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.

 

[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.