Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
It's just that bonding isn't love imho.

I take it you have no children?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I take it you have no children?

Four

Now, how about measuring and testing love.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you have 4 kids and you don't consider love to include bonding with those kids? You think it is something separate?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you have 4 kids and you don't consider love to include bonding with those kids? You think it is something separate?

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

It's your claim, not mine.
Can you back it up or not?

 

[Egg]

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?

With respect, Skeptigirl, you're avoiding the question. Are you or are you not saying that a belief in something not testable is an illogical belief?

You said you were confident you could defend that view. If this claim cannot be tested then surely it is self defeating? Can you suggest a scientific test?

 

[Prometheus]

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

I think the evidence supports the conclusion that most (if not all) observed human god beliefs do not refer to actual beings. Your argument is valid, but it relies on a hidden premise (That if there's really a god or gods, it/they want to be known). An omnipotent being that wants us to think there are no gods would certainly be capable of sweeping up any evidence to the contrary. I realize this is splitting metaphysical hairs, but I'm a recovering Philosophy Major, and sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[zooterkin]

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.)

Define 'god', then explain what is special about gods that not believing in them is qualitatively different from not believing in the FSM, IPU, celestial teapot or Father Christmas.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Define 'god', then explain what is special about gods that not believing in them is qualitatively different from not believing in the FSM, IPU, celestial teapot or Father Christmas.

'god' a supernatural deity or being. (i.e divinity)

I dunno. I'd lump a lot of them into the same category. But again, I'd also argue that a focus/source of beliefs/ethics and behaviorial patterns is by default different from a source that does not.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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.

I.. isn't that agnosticism?

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

"Conception of Bull@#$% 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?

No. It's a well known quote. It's a restatment of the fallacy argument to ignorance:

. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

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?)

No. Please stop assuming I'm dumb. (Although I heard Paranormal activity is a fun movie, but not even the director pretends it's real.)

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?

No. Also, there's no need to get insulting...

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.

I'm an agnostic. Fail.

 

[Darat]

I.. isn't that agnosticism?

...snip...


I'm an agnostic. Fail.

Rika - which god do you believe in?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

None. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude either way

 

[Darat]

None. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude either way

Since you have no belief in a god you are an atheist!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I.. 'm still sure that's agnosticism.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I may be wrong and and happy to be corrected.
I thought an atheist was certain there is no god
An agositic thinks it may be possible but in the absence of evidence... well it's unknowable.

 

[Darat]

I.. 'm still sure that's agnosticism.

There is no reason that you can't be an atheist and be agnostic about the possibility of a god or gods existing. But if you do not believe in a god (of any sort) then you are "without a belief in a god(s)" so are an atheist.

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

There is no reason that you can't be an atheist and be agnostic about the possibility of a god or gods existing. But if you do not believe in a god (of any sort) then you are "without a belief in a god(s)" so are an atheist.

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

Oh. Okay, that makes sense.

 

[dglas]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay orgnaization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

 

[quixotecoyote]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay orgnaization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

Then we can get posts from the people in here who claim that they aren't gay, they just like to have sexual intercourse with same-sex partners. And the circle will truly be complete.

 

[Prometheus]

I.. isn't that agnosticism?
<snip>

The term is popularly misused that way. Agnosticism actually means "without knowing" and is correctly interpreted as the assertion that it is not possible to know the truth about a given topic, such as the existence or non-existence of a god. It is possible to be agnostic about god(s) and either theist or atheist, simultaneously.

 

[popscythe]

No.

I love how so many people on this forum use the multi-quote enfilade to refute one point in several sentences and leave the other sentences quoted. Why go to all the trouble, and not edit what you're quoting down to what you're responding to?

As an actual reply to what you said...

No. The absence of quality refutation is not the evidence of a quality post.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

You aren't addressing the point and throw in irrelevancies. I didn't say anything about there being some magical thing. In my world view there aren't any magical feelings either, and I fully accept that human emotions are entirely the result of underlying neurology and biochemistry. But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.

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

I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.

 

[Earthborn]

It seems you are confusing the terms "magisteria" and "modes of thinking". They're not the same thing.

Explain the difference then.

All of the things you mention are empirical.

The perceived beauty of an art work isn't empirical, the perceived justice of a court case or a law isn't either.

We just talk about them as if they're not, and have not gotten very detailed in our empirical study of them yet.

Things aren't empirical if they haven't been studied yet and therefore have not been experienced by anyone through their senses. "Empirical" is not a synonym of "objective". An "objective truth" only becomes empirical once it is observed.

 

[Prometheus]

Explain the difference then.

"Modes of thinking" refers to different cognitive approaches to a given problem. One classic example is the reductionist mode vs. the holistic mode. Either can be used to approach a similar problem. "Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it. NOMA posits that the science and religion deal with different sorts of problems altogether.

The perceived beauty of an art work isn't empirical, the perceived justice of a court case or a law isn't either.

Perception is an experience, so these things are empirical.

Things aren't empirical if they haven't been studied yet and therefore have not been experienced by anyone through their senses. "Empirical" is not a synonym of "objective". An "objective truth" only becomes empirical once it is observed.

I didn't say they haven't been studied yet. I said we haven't gotten very far in studying them yet, and I never tried to equate 'empirical' with 'objective'.

 

[Prometheus]

...But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.

Of course. But subjective experience is within the purview of empirical study. "Empirical" does not equal "objective," as you point out yourself.

I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.

Perhaps not yet. However, neurologists can already use a brain scan to determine whether a given image is familiar to you or not. It's only a matter of time before they can pinpoint the reactions that occur within the brain whenever you experience a sense of wonder.

 

[Egg]

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

Might it not make more sense to encourage people to say "I'm not a theist" rather than insist on using the "not theist" definition of "atheist" when the word is commonly understood to mean "a belief in no gods"?

This, I believe, covers the concept you're trying to express, with less danger of someone misunderstanding your position or suggesting that you are making any kind of claim or stating a belief.

It also avoids the equivocation of the two meanings of "atheist" that some people do when their actual position is that they do believe no gods exist and both definitions apply to them, but they use the "not theist" definition to avoid defending that position in an argument.

 

[Prometheus]

Might it not make more sense to encourage people to say "I'm not a theist" rather than insist on using the "not theist" definition of "atheist" when the word is commonly understood to mean "a belief in no gods"?

This, I believe, covers the concept you're trying to express, with less danger of someone misunderstanding your position or suggesting that you are making any kind of claim or stating a belief.

It also avoids the equivocation of the two meanings of "atheist" that some people do when their actual position is that they do believe no gods exist and both definitions apply to them, but they use the "not theist" definition to avoid defending that position in an argument.

I used to agree with this argument, but I've changed my mind recently. Now I think it makes more sense to go the other way for exactly the reason that Darat identifies--placing the 'belief' element with those actually making a claim (particularly one that is not supported by evidence).

Also, to some degree I think the potential for equivocation, while annoying, is somewhat useful in cultivating critical thinking, and pointing out that there are different sorts of atheism may also help to break the tendency to stereotype all atheists.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I love how so many people on this forum use the multi-quote enfilade to refute one point in several sentences and leave the other sentences quoted. Why go to all the trouble, and not edit what you're quoting down to what you're responding to?

As an actual reply to what you said...

No. The absence of quality refutation is not the evidence of a quality post.

Because I was refuting generally what seemed to be a coherent thought.

Also, way to personalize the argument. Seriously.

But hey, if you want a torrent of links:

* http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
* http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4073&comments=all

And from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:
* http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

 

[athon]

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

For giggles, I thought I'd weigh into the discussion on this point. Hope I'm not treading on toes.

For my money, this is a definition problem. 'Love', itself, is a quality which varies within the context the term is used. i.e., you can feel love, love ice cream, love your wife, be in love etc.

Measuring it is like measuring any other quality - it demands parameters to be set so people know precisely what it is you're counting, and relating to the quality. So, like any quality, you'd need to find something to observe, state that as the nature of the observation varies, so does the nature of the quality. The argument is then a matter of correlating the observation (and its variation) with the quality itself.

You can't measure love any more than you can measure redness. But you can measure the intensity of light between two wavelengths, and then argue this observation correlates with what you understand the term 'redness' to mean. Another person might disagree and say that redness means how close that wavelength is to an optimum 'red', and isn't its intensity.

The problem of language is a constant one in science. It's always hard to agree on meaning, simply because of differences in background and experience. Hence strict definitions like this are always important.

Athon

 

[popscythe]

links

Interesting links, thank you.

 

[The Atheist]

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

Mate, I love you like a brother.

I can test for it.

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

No, no, no.

That's why I said and will repeat:

First off, we must decide on exactly what "love" is.

Now, I can't imagine our mutual Platonic love for each other is the same beast as the love I share with Mrs Atheist. I can explain both in quite simple terms, but they are totally different things, so we really need to step back to my initial point.

Also, since it's completely, off topic, no doubt one of our esteemed moderators will shift it all off to a new thread where we can look at your wuestion in depth.

If you start a thread along the lines of: "Does love exist?" let me know.

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.

Ping!

Define the term.

I don't go in for this pansy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mumbo-jumbo. JUst define the term first. Not for discussion here, but what is bonding if it isn't love? You could the thread off with that as an example.

I may be wrong and and happy to be corrected.
I thought an atheist was certain there is no god

That's good news, because you're about to be corrected and I'm a lot more delighted by your willingness to change your mind than I was by the Windies missing a nice win!

Atheist: does not believe in god.

Atheists who insist there is no god form a part of those atheists, just as agnostics do, as one of the admins is pointing out to someone in this very thread.

Even though someone might be hiding behind the "we don't know" banner, if they do not actively believe in at least one god, then they're also atheists.

Harsh, but true.

An agositic thinks it may be possible but in the absence of evidence... well it's unknowable.

Unknowable is always such an un-agnostic word, I feel. Douglas Adams did agnosticism and knowing rather well.

We cannot know!

If you know that you can not know - i.e. something is unknowable, then you suddenly don't look too much like an agnostic any more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Modes of thinking" refers to different cognitive approaches to a given problem. One classic example is the reductionist mode vs. the holistic mode. Either can be used to approach a similar problem. "Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it.

While your definition is closer than "modes of thinking", the term magisterium is from the Latin word for "teacher" and it refers to an area of teaching--or rather the teaching authority.

According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Skeptigirl, do you see that your complaining about Plaitt's position on NOMA got him fired?

 

[Prometheus]

While your definition is closer than "modes of thinking", the term magisterium is from the Latin word for "teacher" and it refers to an area of teaching--or rather the teaching authority.

According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.

I don't think that's at odds with the way I put it at all. You can't teach a truth without first discerning what it is, ie. solving a problem. The first part of your criticism of NOMA that religion does not limit itself to ethics/morality is, IMO, rendered irrelevant by the second part, which is essentially my point. There really is only one magisterium. We just talk as if there are others.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Because the JREF isn't an atheist organization.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Mate, I love you like a brother.

I can test for it.



No, no, no.

That's why I said and will repeat:

First off, we must decide on exactly what "love" is.

Now, I can't imagine our mutual Platonic love for each other is the same beast as the love I share with Mrs Atheist. I can explain both in quite simple terms, but they are totally different things, so we really need to step back to my initial point.

Also, since it's completely, off topic, no doubt one of our esteemed moderators will shift it all off to a new thread where we can look at your wuestion in depth.

If you start a thread along the lines of: "Does love exist?" let me know.



Ping!

Define the term.

I don't go in for this pansy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mumbo-jumbo. JUst define the term first. Not for discussion here, but what is bonding if it isn't love? You could the thread off with that as an example.





That's good news, because you're about to be corrected and I'm a lot more delighted by your willingness to change your mind than I was by the Windies missing a nice win!

Atheist: does not believe in god.

Atheists who insist there is no god form a part of those atheists, just as agnostics do, as one of the admins is pointing out to someone in this very thread.

Even though someone might be hiding behind the "we don't know" banner, if they do not actively believe in at least one god, then they're also atheists.

Harsh, but true.



Unknowable is always such an un-agnostic word, I feel. Douglas Adams did agnosticism and knowing rather well.

We cannot know!

If you know that you can not know - i.e. something is unknowable, then you suddenly don't look too much like an agnostic any more.

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

Second
Agnostic

I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

 

[Prometheus]

...
I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

Atheist.

 

[athon]

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

I'm certain you'd have an opinion on which definitions are useful and which aren't.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

So if I defined love as a feeling that correlated with levels and frequency of release of oxytocin, and then studied this within a population, you'd have no problem with this as a measurement of love?

(*note: oxytocin is indeed a hormone correlated with those 'warm' feelings of attachment and love an individual has, especially regarding mothers and their infants)

Athon

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With respect, Skeptigirl, you're avoiding the question. Are you or are you not saying that a belief in something not testable is an illogical belief?

You said you were confident you could defend that view. If this claim cannot be tested then surely it is self defeating? Can you suggest a scientific test?

I'm not avoiding any question. You may not agree with or understand my answer. But that is a different thing from avoiding a question. You want me to answer that I agree with you but I do not. This is not something I have spent little time thinking about. I have a different perspective on this than many people. But I have come to that perspective after careful thought.

Is it logical to say you cannot test fiction scientifically? Does that mean fiction does not exist? Or does it mean fiction could be real but you cannot say with science that it is or isn't?

The problem I have with your scenario is that you would have to conclude fiction could be real and science could not say if it was or was not. That is not logical to me. We can investigate the source of the fiction. We can discover the author or the history of the story and the characteristics that make it fiction.

You want to limit science to just testing Harry Potter's world and not apply science to the discovery of whether Potter is a fictional being or not.

I understand the semantics. I know all about the excuse that was devised years ago saying magical beliefs were not subject to scientific investigation.

But my world is rational and so I don't look at the question the same way you are looking at it. Can I test the wing shape of a rock that has no wings? Does that mean I cannot test that rock for anything?

It is not logical to test the wingless rock for the shape of its wings any more than I can test a fictional thing for its fictional claim. But make the claim gods or Harry Potter exists and you've made a testable claim. If you are not saying gods exist then testing the claim you haven't made is absurd. But, that in no way means gods are not fictional.

The thing is either you are saying the god exists or you've said nothing at all. To say, I am going to say the name, god, but make no claims, how does that even make sense? Claim the god exists and you've made a claim.

It's an argument in semantics to say you have said 'god' but you didn't claim said god exists.


In summary, if you are not saying god exists, then we are done. If you are saying god exists that is a testable claim. I would focus the test on the evidence the god was a fictional being. I am not limited to just testing the god the way you see fit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the evidence supports the conclusion that most (if not all) observed human god beliefs do not refer to actual beings. Your argument is valid, but it relies on a hidden premise (That if there's really a god or gods, it/they want to be known). An omnipotent being that wants us to think there are no gods would certainly be capable of sweeping up any evidence to the contrary. I realize this is splitting metaphysical hairs, but I'm a recovering Philosophy Major, and sometimes I just can't help myself.

My conclusion relies on the premise that once you see a clear pattern and that pattern is supported with overwhelming evidence, you can draw a conclusion about the whole.

Are you an agnostic about evolution because we have not mapped out every genome on the planet? Or have you seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion about evolution processes applying to all life on Earth?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, do you see that your complaining about Plaitt's position on NOMA got him fired?