The JREF is not an atheist organization

[SezMe]

Yes, I knew it was Shermer, I just wanted his sources.. Since the correlation between agnosticsm and soft atheism is vast.. There's a fair article on the distinction on wiki.. Maybe I can just do this... soft atheist^WP.. And voila!

Not sure if that is sarcasm, play or bad linking. Your voila leads to ... nothing.

 

[Thomas]

Not sure if that is sarcasm, play or bad linking. Your voila leads to ... nothing.

Click on the little tag next to soft atheist.

Edit: Oh it doesn't work for soft atheist, only hard atheist^WP.. There..

 

[Cavemonster]

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

But you need to understand that the JREF did not come into being in a vacuum just because skepticism is a good idea. It started as a reaction to specific dangerous claims rising out of fraud and self deception.

An organization dedicated to skepticism for it's own sake may be a noble goal and a broad tent, but the JREF specifically has at it's roots a goal of addressing those harmful beliefs.

Randi, as a spokesman and face of JREF will come out and say "Homeopathy is bunk". Yes it isn't in the official mission statement that homeopathy is bunk, and I don't think atheism should be in the official mission statement either. But to the extent that we can agree that unless new evidence is forthcoming, homeopathy, flat earth theory and gods are not consistent with a skeptical approach.

And of course we would all be willing and happy to see new evidence that changes the picture, what could be more exciting? And of course this doesn't mean that theists or people who believe in homeopathy or whatever should be shunned or have nothing to do with the organization.

But just as we see nothing wrong with Randi or any other JREF representative publicly calling Psychics on their bunk, I think they should also feel free to equally call out religious woo for what it is. And that's the extent to which I think it's appropriate for the JREF to embrace Atheism, in exactly the way it has publicly embraced other conclusions.

 

[SirPhilip]

The JREF, as it deals with everything that encompasses metaphysical phenomena, is nominally a secular organization until it's proven otherwise. I don't see what the cause for debate is about.

 

[athon]

But you need to understand that the JREF did not come into being in a vacuum just because skepticism is a good idea. It started as a reaction to specific dangerous claims rising out of fraud and self deception.

For the most part it started out as a result of Randi's reaction to people who claimed to have supernatural powers while what they did appeared to be no different to a magician's trick. I have no doubt that the dangerous ramifications of poor thinking was a key motivating factor, but the seeds of it were not in telling people to not believe in such stuff, but rather to provide people with an ability to discern truth from nonsense.

But just as we see nothing wrong with Randi or any other JREF representative publicly calling Psychics on their bunk, I think they should also feel free to equally call out religious woo for what it is.

I don't think that's being questioned. If a particular person makes a claim -religious or otherwise- and that claim can be critically evaluated with a skeptical philosophy by which it fails to be supported, then of course there's no problem. A skeptical approach is being applied to a situation, which is what the organisation promotes.

Yet this is different to officially claiming that they are an organisation opposed to any possible account of said claim.

And that's the extent to which I think it's appropriate for the JREF to embrace Atheism, in exactly the way it has publicly embraced other conclusions.

I personally think there is a subtle difference between an official stance and Randi's opinions on things.

Athon

 

[remirol]

If you're going to claim -- as you have -- that the (non-)existence of God is somehow outside the realm of rational examination and testing, then you're going to have to explain how it can be that X can be asserted to potentially exist and yet, at the same time, X cannot -- even in theory -- be examined to determine whether or not it exists and (and this is key) also still be God.

*sigh* Look, dude. Define god, for example, as "an omniscient, omnipotent being who created and permeates the whole of our universe." Now test for that. Right, you can't; while we could certainly examine the components of, say, my car and try to find the bit that's god, we still don't know what a bit of god looks like.

Now can we move on from the silly derail? Did you miss the point where I said I was an atheist? You really seem to have a bug up your butt about the obvious here.

Of course negatives can be proven. Give me access to DNA testing, and I can prove that Sarah Palin is not my mother. I can prove that there are no adult gorillas in my house.

Poor analogies. You can prove there are no adult gorillas in your house because your house is finite and you have access to all portions of it in which a gorilla would fit.

If someone defines god as "a being who lives at the top of a mountain on a distant planet and controls the entire universe", that's a remarkably precise definition. You could even test for it in theory; check the mountaintops of every planet in the infinite uni... oh, right. You can't even test for it in theory.

Again, you're claiming something rather remarkable -- that God can be said to exist and yet be immune to examination of its alleged existence -- and you've yet to explain yourself.

And you seem to think that it _needs_ explaining. How you doin', Claus?

Sort your issues out, move on, I don't care which. But I'm not going to bother responding to any more posts on this; it's just stupid and I'm not going to waste time repeating myself. I will say that this is precisely the type of behavior by "skeptics" that retards the advancement of critical thinking, though; you're being annoying for no purpose and trying to force me to defend a hypothetical position I don't actually hold (yep, still an atheist) simply to make what is essentially a semantic point.

Get over it.

 

[remirol]

Do you then find that doubt is appropriate when it comes to religion, or did you ask a cop who said no?

Personally? Of course. But not everyone agrees with me, and I do not wish for the JREF to implicitly label them as "not good enough" by taking an official atheistic stance.

You haven't spend much time in the R&P section have you.. Rethorical question.

Good luck with that. I have "deprogrammed" anything from rebirthers to core xians. Simply with suggestive doubt. The bleevers on this forum is usually a bit more hardcore tho, and come here for a reason with a very closed mindset.

I'm not talking about Internet forums, in this case, largely because of exactly what you describe -- it's too hard to tell whether someone's interested in actually discussing things, or interested in just preaching to the masses.

It will advance its (non-)mission against religion and attract more agnostics and atheists if it declares itself an agnostic organization

"mission against religion"? I hope you're joking there.

Also, isn't this about it becoming an atheist, rather than agnostic organization? Just curious as to why that gear shifted there.

And finally -- what about the organization being not _explicitly_ atheist prevents it from attracting agnostics and atheists now? (My answer would be "not much, because they seem to be the vast majority of participants).

more rational people to take on Sylvia B etc., and keeping it real, because Randi has attacked religion several times in Swift anyway.

Someone else has already addressed the second part; Randi is not the JREF, as odd as it may seem to say. As far as the first part... I do not think that "debunking" advances the cause of teaching critical thinking anywhere near as much as actually teaching critical thinking does. I wish those who call themselves "skeptics" would spend less time trying to be the next RSL or the next Gravy (yes, UncaYimmy, I'm lookin' at you here), and more time trying to show people how they can actually _benefit_ from fifteen minutes' worth of research on a topic ... how they can learn to find the truth for themselves, and not have to depend on what _anyone_ else tells them (unless it's reasonable; cf. cop example).

 

[Thomas]

Personally? Of course. But not everyone agrees with me, and I do not wish for the JREF to implicitly label them as "not good enough" by taking an official atheistic stance.

Yes, let's label them good enough instead and aid in sabotaging stemcell research and whatsnot.

I'm not talking about Internet forums, in this case, largely because of exactly what you describe -- it's too hard to tell whether someone's interested in actually discussing things, or interested in just preaching to the masses.

Nor am I talking about internet forums. I've already told you I had my arse in the grass since I was a kid, so we're talking IRL.

"mission against religion"? I hope you're joking there.

Of course I'm not kidding, religion should be banned on par with pyramid games and other organized scams.

Also, isn't this about it becoming an atheist, rather than agnostic organization? Just curious as to why that gear shifted there.

Because some Americans use the term atheist on par with agnostic, so I was just being generic - would you believe that?!

And finally -- what about the organization being not _explicitly_ atheist prevents it from attracting agnostics and atheists now? (My answer would be "not much, because they seem to be the vast majority of participants).

True, but maybe that's just because religion is losing participants in the western world, it's almost gone where I come from - the state of something rotten.

Someone else has already addressed the second part; Randi is not the JREF, as odd as it may seem to say. As far as the first part... I do not think that "debunking" advances the cause of teaching critical thinking anywhere near as much as actually teaching critical thinking does. I wish those who call themselves "skeptics" would spend less time trying to be the next RSL or the next Gravy (yes, UncaYimmy, I'm lookin' at you here), and more time trying to show people how they can actually _benefit_ from fifteen minutes' worth of research on a topic ... how they can learn to find the truth for themselves, and not have to depend on what _anyone_ else tells them (unless it's reasonable; cf. cop example).

Randi is mostly amusing to read for those who agrees with him, but I'm none the less delighted that people like him still exists.. I'm not a huge fan of debunking either, but certain people can read no other languages. He can be a mean machine, but so can those he are up against. And you know, it takes one to know one - sometimes.

 

[arthwollipot]

According to prior discussions on this forum, then it is, so I looked it up, and while yahoo answers perhaps isn't the best source, then it agrees with me. What agrees with you?

Common sense and the definitions of words, perhaps? Do I really have to go through all this again? One of these days I'm going to create a website all about the difference between theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic. That way I'll just have to link to it when someone fails to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

 

[Thomas]

Common sense and the definitions of words? Do I really have to go through all this again? One of these days I'm going to create a website all about the difference between theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic. That way I'll just have to link to it when someone fails to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.

Maybe you should read that wiki link I posted above before you make your 101 site. Then you may realize that the terms are not as fixed as you think, especially not the term atheist.. Language is alive and evolving.. So why should we all listen to you? Let me guess, because you're the first Robin Hood with a kinky Australian accent?

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe you should read that wiki link I posted above before you make your 101 site. Then you may realize that the terms are not as fixed as you think, especially not the term atheist.. Language is alive and evolving.. So why should we all listen to you? Let me guess, because you're the first Robin Hood with a kinky Australian accent?

And just what is that supposed to mean?

 

[Thomas]

Men in Tights reference.. I just couldn't find any other reason as to why we should all listen to you. And why you should be in charge of the term atheist when everyone uses the term ad hoc anyway.

 

[arthwollipot]

Men in Tights reference.. I just couldn't find any other reason as to why we should all listen to you. And why you should be in charge of the term atheist when everyone uses the term ad hoc anyway.

Who ever said that I am "in charge of the term"? I merely invite you and others to examine the difference between the definitions of theism and gnosticism.

Sure, language is fluid. That doesn't mean that words can simply fleem what we want them to.

And yes, I got the reference. I was trying hard to be offended by your remark, but in the end I realised that it just wasn't worth it.

 

[remirol]

Yes, let's label them good enough instead and aid in sabotaging stemcell research and whatsnot.

Argument from hyperbole doesn't wash with me, sorry.

Of course I'm not kidding, religion should be banned on par with pyramid games and other organized scams.

Yeeeaaaaaah. Let me know when you get traction with _that_ approach. Me, I'll stick with a slightly less reactionary, less "us vs. them" tone. You do realize what a problem using that tone causes, right?

Because some Americans use the term atheist on par with agnostic, so I was just being generic - would you believe that?!

Precision in language is important. If we're suggesting the JREF adopt a particular position as its official stance, we should be precise. It becomes even more important when you start talking about the societal connotations attached to a word; it's safer in certain places around this city for me to claim that I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist, for example, because some people handwave over a certain term in their head and some don't.

I would be far less disturbed if the JREF were to adopt agnosticism as opposed to atheism, for example. There is a small, but significant difference between the two positions.

Randi is mostly amusing to read for those who agrees with him, but I'm none the less delighted that people like him still exists.. I'm not a huge fan of debunking either, but certain people can read no other languages. He can be a mean machine, but so can those he are up against. And you know, it takes one to know one - sometimes.

I agree. There's a reason it's magicians running the MDC and not scientists.

 

[Thomas]

Who ever said that I am "in charge of the term"? I merely invite you and others to examine the difference between the definitions of theism and gnosticism.

No, not at all, you just wanted to make a webpage where you could tell us all what it means. I'm flattered, but then again, not really.

Sure, language is fluid. That doesn't mean that words can simply fleem what we want them to.

Atheist is one of the more live terms tho, but sure, there are margins, feel free to define them for us.

And yes, I got the reference. I was trying hard to be offended by your remark, but in the end I realised that it just wasn't worth it.

It wasn't to offend you; get out of that defense position, it looks silly when you're not under attack.

 

[Thomas]

Argument from hyperbole doesn't wash with me, sorry.

So you don't want to render them "good enough", then what? Do you like stem cells?

Yeeeaaaaaah. Let me know when you get traction with _that_ approach. Me, I'll stick with a slightly less reactionary, less "us vs. them" tone. You do realize what a problem using that tone causes, right?

I don't have a problem with religion where I come from, because only few believes that nonsense here. Now it's your turn to clean your own house.

Precision in language is important. If we're suggesting the JREF adopt a particular position as its official stance, we should be precise. It becomes even more important when you start talking about the societal connotations attached to a word; it's safer in certain places around this city for me to claim that I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist, for example, because some people handwave over a certain term in their head and some don't.

I can imagine.

I would be far less disturbed if the JREF were to adopt agnosticism as opposed to atheism, for example. There is a small, but significant difference between the two positions.

Me too.

I agree. There's a reason it's magicians running the MDC and not scientists.

Something we can agree on.

 

[remirol]

So you don't want to render them "good enough", then what? Do you like stem cells?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I don't have a problem with religion where I come from, because only few believes that nonsense here. Now it's your turn to clean your own house.

This response has nothing to do with whether a reactionary, "us vs. them" tone will convince people in "my house", whatever you think that may be, of anything WRT religion.

 

[Thomas]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I didn't prompt you to say "yes or no", it's an open question, so non sequitur, sir. I'm afraid Clausian tactics are weak within this Jedi.

This response has nothing to do with whether a reactionary, "us vs. them" tone will convince people in "my house", whatever you think that may be, of anything WRT religion.

Well, the us vs them tone is already here, read in the R&P threads for measure.. It wouldn't change much as I said to begin with, except one thing, as I also said to begin with; it will make sure that JREF keeps it real - and that's of essence to me, instead of that manipulative approach you're seeking by luring them into the fox trap by fake strawberries and pseudo chocolate, I even doubt strongly that it works. How many have you converted by that apporach?

 

[remirol]

I didn't prompt you to say "yes or no", it's an open question, so non sequitur, sir. I'm afraid Clausian tactics are weak within this Jedi.

It was also what we call a 'strawman'. Perhaps you could rephrase your question, whatever it _actually_ is, in your own words that are relevant to the conversation, rather than the words you wish I had said and conjured up from your own hyperbole?

Well, the us vs them tone is already here, read in the R&P threads for measure.. It wouldn't change much as I said to begin with, except one thing, as I also said to begin with; it will make sure that JREF keeps it real - and that's of essence to me, instead of that manipulative approach you're seeking by luring them into the fox trap by fake strawberries and pseudo chocolate, I even doubt strongly that it works. How many have you converted by that apporach?

Strawman again. Could you please address the words I actually say?

ETA: Silly me, I just realized something. You're the same Thomas from the irc.skepticsrock.com chat room, aren't you? Can you confirm this as 'yes' or 'no' before we continue this any further?

 

[Thomas]

It was also what we call a 'strawman'. Perhaps you could rephrase your question, whatever it _actually_ is, in your own words that are relevant to the conversation, rather than the words you wish I had said and conjured up from your own hyperbole?

Pretty far from a straw man yes (it's two words in this context), because it's quite simple, religion oppose stem cell research in the United States yes.. And you would rather not that we render religion "not good enough" yes, hereby follows that stem cells in your world, must be "not good enough".. No straw man, common sense.

Strawman again. Could you please address the words I actually say?

Exactly, that's not a straw man either, I adressed your "us vs them" notions quite clearly, re-read it. You shouldn't use such words when you can't spell them and don't know their meaning. Do a foreigner really have to spell that out for you, oh my.