The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Prometheus]

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

Way to stay current.

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one?

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.

Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?

 

[Thomas]

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.

You're the one who's a "bit incoherent"; wants a skeptics organization to back off on religion. A child can see how wrong that is.

 

[remirol]

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one?

If one is going to speculate about my mental state, it would behoove one to ensure that it hasn't been 3 days since I might have been in the particular state. Hence why it actually mattered in this case; normally it wouldn't.

Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps!

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

 

[remirol]

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.

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

 

[RevDisturba]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization?

; }?>

 

[remirol]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization?

Not sure the "why" matters anymore, after 600+ posts, but many people seem to either think it is or should be.

 

[Piggy]

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Well, the one person who is sure to never know is remirol.

As for me, my ironymeter just went off the charts with the explanation of the *plonk* bit. So remirol's "educational demonstration" of effective persuasion is to ignore people?

And personally, I don't see how it is a "pedantic sub-issue" to point out that a poster's argument is without merit.

As I've said, it is directly relevant to the OP whether or not theistic claims are/aren't dis/provable.

remirol seems to acknowledge that, since he was discussing the point himself.

I think it's absolutely necessary for skeptics to think about our assertions, examine them fully, and actually discuss counterpoints rather than ignoring them.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that.

I did nothing different than what you were doing. You accused someone of having emotional investment, I stated that if anyone was having any emotional investment in the issue, it was you. I don't particularly see why the timing of my post was so important, either.

You are free to be annoyed at that if you like. I don't mind.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is it more important for critical thinking to be a tool or a tribal tatoo?

I vote for the former.

 

[Darat]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

 

[remirol]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

And where.

 

[dglas]

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

...but, very well, I am asking now...

Mr. Randi,

Is the JREF a theist organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization?
Is the JREF a gays organization?
is the JREF an <insert racial group> organization?

Surely there will be no problem with expressly stating, publicly, in precisely the same manner it was expressed that the JREF was not an atheist organization, that the JREF is none of these, yes? And right now, I AM presuming that the JREF is a theistic organization, specifically because it has gone to special public effort to distance itself specifically from atheism.

 

[Prometheus]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps!

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.

Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil. As to the other part, I neither like nor dislike you, as I don't even know you beyond a small handful of exchanges here. But I agree--let's move on.

 

[remirol]

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.

Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".

...but, very well, I am asking now...

Mr. Randi,

Is the JREF a theist organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization?
Is the JREF a gays organization?
is the JREF an <insert racial group> organization?

Surely there will be no problem with expressly stating, publicly, in precisely the same manner it was expressed that the JREF was not an atheist organization, that the JREF is none of these, yes? And right now, I AM presuming that the JREF is a theistic organization, specifically because it has gone to special public effort to distance itself specifically from atheism.

Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

 

[remirol]

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil.

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)

But I agree--let's move on.

And stuff.

 

[Prometheus]

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)



And stuff.

You're right; let's forget about it.

 

[dglas]

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.



Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".



Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

Semantics are how we understand the world.
Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

 

[remirol]

Semantics are how we understand the world.

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

 

[dglas]

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

I can see the concerted effort you are making to consider the matter thoroughly. I am inspired by your example.

You are attacking the arguer, and the use of words, rather than the argument. The point remains unaddressed.

 

[remirol]

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

You are attacking the arguer,

Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

and the use of words, rather than the argument.

That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

 

[Prometheus]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

Isn't this a tautology?

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?

And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

 

[dglas]

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book. It only exhibits a reflexive dismissal and points not at the subject matter, but at the intentions of the writer. I look forward to hearing anything you have to contribute on the subject of the subject matter.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.

 

[dglas]

Actually, Piggy. I agree with you that skepticism leads to atheism. Religions are affirmation-based philosophies. A non-affirmation-based philosophy must assume something may not be the case until and unless some evidence indicates otherwise. Non-affirmation is not denial in the sense the religious would have us believe. Unfortunately, affirmation-based philosophies try to impose a dichotomous relationship that is not necessarily the case. In a sense we are forced to atheism because of the definitions of the terms imposed upon us by the holders of affirmation-based philosophies. In their minds, anything other than affirmation is denial.

But this is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[remirol]

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

Mind-read much? In any case, you're wrong. I say this because I believe you're spending a great deal of time intentionally overfocusing on the words, and none focusing on the actual issue; ie. "should the JREF be explicitly atheist or not?". Worrying about what the JREF has said in the past on the subject, and the precise wording of how they said it, is just silly.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.

Your personal issues aside, again, if you think I'm addressing the arguer and not the argument, please use the 'report' button; if not, please don't waste both our time by claiming it. Thanks!

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book.

It closes the book on that particular argument. If you'd care to address the actual subject matter, rather than attempt a very weak reductio ad absurdum based on the JREF's phrasing when responding to a question, then perhaps there's something to say. But until then, yes, that book is not just closed, but the pages are stuck together.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.

Just because you didn't like the answer you got doesn't mean you didn't get an answer. I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

 

[Piggy]

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.

Isn't this a tautology?

Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.

Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?

1. Lurking where?

2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.

For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

 

[Piggy]

I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

<Thanks Jesus>

 

[Prometheus]

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.

Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Gotta run; I'll address the latter half later on.

 

[Prometheus]

1. Lurking where?

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.

2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?

Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

I agree. And I don't really see anything wrong with skeptics being quite passionate about the issue either--especially in a forum like this. But that's still a separate issue from the identity of the organization itself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. )

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

Yes, often with great eloquence.

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

DR

 

[Piggy]

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.

Maybe. I chalk that up to other assumptions, tho. It's like me and Athon... we both agree on what the skeptical method is, but we disagree on other issues that make us butt heads sometimes.

From my POV, "We can't know anything for sure" isn't an assumption about skeptical methods.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

All 3 of the options are tautologies. If A then X, if B then Y, if C then Z, perforce.

Seems to me that's where a lot of skeptics clash on the issue. Skeptics who accept A, B, and C are going to necessarily come to different conclusions about whether skepticism leads you to agnosticism, atheism, or neither -- even though they're all following the skeptical method.

 

[Piggy]

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

 

[Piggy]

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?

As far as the goal of JREF, I'd agree with you there.

I was referring to a different sense of the question: Is JREF, or any other ostensibly skeptical organization, an "atheist" organization?

If you think skepticism has to lead eventually to the conclusion that there is no God, then you have to conclude that, intellectually, it's bound to be, even if that's not part of the mission.

 

[Piggy]

True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. )

Well, it's the most important facet of my life. I don't know of any other way to negotiate the world around me.

 

[Piggy]

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

Thank you. I enjoy your posts as well.

 

[Prometheus]

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

 

[Piggy]

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

 

[six7s]

...people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

I think that the term 'fundamental' is key... sure, as Prometheus said, "people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo"... however, 'superficial' behaviour modification is, ultimately, relatively worthless in comparison with the sort of change that follows a 'joining of all the dots' to see the 'bigger picture'

 

[RevDisturba]

The bigger picture is God. Core beliefs are God. Superficial beliefs are partial truths like the emerging discoveries of science. Science exists to discover the full truth which is God.

Your welkie.

; }>

 

[six7s]

The bigger picture is God.

On the Disney Channel... maybe

Meanwhile, back in the real world... NO gods have ever been seen or heard