The JREF is not an atheist organization

Piggy said:
Of course it can.

If you define God, then it's no problem to test for God's existence.
Click to expand...

If it were that easy, someone would've done it long ago. It appears that most definitions of god, however, lend themselves to untestability -- for example, "god is omniscient" can be tested initially by finding out whether god knows a thing he can't otherwise know. Next step: get a response from god. Oops.
 
Thomas said:
Several people have told you this now, but it doesn't seem to sink in, does it.. Do you know what image means in this context?
Click to expand...

If you had read my posts, you'd understand that I do, in fact, know what image means. Please reread recent post to Cavemonster.

I'm a skeptic, and I believe that a pink bunny on the backside of Mars controls Earth. Do you see how this sentence doesn't make much sense? Then try to switch the bunny with a hebrew vulcano god, and you're on the right track.
Click to expand...

About all you're demonstrating here is that it's a good idea for people to stop self-identifying as "skeptics". Which I'm in favor of, because it promotes the "us vs. them" mentality; as athon has accurately noted above, it should be about a philosophy, not about us telling people what is and isn't right.
 
remirol said:
About all you're demonstrating here is that it's a good idea for people to stop self-identifying as "skeptics". Which I'm in favor of, because it promotes the "us vs. them" mentality; as athon has accurately noted above, it should be about a philosophy, not about us telling people what is and isn't right.
Click to expand...
It still spoils the image of JREF to not be skeptical towards hebrew gods. It seems like they only want to take on the small fish in the pond.
 
Thomas said:
It still spoils the image of JREF to not be skeptical towards hebrew gods. It seems like they only want to take on the small fish in the pond.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on the "image" part (see previous posts). Also, atheism involves all gods, not just the one or two that someone happens to personally dislike or have a grudge against.
 
remirol said:
I disagree with you on the "image" part (see previous posts). Also, atheism involves all gods, not just the one or two that someone happens to personally dislike or have a grudge against.
Click to expand...
Hebrew gods, or rather, a certain hebrew god, is what dominates the western world woo tho, so you're just missing the point. The RCC has a few more followers than Sylvia Browne.
 
Thomas said:
Hebrew gods, or rather, a certain hebrew god, is what dominates the western world woo tho, so you're just missing the point.
Click to expand...

No, I'm really not. Atheism includes _all_ gods. To self-paint atheism as anti-Christian simply because you happen to have a grudge against them for some reason is wilfully inaccurate, and will do more harm than help.
 
remirol said:
No, I'm really not. Atheism includes _all_ gods. To self-paint atheism as anti-Christian simply because you happen to have a grudge against them for some reason is wilfully inaccurate, and will do more harm than help.
Click to expand...
Try to understand that the hebrew god was used as an example because it is the most obvious example in the western world. Get it? Good.
 
Thomas said:
Try to understand that the hebrew god was used as an example because it is the most obvious example in the western world. Get it? Good.
Click to expand...

Try to understand that using it as an example is inappropriate because atheism is lack of belief in _all_ gods. Get it? Good.
 
remirol said:
Try to understand that using it as an example is inappropriate because atheism is lack of belief in _all_ gods. Get it? Good.
Click to expand...
I represented atheism/agnosticism in an International class for 11 years, from when I was 8 years old or so, so maybe I just consider your new discovery a n00b trifle.
 
Cavemonster said:
I see your point but I disagree.
As an example, the JREF vocally and clearly holds a view on homeopathy.
Click to expand...

Officially, they don't. Sure, Randi will regularly voice his opinion on it and will regularly point out that the claim is without merit. Yet there is no official position stating they are promoting the fact that homeopathy doesn't work.


The whole point of skepticism is to be able to make good conclusions, and avoid bad ones. I believe and I think Randi might agree, that one of the strong reasons it's important for skepticism to spread, is to ideally rid the world of some of those dangerous conclusions.
Click to expand...

No disagreements here. Yet there are two ways of going about it - one is to promote good thinking skills and hope people will use them properly. A natural consequence of that will be to avoid making conclusions based on weak evidence or social thinking values. Promoting a conclusion has the effect of encouraging people to adopt your point of view, which is in itself a social thinking value.

In truth, it's difficult to separate them. Many people within this community have their conclusions reinforced by the fact others agree with them. We're social animals - it can't be avoided. However, to go that extra step and officially support and promote a particular conclusion runs contrary to the skeptical philosophy.

Note that generally when Randi or another JREF member mentions Homeopathy, they're clear that although it's pretty clearly bull from the extensive, they're open to looking at the results of research or even an MDC test to change their minds. The same should hold true of God.
Click to expand...

The very fact they're open to the possibility of pseudoscience working or a particular definition of god existing would negate the fact that the organisation would officially represent the fact it does not.

Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Athon
 
athon said:
Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.

Athon
Click to expand...
Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?
 
Thomas said:
I represented atheism/agnosticism in an International class for 11 years, from when I was 8 years old or so, so maybe I just consider your new discovery a n00b trifle.
Click to expand...

Dude. Is there a point to all this constant repetition other than to have the last word? We disagree. Get over it. Move on.
 
remirol said:
If it were that easy, someone would've done it long ago. It appears that most definitions of god, however, lend themselves to untestability -- for example, "god is omniscient" can be tested initially by finding out whether god knows a thing he can't otherwise know. Next step: get a response from god. Oops.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it backwards.

When no definition of a thing can be had, it's clear you're talking about an empty concept.
 
athon said:
Ultimately, if I've understood correctly, the JREF's purpose is to promote critical thinking and skepticism in the community. That's it. Promoting a conclusion is essentially dogma - the very opposite of skepticism.
Click to expand...
Thomas said:
Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core,
Click to expand...

This is another excellent opportunity to bang my drum about why we should not be self-identifying as skeptics. This is perfect. Thank you very much; I couldn't have asked for a better way to illustrate this point.

Teaching people to blindly doubt is bad; and that is what 'skepticism' is seen as.

We should be teaching people critical thinking; or to doubt when appropriate. If a policeman came up to me and held forth for ten minutes on where the "bad" crime areas in the city were, I would be foolish to doubt him. And yet, that seems to be exactly what too many self-identified "skeptics" fall into the trap of -- the trap of excessive ego, of trusting nothing but their own opinion and demanding proof for all challenges to their position.*

All this does is make people think you're a dick and stop listening to you. And we cannot afford to have people stop listening to us.

I have a friend who's starting to get sucked into Mona Vie and their MLM scheme. I talked to her for awhile when she first heard of it, and warned her that MLMs never succeed, but she has her blinders firmly on out of random hope; the economy is bad, after all, and she thinks she needs quick money. After about 20 minutes of conversation, I finally backed off and said "Well, when you get the chance, ask some questions of the other people to make sure; if it's a scam, the answers will sound like this". I sent her some links about MLMs in general as well.

The point here is that when we left that conversation, she was still willing to listen to me. When things go south for her in the future and she finds that she's the only one buying her "product" at $40/bottle in order to maintain her obligations, she'll still be willing to listen when I remind her that this is exactly how every other MLM fails. Maybe I can get her to change her mind; maybe not. I know that as long as she's still talking to me, I have a chance.

If the JREF gets into the business of being an organization that promotes skepticism, rather than one that promotes critical thinking, then it will not advance its mission very rapidly, if at all.



* I am hardly immune to this disease, but I do try to self-police.
 
athon said:
I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon
Click to expand...

Well, we also need to be honest when a skeptical approach to a question actually does yield an answer.

A skeptical approach to ancient flat earth theory reveals that it's wrong.

A skeptical approach to the Holocaust can't help but conclude that yes, it happened.

We can't shrug at these things without doing a disservice to reason, which leads us to conclusions in these matters.

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom