Atheist church has first schism

[a_unique_person]

Locally, we have a group of long standing called the "Ethical Society". Technically an atheist group. Within a couple of years, a group split off from them, calling themselves the Rationalist Society.... They felt that the Ethical Society had become too "religion like", with group "services" and singing and all....

Likely the same reason we have over 2000 different Christian sects as well.

What's wrong with singing?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, just people evaluating arguments. It's a specific type of task.

I would say that there's very little that can be done without evaluating arguments.

That's why I understand why the claim that skepticism may be a culture of people with shared beliefs is a perfectly valid model.

I'd say that that's poorly worded, if you do actually agree with me. The sceptical "movement" may be a culture of people with shared beliefs (although I'd say it'd be more accurate if it were regarded as a number of overlapping movements with various shared beliefs within them), but scepticism is scepticism.

You just have to read their annual objectives and curricula. I'm not sure if you recall, but last year, NCSE tried to mobilize resistance to Texas dropping critical thinking from their public school objectives.

You understand that this is still just making claims without providing any evidence, don't you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll bet money we're talking the vast, vast majority in both circumstances. Regression analysis would probably show an overlap of a solid billion people.

What you would bet money on and what you would consider probable are not evidence for any particular proposition. If you want me to accept that what you say is true, you need to provide evidence that what you say is true.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof (based on opinions you are assuming I hold, but which I haven't said, no less) won't cut it. As it is, so far the only person who's provided any evidence is me.

 

[blutoski]

What you would bet money on and what you would consider probable are not evidence for any particular proposition.

Sure it is. It's called inductive reasoning. A category of critical thinking.

P1: Probably X
P2: If X then Y
C: Probably Y

Or:

P1: X
P2: If X then probably Y
C: Probably Y

If you want me to accept that what you say is true, you need to provide evidence that what you say is true.

I have! Notice two skeptics do not agree on a basic critical thinking exercise!

Attempting to shift the burden of proof (based on opinions you are assuming I hold, but which I haven't said, no less) won't cut it. As it is, so far the only person who's provided any evidence is me.

Evidence of what? I don't understand that statement.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"Milquetoast atheism".

...is not the label you objected to.

I disagree. It's very much a tribalist dispute: the Godless Revival founders accuse the Sunday Assembly London people of starting their church as a cash grab and of not taking atheism seriously, claim that their Sunday Assembly New York was being hijacked by an "anti-atheist minority", and state that they formed their breakaway organization "to promote a godless celebration of life" instead of the "centralized humanist religion" of the Sunday Assembly.

And for a bunch of "comedians and performance artists", the Godless Revival people sure seem rather melodramatically po-faced about the whole thing.

I notice you quietly dropped the "bickering" accusation. Which is good, since your link describes the kind of organizational division that happens to virtually every social group sooner or later. Shi'ite/Sunni violence is tribal bickering. This is at best a disagreement about long-term goals.

I never even implied, much less stated, that this would be any such nonsense as "a schism of Crusade proportions" and "[t]he streets of New York will run red with blood". My actual point is that the dispute between the Godless Revival and the Sunday Assembly is stupid, petty, and emblematic of the problems with the whole "atheism is a way of life and is Serious Business!" thing.

Yet somehow you seem more upset about this than both sides put together. Why you mad, bro?

 

[blutoski]

I would say that there's very little that can be done without evaluating arguments.

? I don't know how to respond to that. It sounds bizarre.

I'd say that that's poorly worded, if you do actually agree with me. The sceptical "movement" may be a culture of people with shared beliefs (although I'd say it'd be more accurate if it were regarded as a number of overlapping movements with various shared beliefs within them), but scepticism is scepticism.

My entire point was that skepticism as a movement has members who schism because they do not agree on many important things, including what it means to be a skeptic. There are many definitions out there, and individual skeptics adopt the one they like.

I don't think it's quibbling to say that what skeptics do or do not believe is a good way to describe what skepticism as a movement believes.

You understand that this is still just making claims without providing any evidence, don't you?

I suppose. Like saying the sky is blue and being asked for evidence I guess. I follow NCSE and used to teach, so I guess I take it for granted that if skeptics are so interested in critical thinking, they'd be as interested in how it is incorporated into the current state of education and share this knowledge. I wasn't taking notes because I thought I would not have to defend the obvious.

Dinwar provided some leads, they look good to me.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You understand that this is still just making claims without providing any evidence, don't you?

Doing the equivalent of squawking "Evidence? Evidence?" everytime someone makes a claim isn't skepticism; it's obstructionism and unwillingness to make effort to engage in a conversation.

 

[A'isha]

...is not the label you objected to.

I object to these kind of labels in atheism in general, not just one specific label. "New Atheism", "Atheism Plus", "New New Atheism", "Milquetoast Atheism"...it's all pointless divisive nonsense.

I notice you quietly dropped the "bickering" accusation.

Er, no, I didn't. One side is less to blame than the other in terms of their harsh accusations, but both parties are still bickering with each other.

Which is good, since your link describes the kind of organizational division that happens to virtually every social group sooner or later.

And my objection is in making atheism a "social group" in the first place.

Shi'ite/Sunni violence is tribal bickering. This is at best a disagreement about long-term goals.

No, Shi'ite/Sunni violence is violence. Godless Revival vs. Sunday Assembly is bickering.

Yet somehow you seem more upset about this than both sides put together.

I made a snarky message board post. I didn't start a whole new organization because I didn't like what these groups were doing, or make accusations in the press about fraud and other wrongdoing. So it would appear that I'm not, actually, more upset about this than either side, much less both sides put together.

What's your problem with what I said?

 

[blutoski]

Incidentally, and at the risk of appearing to name-drop, Daniel says Hi.

I don't think this breaks any site rule against promotion for me to mention that Daniel has a new book out, as it's directly relevant to science advocacy and science education: [(Link to Skeptic Page for book)] (he did not ask for a plug)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Sure it is. It's called inductive reasoning. A category of critical thinking.

P1: Probably X
P2: If X then Y
C: Probably Y

Or:

P1: X
P2: If X then probably Y
C: Probably Y

That's not an inductive argument; it's a non-binary deductive argument–or possibly a modal deductive argument.

And inductive argument (semi-formally) would be:

{X_i}_i∈I
∴
X
​

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I object to these kind of labels in atheism in general, not just one specific label. "New Atheism", "Atheism Plus", "New New Atheism", "Milquetoast Atheism"...it's all pointless divisive nonsense.

True, although I'll note that the highlighted labels were generated by critics of atheism explicitly to stir up pointless divisive nonsense, and to provide a target for ridicule. Also, you're the first to capitalize the phrase "milquetoast atheism" to make it seem as if it were a proper noun. I really wish you'd stop lumping together and embellishing the facts in order to try and make your point better. I see what you're doing there, so it doesn't work with me.

"Atheism Plus," though, I'll totally give you as being pointlessly divisive enough to cover the deficiencies of the rest of the list.

And my objection is in making atheism a "social group" in the first place.

If it's the normal evolution of social groups which you find objectionable in atheist social groups, well... I don't know what else you'd expect, honestly. Were they all supposed to join hands and sing antiKumbaya?

I made a snarky message board post. I didn't start a whole new organization because I didn't like what these groups were doing, or make accusations in the press about fraud and other wrongdoing. So it would appear that I'm not, actually, more upset about this than either side, much less both sides put together.

What's your problem with what I said?

The fact that you're not doing anything doesn't mean you're not upset about it. In fact, people who whine about situations on the internet with no actual intention of correcting their problems in real life are often the most butthurt about things.

 

[mijopaalmc]

True, although I'll note that the highlighted labels were generated by critics of atheism explicitly to stir up pointless divisive nonsense, and to provide a target for ridicule.

Errrrr...no, not even close. Perhaps you should pay attention to how the authors and commentators to whom that designation is uniformly applied have quite concertedly contributed to the very divisiveness you bemoan.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure it is. It's called inductive reasoning. A category of critical thinking.

P1: Probably X
P2: If X then Y
C: Probably Y

Or:

P1: X
P2: If X then probably Y
C: Probably Y

I'd be happy with that. Feel free to plug numbers in, show me your reasoning, and explain how it leads to the conclusion you've drawn.

I have! Notice two skeptics do not agree on a basic critical thinking exercise!

How is this evidence that the majority of atheists are big supporters of TCM and don't like hearing criticisms of it?

Evidence of what? I don't understand that statement.

Evidence that supports your claim that the majority of atheists are big supporters of TCM and don't like hearing criticisms of it. This is your claim. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose. Like saying the sky is blue and being asked for evidence I guess. I follow NCSE and used to teach, so I guess I take it for granted that if skeptics are so interested in critical thinking, they'd be as interested in how it is incorporated into the current state of education and share this knowledge. I wasn't taking notes because I thought I would not have to defend the obvious.

Dinwar provided some leads, they look good to me.

When I say that I'm interested in evidence, I mean that I'm interested in evidence, not that I'm looking for someone to say "well, I know this, so I don't need to bother providing evidence". That's not how this works. Duane Gish can say that he doesn't need to provide evidence of an intelligent designer because he knows it's true.

You have made a claim. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim. If the claim is as trivial as that the sky is blue (which, incidentally, is neither that simple nor axiomatic, by any stretch of the imagination), then you should have no trouble doing so. It should, in fact, be easier than the dancing around that you've been doing in an attempt to avoid providing evidence to support your claims.

As far as Dinwar goes, his (unevidenced) claim contradicts yours - his claim is that the programmes are about buzzwords, rather than teaching critical thinking.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sure it is. It's called inductive reasoning. A category of critical thinking.

P1: Probably X
P2: If X then Y
C: Probably Y

Or:

P1: X
P2: If X then probably Y
C: Probably Y

Only if you can show actual probabilities. If it's just a name for your plausibility considerations, it's actually just a textbook fallacy.

Plus, at the very least, once you introduce modifiers like that it's what you think or what YOU would bet on, you've created an intensional context. It doesn't have to be what anyone else thinks, or what reality is like.

So, anyway, no, critical thinking it ain't. And he is right. What you'd bet on is fully irrelevant.

I have! Notice two skeptics do not agree on a basic critical thinking exercise!

No, you haven't. What you said, and he quoted, was "I'll bet money we're talking the vast, vast majority in both circumstances. Regression analysis would probably show an overlap of a solid billion people."

"Evidence" does not mean personal plausibility considerations. If you have done a regression analysis and can show the maths and the data, then that would be evidence. Just speculating that it would prove you right if anyone were to actually do that maths part is... shall we say this close to being point 15 on the crackpot index.

Also, if we're talking about either induction or regression analysis, one data point is by far not enough to show anything either way.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Doing the equivalent of squawking "Evidence? Evidence?" everytime someone makes a claim isn't skepticism; it's obstructionism and unwillingness to make effort to engage in a conversation.

I'm sorry, the burden of proof is what it is for a reason. While other people may do the neighbourly thing and offer more of a conversation, they are not required to waiver the rules of logic if the interlocutor can't support their claims by those rules.

I dunno how you imagine that logic or skepticism work, but truth isn't a matter of consensus or negotiation or where everyone's opinion is equal. Either you can support a claim, or you can't, and that's that. Nobody has any burden to engage some unfounded silliness in a conversation as if it didn't have to be supported to be taken seriously.

So, basically, so far you haven't told me that what he's doing isn't scepticism, but that YOU have no clue what scepticism is.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm sorry, the burden of proof is what it is for a reason. While other people may do the neighbourly thing and offer more of a conversation, they are not required to waiver the rules of logic if the interlocutor can't support their claims by those rules.

I dunno how you imagine that logic or skepticism work, but truth isn't a matter of consensus or negotiation or where everyone's opinion is equal. Either you can support a claim, or you can't, and that's that. Nobody has any burden to engage some unfounded silliness in a conversation as if it didn't have to be supported to be taken seriously.

So, basically, so far you haven't told me that what he's doing isn't scepticism, but that YOU have no clue what scepticism is.

Except when you have capability of going out and looking things up for yourself and, instead of verfying a claim that you find dubious, you ask to be spoon-fed the answer, you are not "being skeptical" because you are assuming the evidence doesn't exist rather than making a good-faith effort to determine its existence.

 

[tsig]

Except when you have capability of going out and looking things up for yourself and, instead of verfying a claim that you find dubious, you ask to be spoon-fed the answer, you are not "being skeptical" because you are assuming the evidence doesn't exist rather than making a good-faith effort to determine its existence.

Actually he's asking you to provide evidence for your claim.

Puffing and blowing about spoon feeding is a poor attempt at diversion.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Actually he's asking you to provide evidence for your claim.

Puffing and blowing about spoon feeding is a poor attempt at diversion.

You obviously are engaging in your usual sophistry. What I said was that he was "assuming the evidence didn't exist", when he didn't bother to search the keywords on Google or the NCSE site. Essentially, he is calling intellectual apathy "skepticism".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Except when you have capability of going out and looking things up for yourself and, instead of verfying a claim that you find dubious, you ask to be spoon-fed the answer, you are not "being skeptical" because you are assuming the evidence doesn't exist rather than making a good-faith effort to determine its existence.

BS. You're still asking someone else to do the work of supporting your claim. It's not their burden. They may accept it or not, but they have no duty to do the work to support your claim.

I suppose you could say that some evidence is trivial to find by 5 minutes of googling, but then it should also be even more trivial for the one making the claim to do it, since he knows exactly what to look for. And frankly, doubly so for the many people who DO have the time to do page after page after page of handwaving, and suppositions about what statistics would prove them right, and huffing and puffing about who's not a REAL skeptic, but then apparently at the same time DON'T have the time to do that supposed quick googling and end the discussion right there. Not to mention the delicious BS contradiction when it comes to essentially this claim: it's unreasonable to ask the one person making the claim to do that googling, but it's reasonable to demand and expect from dozens of people on a board to each do that work of supporting the claim for him. Assuming it's not an exercise in deflecting attention from not actually having evidence, then it's a case of entitlement delusion.

But at any rate, nobody owes anyone else to accept a reversal of the burden of proof. To quote Hitchens' razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you can't be bothered to show evidence, then someone might or might not take it upon them to do the work for you, but you also shouldn't be bothered if they just dismiss the claim as long as you don't start bothering to support it.