Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[Skeptic Ginger]

This makes sense to me now SG.

But how does one test what is in ones heart?
my emphasis

Are you a Christian? If so, I will answer that. If you are of another religion, we'll see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason to believe these things. I agree that they're silly and unreasonable things to believe.

However, they are answers to questions. Some of the answers are testable (and we know them to be wrong). Some answers are untestable, though susceptible to disproof by logic (what Randi calls "philosophical proof"). I think JREF is only interested in testable claims and not in disproof by logic.

At any rate, the distinction between testable and untestable claims does not line up with non-religious vs. religious claims. Many untestable claims are religious, but not all.

The problem here is using the "untestable claims" argument as evidence for god woo being different than non-god woo.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Are you a Christian? If so, I will answer that. If you are of another religion, we'll see.

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?

 

[lightfire22000]

Please tell me the skeptical argument in favor of god beliefs?

Let me start, you cannot disprove gods exist.
God beliefs can coexist with science, if we put them in a separate box.

I've already pointed out why these two avenues are faulty.

Got any other arguments?

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.

 

[The Atheist]

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

As long as you specify what "love" actually is, no problemo.

If you want to test for some esoteric cultural construct, it might be difficult, but have a go so we know what we're looking for.

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?

X-ray, ultrasound, MRI, catheter scan....

What does your heart have to do with it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

As long as you specify what "love" actually is, no problemo.

I love you TA,
how can we measure/test that?

But seriously, I think you know where I'm coming from.
If "it should be measurable" as SG said. Just how?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have only one thought that I'm seeing not at all applied ITT:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem here is using the "untestable claims" argument as evidence for god woo being different than non-god woo.

I don't think it is. God claims that are untestable are necessarily not based on evidence.

I think the only categories of relevance to Randi and JREF are testable vs. untestable. I don't think there is evidence of a double standard for religious vs. non-religious claims.

I've presented evidence for my case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Once you tell me how god communicates with you, we can test that. If you are making no testable claim, how do you know anything about god?

You do realize I'm an atheist, don't you?

At any rate, I think people who make untestable god claims don't actually know anything. But they can make untestable god claims. Those claims are obviously not based on evidence.

For example, Christians claim god speaks to them through the Bible. But you can easily show the Bible is of human origin. There is no special knowledge, it fits only the culture that wrote it, there are equivalent texts for other religions in other regions of the world, the Bible stories resemble oral mythology out of Africa and so on.

Name me another way god communicates.

Look, some god claims are testable and some are not. I've given you several examples now of untestable claims. Now you want examples of untestable claims on the narrow topic of communication from god. Why? I've already given you untestable claims. Your idea that any claim necessarily makes a claim about communication is false.

Again, the claim that when a priest consecrates a wafer, God changes that wafer to the body of Christ but the wafer retains all the accidents of a wafer is an untestable claim.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings. I don't need to go anywhere else but where the evidence leads.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I've said as much many many times. However, no need to go anywhere else is not the same as saying that some other conclusion is necessarily illogical. (For it to be illogical there has to be a logical contradiction.) Though I agree it's utterly silly and unreasonable to accept a proposition for which there is no evidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.

That's no where close to what an operational definition is.

It's also a wholly disingenuous definition of god except for the deist notion.

And I believe that the deist god was strictly invented as a way to avoid running into logical contradictions. As such, it's sort of a non-definition. It's like saying, "Whatever idea of god you can disprove, the deist god is something else."

The ultimate god of the gaps.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?

Yep, love can indeed be tested, and described scientifically. There is lust, pair bonding, parent-infant bonding, family bonding (or not) and so on. There is a physiological as well as a psychological component to the various kinds of love that exists between humans.


The reason why it matters which religion you are to show you it lacks any underlying magical source of knowledge is we need to look at your specific magical underlying source. The Bible as a magical source of knowledge is easily debunked, for example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.

According the the scientific definition of God????????

Wow, that question has been posed a zillion times with a zillion answers. How did you figure out the real definition?

 

[Earthborn]

I see no reason to split the Universe into real and some nebulous anything goes as long as you don't make a testable claim side of the Universe.

The way I understand NOMA is that it doesn't assume that the universe is split, but that ways of thinking about the universe are. I think this is obviously true, but I also think those ways of thinking may overlap in some areas.

Hope that some quackery will affect a terminal cancer serves an emotional need as well.

If that quackery does not interfere with effective treatment, and makes no empirical claims that it works in any other way than serving an emotional need, there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm only arguing to drop the double standard.

NOMA argues that more than one standard is necessary, because the standards of science are not the same as the standards for morality, the arts, politics or religion.

Why didn't you include the benefit of other placebos and emotional comforts in that statement?

I didn't exclude them either. I just wasn't talking about medical problems specifically.

I don't buy it however, that people who are agnostic about gods are truly equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns.

People tend to have their own preferences about the things they consider possible, even if they don't specifically believe in them. Vague notions such as "God" tend to be more popular than more specific beings such as invisible pink unicorns, even if there is no reason to assume God couldn't be an invisible pink unicorn.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have only one thought that I'm seeing not at all applied ITT:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you.

I address this all the time. It's one of the concepts that is treated as the elephant in the room when it comes to many god discussions.

THERE IS EVIDENCE. And if you follow it, the conclusion the evidence overwhelmingly supports is the conclusion gods are mythical beings people invented. How many mythical being conclusions does it take to recognize a pattern?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think it is. God claims that are untestable are necessarily not based on evidence.

Except for the claim gods exist or might exist. Note the post I answered above. Do we have an absence of evidence that gods are mythical beings?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do realize I'm an atheist, don't you?

Yes. That makes the 'you' in my sentence refer to anyone making the claim a god exists which doesn't interact with the Universe.

At any rate, I think people who make untestable god claims don't actually know anything. But they can make untestable god claims. Those claims are obviously not based on evidence.

If it really was just a semantic argument, it would go away on its own accord: I make no testable claims about my invisible pink unicorn. You cannot prove my invisible pink unicorn does not exist.

But with god beliefs, that is not what the argument is about most of the time. The argument is the implied claim that since you cannot prove someone's god does not exist, that somehow gives weight to the belief. Yet it gives no such weight whatsoever. And it ignores all the evidence gods are mythical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The way I understand NOMA is that it doesn't assume that the universe is split, but that ways of thinking about the universe are. I think this is obviously true, but I also think those ways of thinking may overlap in some areas.

If that quackery does not interfere with effective treatment, and makes no empirical claims that it works in any other way than serving an emotional need, there wouldn't be a problem.

NOMA argues that more than one standard is necessary, because the standards of science are not the same as the standards for morality, the arts, politics or religion.

I didn't exclude them either. I just wasn't talking about medical problems specifically.

People tend to have their own preferences about the things they consider possible, even if they don't specifically believe in them. Vague notions such as "God" tend to be more popular than more specific beings such as invisible pink unicorns, even if there is no reason to assume God couldn't be an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't have an issue with wasting time on woo that isn't hurting anyone. My issue here is about treating god woo differently than other woo. And while lip service is often paid to that effect, in reality, there are examples which demonstrate otherwise.

My example above is the most blatant, why is the skeptic discussion more often about not being able to prove gods don't exist rather than a discussion of the evidence gods are mythical? And second most obvious, how many other superstitions have their own word equivalent to agnostic? Are you agnostic, really/truly/honestly, about invisible pink unicorns?

 

[Earthborn]

My answers were just as general as your questions.

Indeed, which once again shows nicely how some questions are not scientific. Science tends to require very specific questions instead of general or vague ones.

we can calculate that!

If you assume morality is mere calculus, which isn't an assumption many will share with you.

But, the more science understands the situation, the more specific its answers will become, over time.

It is rather unlikely however that it will find some definitive moral answer.

The answers are also more accurate when they are more informed.

If the questions are accurate enough, which they aren't.

If you are going to argue that they should not be scientific questions, you have to address why science can reliably answer them, even if it takes a lot more effort.

I have no opinion on whether they should not be scientific questions, I think they could not. I have no reason to believe science can reliably answer them, or even that it is worth trying.

Every question that is now scientific was once considered religious. Every one of them!

You could indeed argue that science and religion share a common ancestor. In the Middle Ages knowledge we would now call "scientific" was most often held, discovered and spread by religious authorities. Perhaps this is why the magisteria of religion and science step on each other's toes every now and then, instead of being completely non-overlapping. It does not mean however that all religious matters will one day become scientific matters, and scientific thinking will become the only thinking there is.

I see no reason why we could not have good, solid empirical answers for moral questions, one day.

I can think of a very good reason: morality isn't empirical.

Or whatever the non-science magisterium is called.

There is no reason to assume there can only be two magisteria, a science and a non-science one. There maybe many non-science magisteria, among them the arts, politics, morality and religion.

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.

That's because they don't limit themselves to matters outside of the magisterium of science. In fact by pretending to be scientific they tread through the proper domain of science.

 

[Earthborn]

I don't have an issue with wasting time on woo that isn't hurting anyone. My issue here is about treating god woo differently than other woo.

"God woo" is not necessarily "empirical woo", and more often then not isn't hurting anyone. Seems to me a pretty good reason to treat it differently.

... why is the skeptic discussion more often about not being able to prove gods don't exist rather than a discussion of the evidence gods are mythical?

My guess is that often the evidence that gods are mythical is off-topic, especially in threads about whether JREF needs to be an atheist organisation or not. A mythical beast might still exist.

Are you agnostic, really/truly/honestly, about invisible pink unicorns?

Yes, of course I am.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"God woo" is not necessarily "empirical woo", and more often then not isn't hurting anyone. Seems to me a pretty good reason to treat it differently.

Yes, god woo is the same as any woo. Goodness, I'm griping about the double standard and you claim there is no double standard in the same breath you say there is.

My guess is that often the evidence that gods are mythical is off-topic, especially in threads about whether JREF needs to be an atheist organisation or not. A mythical beast might still exist.

Yes, of course I am.

Off topic?

A real beast might be the source of a mythical beast. The beast would be Earthly, and not have any mythical magical powers attributed to the beast in the myth.

Real people/things are of course on occasion going to the the source of god myths. That doesn't provide evidence or an argument for any supernatural beings.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yep, love can indeed be tested, and described scientifically. There is lust, pair bonding, parent-infant bonding, family bonding (or not) and so on. There is a physiological as well as a psychological component to the various kinds of love that exists between humans.


The reason why it matters which religion you are to show you it lacks any underlying magical source of knowledge is we need to look at your specific magical underlying source. The Bible as a magical source of knowledge is easily debunked, for example.

So you are saying "bonding" is love?
Describing psychological theory is not testing love.

Please show me how to test and measure love.

btw, my 'religion' (if anything) is probably best described as agnostic.
And it is still irrelevant to the question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you are saying "bonding" is love?
Describing psychological theory is not testing love.

Please show me how to test and measure love.

btw, my 'religion' (if anything) is probably best described as agnostic.
And it is still irrelevant to the question.

I find it really hard to believe you are agnostic and not a Christian. Are you sure you are not just lying for Jesus?

I've described an hypothesis for what love is. You've challenged me to measure a single expression or type of love. Both bonding and lust are labeled as love in human definitions of love.

You define it and I'll describe a test for it. So before I bother, I need you to confirm you want tests for bonding of any kind between humans. Is that correct?

 

[Prometheus]

....It is rather unlikely however that it will find some definitive moral answer....

No more unlikely than the possibility that religion will ever find some definitive moral (or any other) answer.

If the questions are accurate enough, which they aren't.

If a question is ambiguous, then it cannot be answered definitively by any means.

I have no opinion on whether they should not be scientific questions, I think they could not. I have no reason to believe science can reliably answer them, or even that it is worth trying.

Then these are questions that are not worth asking.

You could indeed argue that science and religion share a common ancestor. In the Middle Ages knowledge we would now call "scientific" was most often held, discovered and spread by religious authorities. Perhaps this is why the magisteria of religion and science step on each other's toes every now and then, instead of being completely non-overlapping. It does not mean however that all religious matters will one day become scientific matters, and scientific thinking will become the only thinking there is.

Without a doubt, science and religion do share a common ancestor. Both modes of thought evolved because at some point in evolutionary history, both had survival value. But only science holds out any hope of ever explaining just how that happened.

I can think of a very good reason: morality isn't empirical.

Morality is an artifact of mind, which in turn is a characteristic of a physical brain. It only seems not to be empirical because the language traditionally used to describe it assumes that it is not.

There is no reason to assume there can only be two magisteria, a science and a non-science one. There maybe many non-science magisteria, among them the arts, politics, morality and religion.

There's no reason to assume there must be more than one magisterium, either.

That's because they don't limit themselves to matters outside of the magisterium of science. In fact by pretending to be scientific they tread through the proper domain of science.

Everything that has any observable effect within the natural world is the proper domain of science. It's kind of hard not to tread on that.

 

[Earthborn]

No more unlikely than the possibility that religion will ever find some definitive moral (or any other) answer.

That's okay because not all magisteria deal with definitive answers.

Then these are questions that are not worth asking.

The fact that people enjoying and creating art, there is a justice system, political system and there is religion suggest that there are many people who do think such questions are worth asking, even trying to answer.

Morality is an artifact of mind, which in turn is a characteristic of a physical brain. It only seems not to be empirical because the language traditionally used to describe it assumes that it is not.

No, it is not empirical because it is an artifact of the mind. Empirically it is just a whole bunch of stuff we made up.

There's no reason to assume there must be more than one magisterium, either.

Seems rather tricky to get rid of all the other modes of thinking. That to me seems a reason to assume we will forever be stuck with more than one.

Everything that has any observable effect within the natural world is the proper domain of science. It's kind of hard not to tread on that.

True, which is why I think a more appropriate term would be SOMA (Slightly overlapping magisteria). Still the scientific way if looking at things is by necessity rather limited; you can study a work of art purely by its objectively measurable characteristics and entirely miss its point.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I find it really hard to believe you are agnostic and not a Christian. Are you sure you are not just lying for Jesus?

I've described an hypothesis for what love is. You've challenged me to measure a single expression or type of love. Both bonding and lust are labeled as love in human definitions of love.

You define it and I'll describe a test for it. So before I bother, I need you to confirm you want tests for bonding of any kind between humans. Is that correct?

Sorry SG
You made the statement that love could be tested. So far nothing but bonding theory.
Tell you what, you pick one example of love - I really don't mind which.
I am genuinely interested.
The only love tester I have ever seen have been been located in cheap dives or on a teenagers phone as inward texts.

As for finding difficulty believing what my 'religion' is: Meh, I care not.
It's irrelevant

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.

 

[Earthborn]

So you are saying "bonding" is love?

It is probably just as good a term as any other.

Please show me how to test and measure love.

Science can easily test and measure the empirically observable behaviours that are associated with "love". That does not of course change the fact that it can't address the subjective feelings of love... that is to say the stuff that people tend to think is the most important.

 

[Prometheus]

That's okay because not all magisteria deal with definitive answers.

The fact that people enjoying and creating art, there is a justice system, political system and there is religion suggest that there are many people who do think such questions are worth asking, even trying to answer.

No, it is not empirical because it is an artifact of the mind. Empirically it is just a whole bunch of stuff we made up.

Seems rather tricky to get rid of all the other modes of thinking. That to me seems a reason to assume we will forever be stuck with more than one.

True, which is why I think a more appropriate term would be SOMA (Slightly overlapping magisteria). Still the scientific way if looking at things is by necessity rather limited; you can study a work of art purely by its objectively measurable characteristics and entirely miss its point.

It seems you are confusing the terms "magisteria" and "modes of thinking". They're not the same thing. All of the things you mention are empirical. We just talk about them as if they're not, and have not gotten very detailed in our empirical study of them yet. And by assuming that they're not empirical just because we talk about them that way, all you're really doing is begging the question.

 

[Prometheus]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.

I would like to know how you know there is no god of any kind or type. (Hint: The conclusion is the belief itself. But then again, believing in justice as supreme is a belief, so I use it in the sense of dedication to an abstract idea.)

 

[Egg]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

So, how does one test your claim that "either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical"?

If science can't be used to test claims that we should only accept claims testable by science, does science vanish in a puff of logic?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.lovecalculator.com/

This might help

Thanks to DG
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161381

 

[popscythe]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here, let me help you out with a popscythe original. Feel free to quote me whenever you'd like.

"Conception of ******** is not Evidence of Anything."

Just because you can think of an idea doesn't mean that the idea is possibly true. You came up with the idea, which makes it inherently LESS likely to be true. I mean, you just made the idea up with an "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE", correct?

Now lets apply that to the people who wrote the fictional work called "the new testament" a couple hundred years after the subjects in the novel supposedly died in an attempt to shake things up in Rome (you didn't think the blair witch project and paranormal activity were real too, did you?) and you've got yourself a realistic situation. To even apply the whole "absence of evidence" card to that situation you must assume that the writers of this novel actually believed what they were saying, which is clearly not the truth, as the story was clearly made up of using scraps of everyone else's dogma. You don't think Joseph Smith was telling the truth do you? Well your mysterious authors were the Joseph Smith's of Rome. Their guy, Jesus, is a turncoat against his own faith in the novel as a recruitment technique. "See, the KING of the Jews even said the religion he was raised in was old fashioned. That means that it's okay for any Rabbi to come across the fence!"

If someone tried to pull this on you right now and convince you that the messiah was born a Christian and then created a new faith that was reasonably different and expected you to follow it, you'd be angry! But because that exact same scam went off fifteen hundred years ago or so (eventually resulting in the destruction of classical society of course) you buy it like it was on sale. People were a lot less informed (easier to scam) back then, and because someone told you that "they believed it" you believe it too? Everything else they believed was wrong, friend. The idea that invisible creatures in the sky or on a high mountain or something created/control us has been disputed the entire time and blatant scam artists have been trying to dupe the wishful thinkers for an equal amount of time.

Couple the technical discussion of how the trick was pulled off at the time with the modern complete lack of evidence whatsoever regarding the J man's existence and I don't believe it's possible to maintain belief in any mythology from that era if you just think about it for a little while. The problem is that most people play word games when questioned instead of thinking.

 

[Prometheus]

I would like to know how you know there is no god of any kind or type. (Hint: The conclusion is the belief itself. But then again, believing in justice as supreme is a belief, so I use it in the sense of dedication to an abstract idea.)

Hint: I don't know there is no god of any kind or type. I assume that there is no such being unless and until one makes itself known. Atheism is the lack of any positive belief that there is a god. If any evidence ever turns up in support of a claim that a god of any kind or type exists, then I will cease to be an atheist. The only relevant belief which I hold to is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry SG
You made the statement that love could be tested. So far nothing but bonding theory.
Tell you what, you pick one example of love - I really don't mind which.
I am genuinely interested.
The only love tester I have ever seen have been been located in cheap dives or on a teenagers phone as inward texts.

As for finding difficulty believing what my 'religion' is: Meh, I care not.
It's irrelevant

It would seem that you are defining love purposefully to be outside the realm of science. Perhaps you'd like to start with a definition.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.

Not my field of expertise so it will take a bit of review on my part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is probably just as good a term as any other.

Science can easily test and measure the empirically observable behaviours that are associated with "love". That does not of course change the fact that it can't address the subjective feelings of love... that is to say the stuff that people tend to think is the most important.

In my rational world there are no magical 'feelings'. Emotions, including that identified as "love" are the result of neurotransmitters and brain structure. That people believe there is some other magical thing out there beyond the neurological processes in one's brain is pure fantasy.

Math is a concept. Love is a biological process. It's a wonderful process, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is not a biological process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.

In my case I also consider atheism to be a supportable belief in that the evidence supports the conclusion gods are not real beings.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, how does one test your claim that "either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical"?

If science can't be used to test claims that we should only accept claims testable by science, does science vanish in a puff of logic?

In my rational world view, there is no separate universe. It's like saying you cannot test anything that happens in the world of Harry Potter. But you know that the world of Harry Potter is a fictional world.

Just because you can make up a Harry Potter world and claim it is untestable does not make that world exist. Just because someone made up a world with a god in it and now that person claims I cannot challenge that fantasy, does not make the fantasy real.

So science does not test fantasies? What does that even mean in terms of the real Universe? Can you give me any reason whatsoever that rationalizes why I should care that science does not test fantasies? Can you suggest any reason I should consider claims a god exists any differently than claims Harry Potter's world exists?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It would seem that you are defining love purposefully to be outside the realm of science. Perhaps you'd like to start with a definition.

I've left any example open to you. Pick one, test it and measure it, please.
It's just that bonding isn't love imho.