$1,000,000 Randi WannaBe Debunked

Jerry

New Blood
J
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
16
After numerous attempts to persuade thinkandreason.com, that their $1,000,000 challenge to prove God exists, would not be paid by JREF, Vashek Pokorny, Administrator for the site finally withdrew the reference to JREF as the contact and distributor for the $1,000,000 reward paid to anyone who could prove “God exists.”

On January 19, 2005, I was assured by thinkandreason.com that an “agreement” existed with JREF and if proof could be given for the existence of god, JREF would pay the reward that was offered by thinkandreason.com.

Following this, Linda Shallenberger of JREF assured me that, “The JREF has nothing to do with thinkandreason.com and we don’t take challenge applications claiming to prove God exists.” (Email dated January 19, 2005)

On January 20, thinkandreason decided that if Randi rescinds his offer, thinkandreason would make good on the offer:

“First, I do have the emails that prove Randi gave his okay. He is in Vegas at a convention right now, but I have emailed him for clarification. I have NOT received anything myself yet. Second...if he chooses to rescind his offer, I will make good on the offer.” (email dated January 20, 2005)

Now, according to the “think” web site, they have reversed their initial claim and insist:

“Okay…as I said on the web site, Randi has opted out of offering this challenge to religious zealots. He has better things to do with his time, so I am stuck with making good on the challenge.” (January 24, 2005, thinkandreason.com, CHALLENGE NUMBER FOUR)

Thinkandreason continues in the same paragraph with the pathetic claim:

“If you are ready to prove, with physical proof that your god exists, then please tell me what you have and I will prove that I can offer this amount…. Show me your proof and I will show you the money. You say I do not have the money, and I say you do not have the proof anyway... But rest assured I do have the capacity to get the funds. They may not be in escrow, but I do have them.”

The original boast and challenge of thinkandreason.com and their association with JREF is really nothing more than a hoax and a good example of poor thinking and reasoning of some atheists. This no doubt tarnishes the image of the virtuous, intellectual god scoffers. Although it took considerable effort to debunk this exaggerated claim, to the credit of thinkandreason.com they have removed references to JREF in their updated challenge.

In summary, on January 24, thinkandreason sent me a “portion” of an email sent by JREF with the “confirmation as to why Randi backed out.”

Would you post the “entire” email sent by JREF for all to see?

Sincerely,

Jerry
 
Hi Jerry and welcome.

Randi himself does not often visit the forum so if you want a quick response you could either email him directly or use the PM system here to contact "KRAMER" who is the person at the JREF responsible for the challenge applications.
 
Isn't the challenge a bit flawed?

"My God is this rock on my desk...and He can travel to become any rock, anywhere, instantaneously....Can I claim my $million?"

You are welcome to examine my God anytime. Go outside, pick up a rock, that feels right.....

That'll be the one.

I have faith he will be there. You now have physical proof.

I'll take a cheque.
 
Jerry said:
Sorry. The challenge wasn't mine but rather a member of the atheist religion.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Well, not a especially clever member of the atheist religion, at most it can be proven, that the picture a religion has about it's god is wrong and i think even that is often impossible.

Carn
 
Darat said:
Hi Jerry and welcome.

Randi himself does not often visit the forum so if you want a quick response you could either email him directly or use the PM system here to contact "KRAMER" who is the person at the JREF responsible for the challenge applications.
Click to expand...

I think it would be helpful for Kramer to publicly make clear the JREF's correspondence on this. Nip it in the bud, as it were.

Perhaps someone ought to think about contacting Vashek to encourage him to clarify this also.

Incidentally Jerry, atheism is not a religion but rather the absence of religion.
 
A Clarification....

I have had a brief correspondence with a gentleman I know simply as MICK whose email address is thinkandreason.com - he has been quite cordial. The entire exchange took place over the course of a few days, about a week ago. This was the first I'd heard about any of this.

Here is the exchange, which began with me responding (as in; REPLY ALL) to a "cc" I'd received on a heated debate regarding JREF's refusal to test religious claims:

============================================

Dear Sirs,

I'm hoping that you are aware that the JREF no longer tests "religious" claims such as these.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

+++++++++++++++

I am now aware of that. I have removed any mention of the JREF from my website. Can I ask as to why this change? Religion is the biggest scam ever, and I just can not fathom why Randi would not take it on.

Mick

+++++++++++++++

Because such claims are wholly unverifiable.

Should anyone EVER approach us with a scientific test protocol that would conclusively prove ANY religious claim, we will accept it. Absolutely.

Until then, however, we will no longer waste our time in endless correspondence with those who demand that we simply BELIEVE.

As per the Challenge rules, ONLY A DEMONSTRATION WILL SUFFICE.

The moment someone offers us an actual demonstration, we'll change the rules, and observe the test.

-Kramer, JREF.

+++++++++++++++

Okay that makes sense. But why can't the same protocals apply to supposed deities as to ghosts or apparitions??? That is what I attempted to do with his (Randis) permission earlier. Just to let you know, the religious zealots think that Randi "chickened out" because the proof of a christian god is too powerful for him.

Mick

+++++++++++++++

We know what the religious zealots think (if THINK is indeed the proper term - I'd imagine that the word BELIEVE better fits), and we couldn't possibly care less.

Applicants who want to prove the existence of ghosts almost always have some kind of a demonstration in mind, or believe that their photographic or videotaped "evidence" is good enough for them, so why not good enough for the JREF.

Applicants making religious claims simply ramble on about how we just "refuse to believe what is before our eyes", and other such nonsense. They either exhibit an absolute disregard for the Challenge rules, or they insist that the rules as stated cannot verify the kind of paranormal phenomenon they are claiming. They claim that our standards just don't fit the religious phenemenon they attest to. Whatever. Either way, we cannot abide their fantasies.

As Randi has so often stated, "It's our Challenge. We run it as we see fit..."

If they don't like it, let them make their OWN Million Dollar Challenge and award the prize to whomever they want.
There's certainly more than enough funding out there from wealthy religious zealots who might want to "prove" that god exists.

Funny they haven't initiated one yet.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
 
Kramer,

Thanks for gutsy posting of your correspondence with "MICK" of "Thimk" ;>)

Since a portion is identical to what Vashek Pokorny, Admin of thinkandreason.com sent me, it's probably one and the same person.

This fills in the blanks for what was not told me, but unfortunately, you have no idea what corresponded with "Mickey" and me in the previous half dozen emails, which were supposed to be posted as part of the agreement to attach my full name to his article on his site (another topic another day).

Actually, one would have thought I was "defending" the JREF cause.

The very heart of the issue discussed, was not whether God exits, but rather (to borrow a few of your words) a atheist zealot who had a fantasy that he really did have someone else's million bucks that would stand behind his personal challenge. This agreement was with JREF and would be paid in behalf of thinkandreason if proof of God's existence could be given.

Thus, an atheist's bogus million dollar challenge debunked.

Have a nice day.

Jerry
 
Oleron said:
Perhaps someone ought to think about contacting Vashek to encourage him to clarify this also.

Incidentally Jerry, atheism is not a religion but rather the absence of religion.
Click to expand...

Oleron,

I think it's a great idea about contacting Vashek, MICK, or ADMIN.

Unfortunately, I think he'll only disappoint his fellow deciples.

By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.

Jerry
 
Jerry said:
Oleron,

I think it's a great idea about contacting Vashek, MICK, or ADMIN.

Unfortunately, I think he'll only disappoint his fellow deciples.

By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.

Jerry
Click to expand...
Well, Jerry, you can't always believe that Webster guy. Was it Phineas Webster?
Atheist merely implies, "No god, gods, whatever, whatsoever."
How is that a religion?
 
Jerry said:
By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."

Atheism IS a religion.
Click to expand...
It can be defined that way, but that is not the primary or most commonly used definition. And you could observe (if you read these boards here) that atheism does not meet any of those criterion you have suggested.

Beliefs? None. There is a common lack of belief. I don't know who said it first, but I love the quote, "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Practices? Got any clue what practices are universal or even common to atheists? I'd love to know, 'cause I want to make sure I'm doing it right. ;)

Ethical values? Go to the politics section if you want to see just how little atheists agree on ethical values.

Now humanism might be considered to have some ethical values (like "be good to humans") but not any that are inconsistant with most theistic religions. I think, given the actions of some fanatical religious groups, that we can agree that even people who believe in a god do not agree on morality.

No churches, no ministers, no rituals, no dogma, no deity. I cannot see what it is that makes you think atheism is a religion.
 
Jerry said:
By the way Oleron, Webster says religion can be defined as "any system or beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]."
Click to expand...
Italics mine.
Your definition seems to be missing something.

The italcized portion obviously refers to an earlier part of the word entry, where the word religion is more strictly defined. Without that, it seems to say that religion can be defined as any system that looks like a religion.

I found this more complete version here.
From Webster's New World Dictionary:
1) Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. 2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual. 3a) any specific system of beliefs, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy: as the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc. 3b) loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system, as "humanism is his religion." 4) a state of mind or way of life expressing love for and trust in God, and one's will and effort to act according to the will of God, especially within a monastic order or community: as, "he achieved religion." 5) any object of conscientious regard and pursuit: as, "cleanliness was a religion to him." 6) [obs.] a) the practice of religious observances or rites; b) pl. religious rites.
Click to expand...
Now, clearly, the part of the definition you quoted refers back to 3a). I don't think I'd consider atheism as a "specific system of beliefs." Other than the concept that there is no God (which is in direct opposition to most definitions of religion), there are no specific worship rituals or beliefs attached, in my opinion.

On preview, what Tricky said. :)
 
Atheism is NOT a religion...

Jerry said:
Atheism IS a religion.
Click to expand...

This seems fairly absurd, like saying baseball IS basketball, or hunting IS fishing, or Mars IS Venus.

Atheism is a rejection of religious beliefs. It is NOT a religion, as atheism possesses no ritual devotion of faith. The debate ought to end right there. But, it goes on.

Some may argue that Atheism can be defined as a belief system just as religion surely is, but Atheism is not so much a belief as it is a conclusion. It is arrived at not as the result of a leap of faith or indoctrination, but as the purest byproduct of reason.

Reason and Religion are NOT friends. They are fast enemies.

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of belief. Religion doesn't even exist without belief.

How could any two things be more opposite?

I've heard plenty of arguments about this but none of them were very good. They usually begin with someone finding a dictionary with a definition (or just one poorly worded line in a definition) that fits their assertion, as this one did. Flimsy ground to build a house upon, IMHO.

And even if you could build a home atop it, I sure as hell wouldn't wanna live there.
 
WOW! Touchy, thouchy.

You'd think with the distain that most on this forum have for a God of any kind, that a simple word wouldn't draw so much emotion instead of reason. But such is life.

I can modify Atheism to perhaps a better definition,
"The Atheist Cult."

Have a nice day.


Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom