in god.

OK, Claus, I give up. If you insist on being an obtuse moron, I'll let you. Like I said before, I actually agree with your position in this thread (ala that the JREF isn't necessarily an atheist organization). However, I am divorcing myself from your pigheadedness.

 

[Lonewulf]

Did Clause seriously just suggest that deists aren't theists?

 

[Apology]

Did Clause seriously just suggest that deists aren't theists?

Deists generally object to theism, so yes. I'm not a Deist so I'm not really qualified to speak for Claus; I just gathered this from speaking to a lot of Deists. Deists feel that a lot of the claims proposed by traditional theistic religions like Christianity are as ridiculous as atheists feel they are.

I'll stand up for Claus on this because he feels he's been miscategorized by the either-theist-or-atheist model. Since I don't agree with this model either, I feel he should have a category of his own if he disagrees with all the pre-existing categories.

To be honest though, I don't really care much whether Deists are theists or not. I just object to the model because I think it's a gross oversimplification of the issues. Sorry Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

OK, Claus, I give up. If you insist on being an obtuse moron, I'll let you. Like I said before, I actually agree with your position in this thread (ala that the JREF isn't necessarily an atheist organization). However, I am divorcing myself from your pigheadedness.

Theists believe that God is intervening with the Universe, and therefore that there is evidence of God.

Deists do not.

 

[Apology]

Theists believe that God is intervening with the Universe, and therefore that there is evidence of God.

Deists do not.

Would it be fair to describe Deism as a rejection of theism that does not require a rejection of God? Just out of curiosity. We seem to agree on some points but have entirely different reasons for our conclusions.

 

[kmortis]

From Wikipedia:

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

The term is attested in English from 1678, and was probably coined to contrast with atheism, a term that is attested from ca. 1587 (see the etymology section of atheism for details).

From Merriam Webster:

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

From Etymonline:

1662, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation. Theism "belief in a deity" is recorded from 1678; meaning "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism) is recorded from 1711. Theistic is attested from 1780.

In every case, the idea that deists are not theists would only be true in the strictest definition of the word theism. In the discussion that we're having here, the more general form of "theism" is applicable, or we'll have to list every word meaning "Those that believe n a supernatural power, higher, lower, personal, impersonal or otherwise". The best candidate for a single word that cover all that is "Theism". From that, deists ARE theists, no matter how much you might want to exclude them.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. I know that the JREF ISN'T an Atheist organization (ala FFRF or American Atheists). It has many atheists as members, it also has many theists. It's primary focus is not to fight against religious intolerance, it's to educate the populous in the methods that are used to defraud, bilk, mislead or what have you them. If a religious organization makes a testable claim, it's well within the purview of the JREF to go and investigate, but it's due to the claim, not the religious bent.

Deists, as a general rule, don't make supernatural/paranormal claims with their religion as a basis. Therefore, their status as theists doesn't come into play. This doesn't preclude them from doing so, just that AFAIK, it's not a M.O. of deists to do so.

I see Deism as the ultimate in "security blanket" religions. They have a god who doesn't demand anything, really, from them, but provides comfort. At this time in my life, I don't see the need for that, but I recognize the utility.

Unfortunately, we are stuck in an Aristotelian mode. Due to atheism being the simple negation of theism, it doesn't leave much gray area, you're either a theist or not. What we really do need is a word that does cover all the various flavors of religious belief. Something that isn't demeaning (e.g. bleevers), or too general (e.g. believers or religious people), something that is short and pithy.

 

[CFLarsen]

In every case, the idea that deists are not theists would only be true in the strictest definition of the word theism. In the discussion that we're having here, the more general form of "theism" is applicable, or we'll have to list every word meaning "Those that believe n a supernatural power, higher, lower, personal, impersonal or otherwise". The best candidate for a single word that cover all that is "Theism". From that, deists ARE theists, no matter how much you might want to exclude them.

If we were having a religious discussion of them claiming a god or not, you would be right. The reason we separate them in this skeptical discussion is because of the evidence issue.

 

[kmortis]

If we were having a religious discussion of them claiming a god or not, you would be right. The reason we separate them in this skeptical discussion is because of the evidence issue.

Except that the Deists are claiming the existence of something that there is scant evidence for, distinctly unskeptical.

 

[Apology]

From Wikipedia:


From Merriam Webster:


From Etymonline:

You're catching on to this dictionary game, but you're missing the point---you can find a dictionary that says almost anything you want when it comes to philosophical definitions because philosophical definitions are primarily ambiguous.

In every case, the idea that deists are not theists would only be true in the strictest definition of the word theism. In the discussion that we're having here, the more general form of "theism" is applicable, or we'll have to list every word meaning "Those that believe n a supernatural power, higher, lower, personal, impersonal or otherwise". The best candidate for a single word that cover all that is "Theism". From that, deists ARE theists, no matter how much you might want to exclude them.

Gee, I've been roundly taken to task for suggesting that atheists don't believe that God exists (strong definition) rather than lacking a belief in God (weak definition) on MANY OCCASIONS on this forum. So why is it okay to define Claus and Deism by the strongest definition (Deism = Theism), but it's not all right to define atheism by the strong definition (Atheism = God does not exist). Is that a double standard?

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. I know that the JREF ISN'T an Atheist organization (ala FFRF or American Atheists). It has many atheists as members, it also has many theists. It's primary focus is not to fight against religious intolerance, it's to educate the populous in the methods that are used to defraud, bilk, mislead or what have you them. If a religious organization makes a testable claim, it's well within the purview of the JREF to go and investigate, but it's due to the claim, not the religious bent.

Agreed.

Deists, as a general rule, don't make supernatural/paranormal claims with their religion as a basis. Therefore, their status as theists doesn't come into play. This doesn't preclude them from doing so, just that AFAIK, it's not a M.O. of deists to do so.

Almost agreed, except that if they object to theism, but you still call them theists, then perhaps you should be called, viewed and treated as a strong atheist.

I see Deism as the ultimate in "security blanket" religions. They have a god who doesn't demand anything, really, from them, but provides comfort. At this time in my life, I don't see the need for that, but I recognize the utility.

You're entitled to your opinion. Deists have a bunch of different reasons for their belief in the aloof God. I haven't been able to find a reason believe it, personally. You should probably just ask more questions of Deists.

Unfortunately, we are stuck in an Aristotelian mode. Due to atheism being the simple negation of theism, it doesn't leave much gray area, you're either a theist or not. What we really do need is a word that does cover all the various flavors of religious belief. Something that isn't demeaning (e.g. bleevers), or too general (e.g. believers or religious people), something that is short and pithy.

The reason that it's not easy to come up with two non-demeaning categories is because there are more than two categories. If everyone has to go by the strong definition, (and it's only fair if Deism is categorized by its strongest definition), then atheism is a whole long more than a "simple negation of theism that lacks a belief in God." It's a belief that God doesn't exist, by its strongest definition. Even if you go by the weak definition, you're incorporating the idea of implicit atheism, which is neither simple nor proven. The definition of atheism is far from a unified, set-in-stone definition that everyone can agree on, particularly those who are subject to double-standards like this from atheism There is a lot more gray area than atheism is willing to admit. There's no way to simplify the issue. To keep if from being demeaning, we've got to let people categorize themselves and quit insisting on being keeper-of-the-categories.

 

[kmortis]

You're catching on to this dictionary game, but you're missing the point---you can find a dictionary that says almost anything you want when it comes to philosophical definitions because philosophical definitions are primarily ambiguous.

Gee, I've been roundly taken to task for suggesting that atheists don't believe that God exists (strong definition) rather than lacking a belief in God (weak definition) on MANY OCCASIONS on this forum. So why is it okay to define Claus and Deism by the strongest definition (Deism = Theism), but it's not all right to define atheism by the strong definition (Atheism = God does not exist). Is that a double standard?

Agreed.

Almost agreed, except that if they object to theism, but you still call them theists, then perhaps you should be called, viewed and treated as a strong atheist.

You're entitled to your opinion. Deists have a bunch of different reasons for their belief in the aloof God. I haven't been able to find a reason believe it, personally. You should probably just ask more questions of Deists.

The reason that it's not easy to come up with two non-demeaning categories is because there are more than two categories. If everyone has to go by the strong definition, (and it's only fair if Deism is categorized by its strongest definition), then atheism is a whole long more than a "simple negation of theism that lacks a belief in God." It's a belief that God doesn't exist, by its strongest definition. Even if you go by the weak definition, you're incorporating the idea of implicit atheism, which is neither simple nor proven. The definition of atheism is far from a unified, set-in-stone definition that everyone can agree on, particularly those who are subject to double-standards like this from atheism There is a lot more gray area than atheism is willing to admit. There's no way to simplify the issue. To keep if from being demeaning, we've got to let people categorize themselves and quit insisting on being keeper-of-the-categories.

Ok, to this whole weak v. strong atheist thing. It doesn't really matter if you think that atheist means that there is no god, or that you lack a belief in a god or that...or this...or whatever, at the end of the day, the word "atheist" can only be defined in opposition to the word "theist". It is, by its very linguist structure, the opposition of "theist". That's the primary reason why I hate that frelling word. Unfortunately, there isn't a real good substitute that is recognized by enough people to be meaningful. I could call my self a Naturalist, but that sounds like I like to wander around naked, not a good thing; I'm pretty sure that there are laws specifically barring me from doing so. I could call myself a Humanist, or a Bright or one of a dozen other words, none of which are as readily identifiable as "atheist".

gotta run, more later.

 

[Apology]

Ok, to this whole weak v. strong atheist thing. It doesn't really matter if you think that atheist means that there is no god, or that you lack a belief in a god or that...or this...or whatever, at the end of the day, the word "atheist" can only be defined in opposition to the word "theist". It is, by its very linguist structure, the opposition of "theist". That's the primary reason why I hate that frelling word. Unfortunately, there isn't a real good substitute that is recognized by enough people to be meaningful. I could call my self a Naturalist, but that sounds like I like to wander around naked, not a good thing; I'm pretty sure that there are laws specifically barring me from doing so. I could call myself a Humanist, or a Bright or one of a dozen other words, none of which are as readily identifiable as "atheist".

gotta run, more later.

Take your time, I can wait. I'd rather have you put your best thinking into the question than rush you. JREF will still be here tomorrow, I'm sure.

 

[CFLarsen]

Except that the Deists are claiming the existence of something that there is scant evidence for, distinctly unskeptical.

No, they are not.

Hal is a deist. What does he claim evidence of?