The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Thomas]

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?

Just use your imagination, and then leave yes.

 

[remirol]

I figured as much. I probably should've recognized it earlier when you started with the over-the-top hyperbole. On ignore you go; I'm not going to keep wasting time on this.

 

[Thomas]

Run Forest, ruuuuuuuuuun!

 

[Piggy]

Based on past discussions we've had, Piggy, I know there's nothing really to say to this. The moment we discuss philosophy, you defer to pragmatism. All well and good, but skepticism is a philosophy. You and I might agree on the outcomes because we share the same values and thresholds for evidence, but just because we share them doesn't make it an objective part of the philosophy. Communicating this is vital for encouraging good critical thinking skills, which is often missed by many skeptical communicators.

Of course, from my point of view, when the discussion starts to get dragged into a philosophical realm, I simply stick around in the real world. As you know, I consider myself aphilosophical, and I consider skepticism a method (or practice) rather than a philosophy, and one that is validated by outcomes, as well as by some very intriguing experiments showing how the brain reaches wrong, but firmly held, conclusions if a skeptical method is not employed.

But you're right that in the end the practical differences between our points of view are slight, so it ends up six of one, half dozen of another for the most part.

 

[Piggy]

*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.

No need to sigh. Believe me, I've been through this discussion many more times than you have.

But yes, that claim is in fact testable. If you claim that a being exists at all points of the universe and that this being is aware of all the information in the universe, there will have to be an energy signature. We see no such thing.

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.

It's not silly, and it's not a derail. It matters very much to the OP whether or not this claim is in fact outside the realm of discovery.

And no, no bugs. It's just that I'm not going to let you off the hook with the accepted wisdom you keep trotting out. This is an important topic, and it requires careful thought.

Oh, and no, I didn't miss that point about your personal beliefs -- it's just that it doesn't matter. This isn't personal.

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.

No, in this case, the analogy serves quite well for what it's intended to show.

And again, this claim can indeed be tested for, since such a being would also leave an energy signature if it were controlling the universe. But that's not what we observe.

That's why I say you need to think all these things through much more carefully than you're doing.

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.

Of course it needs explaining. It's a remarkable claim. And it doesn't make sense.

You're free to stop responding if you like, but forgive me if I don't find much weight in your chiding me to improve my critical thinking skills.

It's beyond me why you think I have some sort of personal grudge going, or how you can consider yourself to have been skeptical on this point when you don't seem to be applying critical thinking to your own assertions.

 

[remirol]

No need to sigh.

Oh, no, there is plenty of reason to sigh. But even this response is too much. We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.

 

[six7s]

We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.

Really?

Why and/or when should you be believed?

We disagree. Get over it. Move on.

Now can we move on from the silly derail?

<snip/>

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.

 

[remirol]

Why and/or when should you be believed?

Why, all the time, of course. I especially suggest following my recommendations for life, love, health, and most importantly: cooking, especially my chili and pork roast.

Sign up for my newsletter today. Only $19.99 a month; operators are standing by.

 

[Piggy]

Oh, no, there is plenty of reason to sigh. But even this response is too much. We will agree to disagree (or you won't, whatever), and I, at least, will move on.

I seriously doubt that you will. To "move on" you'd have to begin thinking much more critically about your assertions, and I see no indication that you intend to do that.

 

[remirol]

I seriously doubt that you will. To "move on" you'd have to begin thinking much more critically about your assertions, and I see no indication that you intend to do that.

Aw, what's the matter? Are you angry because someone won't argue trivial crap back and forth with you until the cows come home?

Seriously, now, think about it. And think critically, if you can. If you can't even hold _my_ attention, what makes you think you'll ever convince someone who _isn't_ already an atheist? Or are you just intending to chatter away on webforums forever, making little "i won!" hash marks on your monitor every time you irritate someone into not responding?

When someone walks away from you in real life because you're being too pedantic and overfocusing on side issues, your opportunity with that person is gone. You can shout no-true-scotsman insults at their back all you like, but in the end, the result was a failure; not only didn't you convince someone to think more critically, you may even have driven them away from the concept because they'll think "I don't want to be like _him_ if that's what skepticism makes you." Seems paradoxical, doesn't it -- trying to be too "right" actually ends up being more "wrong".

Many of those who self-identify as "skeptics" need to learn this; it certainly seems to be endemic among the breed. I'm not the person who originated the idea, by a long shot, but it is certainly why I try to self-identify as "critical thinker" rather than "skeptic" -- I don't want people to accidentally associate me with the negative connotation on a first impression. And more and more these days, I feel I've made the right call. See, I don't have to be accepted by "skeptics" to apply critical thinking in my own life, or to teach others, in my own little roundabout way, to do the same. There's no license I have to carry, no test I have to take. I can just do, and know that what I do works, and know that I'm making my own little bit of difference.

So next time you decide you're going to get all wound up and insist that you aren't going to "let someone off the hook", you may want to stop and consider this little post. There wasn't any hook in the first place, see -- not anywhere but in your own mind.

Oh, and the best way to illustrate this? *plonk*.

 

[SezMe]

This thread sure went to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Piggy]

Aw, what's the matter? Are you angry because someone won't argue trivial crap back and forth with you until the cows come home?

What makes you think I'm angry?

I have a suggestion: Try reading my posts in a calm and dispassionate mental voice. That will render them more accurately.

I'm not asking you to "argue trivial crap back and forth". Far from it. I'm asking you to follow the thread of your own line of reasoning and see if it holds up.

Seriously, now, think about it. And think critically, if you can.

I'll try my best.

If you can't even hold _my_ attention, what makes you think you'll ever convince someone who _isn't_ already an atheist? Or are you just intending to chatter away on webforums forever, making little "i won!" hash marks on your monitor every time you irritate someone into not responding?

Well, I doubt I'll sway any true believers. But in my time here I've gotten some fence sitters to think a little deeper, follow the logic a little farther. And that's good enough.

I'm not doing PR here. That's my day job. Here, I'm really just interested in applying rigorous skepticism.

When someone walks away from you in real life because you're being too pedantic and overfocusing on side issues, your opportunity with that person is gone. You can shout no-true-scotsman insults at their back all you like, but in the end, the result was a failure; not only didn't you convince someone to think more critically, you may even have driven them away from the concept because they'll think "I don't want to be like _him_ if that's what skepticism makes you." Seems paradoxical, doesn't it -- trying to be too "right" actually ends up being more "wrong".

In meatspace, I rarely get into these kinds of conversations. Most folks don't want to have them. But with those who do, I'm honest.

But this is a skeptics' forum. We cannot allow ourselves to pull our punches here. It would be like asking posters on a science forum to "go easy" on Creationism because, hey, some folks might not like it.

And after all, I'm only asking you to be skeptical. I'm only asking that you apply basic skeptical tools to your own assertions of accepted wisdom.

You'll either do that or you won't. And your choice, of course, will not affect my life one way or the other.

Many of those who self-identify as "skeptics" need to learn this; it certainly seems to be endemic among the breed. I'm not the person who originated the idea, by a long shot, but it is certainly why I try to self-identify as "critical thinker" rather than "skeptic" -- I don't want people to accidentally associate me with the negative connotation on a first impression. And more and more these days, I feel I've made the right call. See, I don't have to be accepted by "skeptics" to apply critical thinking in my own life, or to teach others, in my own little roundabout way, to do the same. There's no license I have to carry, no test I have to take. I can just do, and know that what I do works, and know that I'm making my own little bit of difference.

Well, amen.

You actually seem to be more of an activist than I am. Perhaps I'm old and jaded.

Outside of this forum, I don't identify as anything. But after all, this is an openly "skeptical" forum. Skepticism is what this organization is all about.

Call it "critical thinking", that's fine. It's really one and the same.

So next time you decide you're going to get all wound up and insist that you aren't going to "let someone off the hook", you may want to stop and consider this little post. There wasn't any hook in the first place, see -- not anywhere but in your own mind.

Who got "wound up"? Certainly not me.

But no, I have no intention of letting you off the hook. You still haven't examined your assertions, and that needs to be pointed out.

If we can (please) get off this little personal sidetrack and back to the real issue, then maybe we can get down to brass tacks and examine the real issues.

If claims about God actually are exempt from critical examination, that bears directly on the OP. Ditto if they are not.

But of course, there's no a priori reason to believe that they are. And it is not enough merely to assert that they are.

Anyway, if you want to pursue the actual points worth pursuing, I think that would be worthwhile.

 

[Piggy]

This thread sure went to hell in a handbasket.

The great thing about handbaskets is they're easy to get out of if you want to.

 

[Thomas]

The great thing about handbaskets is they're easy to get out of if you want to.

Don't use hyperbole now, there are sports idiots present.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm still not sure what Thomas is trying to argue here.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure why Remirol thinks that Piggy's wound up. I've had similar arguments with him before, and if anyone got wound up, it was me; his arguments have always been dispassionate. I may not necessarily agree with him in all cases, but that has no bearing on the emotions behind his conduct. Remirol, though, looks like he could use a breath of fresh air. No offense, Remirol.

 

[remirol]

I'm still not sure what Thomas is trying to argue here.

This is far from the first time I've seen this particular poster get a bit incoherent, though previously it's been in a different environment.

I'm not sure why Remirol thinks that Piggy's wound up. I've had similar arguments with him before, and if anyone got wound up, it was me; his arguments have always been dispassionate. I may not necessarily agree with him in all cases, but that has no bearing on the emotions behind his conduct. Remirol, though, looks like he could use a breath of fresh air. No offense, Remirol.

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current.

Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

 

[Piggy]

Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

Seems to me that your pet peeve is being asked to actually think about what you're saying.

If you ever decide to jump back into the discussion, we'll be here.

 

[dglas]

Is the JREF a women's organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not a women's organization.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not a gay rights organization.

Is the JREF an <insert race here> organization? No?
Then it should have a statement explicitly stating that it is not an <insert race here> organization.

The explicit statement that the JREF is not an atheist organization is unneeded, singles out for special exclusion, and only draws attention to an artificial distancing of the JREF from atheism. There is no legitimate reason for this statement. One wonders what the reasons for making this special distinction are; what audience is the statement directed at.

 

[Lonewulf]

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current.

Indeed.

Been a while since I've been active here, and I don't tend to look at dates before I post.