The JREF is not an atheist organization

[remirol]

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 statements, they lack the evidence.

 

[Prometheus]

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's true; at least it certainly has been so in my own case. I'm just not sure that that fundamental change is required in order for someone to be a good person.

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'

I don't think that in this case 'fundamental' and 'superficial' form a hard dichotomy, though. For instance, I know a few people who were raised as hardcore fundamentalist YEC xians, but have eschewed that upbringing in favour of deism or unitarianism, both of which are, in my opinion, considerably less onerous. That they didn't "go all the way," so to speak, in relinquishing religious woo, really takes nothing away from the fact that they can now at least think rationally enough to understand Evolution. They are significantly better people than they were before.

 

[Piggy]

I think that's true; at least it certainly has been so in my own case. I'm just not sure that that fundamental change is required in order for someone to be a good person.

I wasn't aware we were talking about what it takes to be a good person.

 

[Prometheus]

I wasn't aware we were talking about what it takes to be a good person.

Sorry, I was using that as a sort of shorthand. 'Good person' = 'behaves desirably'. I'm just trying to get at why I generally don't consider confronting others' religious beliefs to be of primary importance.

 

[Piggy]

Sorry, I was using that as a sort of shorthand. 'Good person' = 'behaves desirably'. I'm just trying to get at why I generally don't consider confronting others' religious beliefs to be of primary importance.

Well, I don't either. Don't forget, I work with fundies, and I live in the Bible Belt.

But I don't think that's the issue.

I believe we were discussing the issue of whether or not skepticism leads you inevitably to atheism, agnosticism, or neither, and what the implications are for whether skeptical organizations are or are not, by default, atheistic.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, I don't either. Don't forget, I work with fundies, and I live in the Bible Belt.

But I don't think that's the issue.

I believe we were discussing the issue of whether or not skepticism leads you inevitably to atheism, agnosticism, or neither, and what the implications are for whether skeptical organizations are or are not, by default, atheistic.

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character. So we're sort of on the same topic. I apologize for not being clearer; I've only recently begun thinking seriously about these issues and I'm still somewhat unsure of my positions.

 

[Piggy]

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character.

Well, no, I don't think so, either.

I mean, I guess I could imagine one with such a mission. But the JREF is not that organization.

 

[ohp]

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character. So we're sort of on the same topic. I apologize for not being clearer; I've only recently begun thinking seriously about these issues and I'm still somewhat unsure of my positions.

In other words, you shouldn't expect everyone who belonged to a shovel enthusiasts group to live at the bottom of a hole.

 

[Piggy]

In other words, you shouldn't expect everyone who belonged to a shovel enthusiasts group to live at the bottom of a hole.

A better analogy: Is the American Medical Association an organization that is "anti" denying your children medical care and choosing instead to pray for them?

That's not in their mission statement, certainly.

But there's no doubt that if you're at all schooled in medicine, you will object to that practice.

So in that sense, they certainly are "anti" that practice.

Skepticism is incompatible with positive affirmations of faith in ancient myths with no evidence to back them up, and which usually are contradictory to what is scientifically known about the world.

Skepticism can lead you to agnosticism or atheism. It cannot lead you to faith in God.

 

[ohp]

A better analogy: Is the American Medical Association an organization that is "anti" denying your children medical care and choosing instead to pray for them?

That's not in their mission statement, certainly.

But there's no doubt that if you're at all schooled in medicine, you will object to that practice.

So in that sense, they certainly are "anti" that practice.

Skepticism is incompatible with positive affirmations of faith in ancient myths with no evidence to back them up, and which usually are contradictory to what is scientifically known about the world.

Skepticism can lead you to agnosticism or atheism. It cannot lead you to faith in God.

I think my analogy is easier to remember

 

[six7s]

I don't think that in this case 'fundamental' and 'superficial' form a hard dichotomy, though. For instance, I know a few people who were raised as hardcore fundamentalist YEC xians, but have eschewed that upbringing ...

And I'm exploring why I think that, while unfettered skepticism does IMHO lead inevitably to atheism/agnosticism, this does not imply that skeptical organizations ought to consider atheism to be fundamental to their mission or character...

I get the impression that the word 'fundamental' is being used in two different ways...

In the 2nd case, it seems (to me) to be synonymous with 'foundational' and 'simple' as in uncomplicated and basic, etc

In the 1st case, I sincerely suggest that it is synonymous with 'simple' as in half-baked, dim, wilfully ignorant, etc

 

[Prometheus]

I get the impression that the word 'fundamental' is being used in two different ways...

In the 2nd case, it seems (to me) to be synonymous with 'foundational' and 'simple' as in uncomplicated and basic, etc

In the 1st case, I sincerely suggest that it is synonymous with 'simple' as in half-baked, dim, wilfully ignorant, etc

Both my uses of the word 'fundamental' were closer to 'foundational'. My use of the word 'fundamentalist' was just nominal.

 

[remirol]

Both my uses of the word 'fundamental' were closer to 'foundational'. My use of the word 'fundamentalist' was just nominal.

Noumenal?

(now i've done it, i've summoned maatorc)

 

[Prometheus]

(now i've done it, i've summoned maatorc)

That's okay, I know you can handle him.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just thought I'd bump this in light of the "gay organization" thread to show that a more reasonable approach to the issue can be taken.

 

[Darat]

How dare you be reasonable about this!!! What are you a reasonist?!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How dare you be reasonable about this!!! What are you a reasonist?!

Only militant areasonists would ask such questions!