JREF a Gay Organization?

[Cavemonster]

dglas,

Can you link to where you've read the statement that offends you so much?
I've never seen it made except in context of a longer explanation that makes the meaning quite clear.

 

[dglas]

I don't understand how the "is not a" constitutes a big sign saying "atheists are not welcome." However as there might be some loonies out there who are confused, shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization" and then everyone can be happy? You could just say something positive like " is an organization dedicated to the search for truth" which precludes definite end beliefs. Or take a leaf from the Society for Psychical Research "Membership does not imply acceptance of any particular opinion concerning the nature or reality of the phenomena examined, and the JREF holds no corporate views."

cj x

Leaving the unbecoming "loonies" snarkiness aside.

"...shall we also just modify it to "the JREF is not a religious or atheist organization""

That would be an interesting experiment actually. Needs to be a little more specific though. Some will claim that "religion" does not necessarily mean "theistic."

 

[dglas]

I think the OP is trying to look for discrimination where there is none. Saying that JREF is not an atheist organisation in no way means that it doesn't want to be associated with atheists, but simply that its primary directive is not to promote atheism. As an atheist I have no problem with this. If I am looking for an organisation that promotes atheism, I would join an atheist organisation. I would not expect JREF to fulfill that role for me. I am a lesbian but I don't expect JREF to promote gay rights. I would go to a gay rights organisation for that. However, that doesn't mean because I am a lesbian that I am not welcome to be part of the JREF community.

Personally, I was not aware that JREF had a statement saying it was not an atheist organisation. Is this a new statement that has just been released in the past few days? If not, why is the OP getting upset about it now? Is it because with the introduction of a gay president he could suddenly make "shocking" statements about JREF producing a statement saying it was not a gay organisation to somehow back up his outrage about the atheist statement? Why not post about it earlier when we had a straight president and demand to know why JREF hasn't issued a statement saying that it wasn't a heterosexual organisation?

In effect, I did. It wasn't one of the specific examples I chose (although I did cite gays, so maybe one could give me the benefit of the doubt there), but the meaning was the same.

Now, really. If there was an official statement by the JREF, "The JREF is not a lesbian organization" with no other such disclaimers, would you really think that was perfectly innocent? Really? I wonder how many times women, and lesbian women, have had to face accusations that, "I think [you are] trying to look for discrimination where there is none." Does it still sound perfectly innocent to you?

 

[dglas]

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence.

Well now. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

 

[dglas]

hang on, before you get all twisted.

Are you Gay? I need to know if I need to flag this thread as a "gay thread"

Seems to me we need a policy statement from you publicly confirming or refuting this.

God, I wish I were!

 

[Lothian]

Well now. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

No, I don't know why you didn't get it first time.

 

[Alan]

In effect, I did. It wasn't one of the specific examples I chose (although I did cite gays, so maybe one could give me the benefit of the doubt there), but the meaning was the same.

Now, really. If there was an official statement by the JREF, "The JREF is not a lesbian organization" with no other such disclaimers, would you really think that was perfectly innocent? Really? I wonder how many times women, and lesbian women, have had to face accusations that, "I think [you are] trying to look for discrimination where there is none." Does it still sound perfectly innocent to you?

Let's say people kept on thinking that "JREF" was actually "LOTL" and someone from the JREF cleared up that confusion by stating that it is not a lesbian organisation. If anyone took that to mean "LESBIANS ARE NOT WELCOME", or anything of that type, they would be as wrong as you are here.

 

[Belz...]

Which tools of science lead to theism?

None. Why ?

 

[Belz...]

And I think you are using a contrived usage of "troll" in order to dismiss a point without considering it. One thing a troll doe sis post to get at one's feelings, but so do satirists, and those promoting a viewpoint, and those attempting to make a point to deliberately oblivious people.

The JREF is not a satirist organisation.

Ahem. I mean, if you open a new thread with a serious subject just to get people all riled up then by definition you are a troll. I didn't make it up. Still, perhaps I'm wrong and you didn't do it to do that and therefore aren't that, but so far that seems to be that.

"...considering the relative importance of the issue at hand,"

You, at least, recognize some importance to the issue? Well, that's a first tentative step.

Actually, it was implied that the importance of the issue at hand was LOW.

You'll find, if you care to actually look, that prior to declaration at issue by the JREF, that I was a frequent and supportive poster at the JREF forums. I also had a paid membership for a year. But if it just easier for you to spew "troll!" then all I can do is wish you luck on your continued development.

The two aren't mutually-exclusive.

 

[arthwollipot]

Since I expect the chances of Wagg answering my question are roughly absolute zero, I'll throw it over to you two.

Which tools of science lead to theism?

What the hell are you asking me for? I'm as atheist as you are. And anyway, it is quite beside the point.

Ahh. Good. Good riddance then, if that is all you have to offer. Thank you for being an example of the open-minded skeptic for us all.

Well I'm sorry. I think your thesis is ludicrous and paranoid, and I have outlined the reasons why. If that's what you consider "all" I have to offer, then please permit me to offer more:

Insisting that you are right and everyone else participating in the discussion is wrong is the very definition of dogmatic, in my opinion. You accuse me of not being open-minded, yet you have utterly refused to acknowledge that anyone else posting in this thread has any kind of a point. You've even got a statment from Jeff, which is about as official a position as you're going to get, saying that you have completely misinterpreted the JREF's intent.

In case you hadn't noticed, the JREF already receives a lot of flak and bad press simply because of the MDC and because of Randi himself and the things he's said and done. Being perceived as "not an atheist organisation" or "not a gay organisation" is not going to change that.

Currently there is evidence that two people think that the statement "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" is a problem - you, and The Atheist. There is also evidence that quite a few more people (including atheists such as myself) do not think that it is a problem. You have received a clarification from Jeff about the intent of the statement - and that's about as official as you're going to get unless Randi, Phil or DJ come along and make a statement.

So what are you going to do now?

 

[Geek Goddess]

Most of the executives at my company are atheists. However, our logo, website, mission statement (if we had one, which we don't) doesn't say 'we are not an atheist organization' because that is not our function.

The board and employees of JREF are largely atheist, to my knowledge. The JREF, as an organization, does not have a function of promoting or representing atheism. There are plenty of orgs that do that, as Jeff pointed out. Yes, skepticism generally leads to atheism or agnosticism.* I don't have a problem with the JREF stating 'this is not an organization for the promotion of atheism'.

I think it's more important to educate people about the process of critical thinking, and then leading on from there. The more educated and secure people become, the more likely they are to abandon their supernatural and pseudoscientific beliefs, regardless of what they are.

I know there are no gods, but I'd rather get someone into the fold by picking at the edges of their weird beliefs, rather than getting into their face right off the bat and perhaps losing the opportunity to bring them to reason.




*So does attending seminary.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't know; they sound like a bunch of tools to me.

That's about the sensiblest comment in the entire thread!

An excellent question.

Pity you couldn't think of an excellent answer.

You did post some very nice prose, but none of it showed how using the tools of science can lead to theism, which is what was posted by Wagg.

None. Why ?

Well, you agreed with Wagg's statement, so I expected you to be able explain which tools he meant because it sounds like gibberish to me.

People can use faith to lead to god, but I only know one theist who will swear that scientific tools lead to theism and he ain't here.

He's also wrong.

What the hell are you asking me for? I'm as atheist as you are. And anyway, it is quite beside the point.

No, it's not beside the point at all, in fact, the very opposite, it is the point.

Wagg gave an explanation of why JREF is not an atheist organisation and claimed that the "tools of science" can lead to theism.

Since you agreed with him fully, like Belz, I expected you to be able to justify your agreement with the statement.

So far, the pair of you are batting zero.

Care to try now? Or was your agreement with Wagg just hand-waving?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I want to know if all the people who have posted to this thread are Gay.

I am not gay, but everyone else is.

 

[Cynic]

No, not even close, actually.

Aside from the obverwhelmingly obvious fact that you're making a category error confusing scientists with science, a list of clowns who are creationists but have a PhD in a scientific discipline just proves that people with PhDs can be as insane as the next person.

One PhD guy, with a Nobel Prize no less, believes that AIDS doesn't exist, while others are full-on 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

You've made no attempt to answer the question and instead post gibberish. Surprising lack of cynicism with an over-abundance of apologetics.

Do you have no sense of humor at all? I was calling the scientists in that list tools. Sheesh!

 

[The Atheist]

Do you have no sense of humor at all? I was calling the scientists in that list tools. Sheesh!

Ok, I'll give you that one.

Mea culpa for not spotting it, although I'll say in my defence that lists of idiots get thrown at me so often as a means of making an argument that I missed it.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

What a load of utter rubbish.

What "tools of science" lead one to theism?

Ask Martin Gardner.

 

[The Atheist]

Ask Martin Gardner.

Sorry, but that's not an answer.

You made the statement.

Would you like to see it again?

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

I've even bolded it for you.

I did predict you wouldn't answer the question, and you haven't. When I hear Martin Gardner make the same statement, I'll ask him, but it was you who posted it, and you are an official of JREF making an official statement.

Now it's over to you to justify it.

Off you go, there's a good chap.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Sorry, but that's not an answer.

You made the statement.

Would you like to see it again?



I've even bolded it for you.

I did predict you wouldn't answer the question, and you haven't. When I hear Martin Gardner make the same statement, I'll ask him, but it was you who posted it, and you are an official of JREF making an official statement.

Now it's over to you to justify it.

Off you go, there's a good chap.

Martin Gardner is a skeptic and a theist. Therefor, I know someone can be a skeptic and a theist. I know other people who are skeptics and theists as well. How they reconcile their beliefs is not something I'm privy to, but I don't have to be to make the statement I made.

I can't use the tools of science to conclude that there's a deity, and I'll bet you can't either. But others can. That's their business, and quite beyond the business of the JREF. We're about questions, not answers.

 

[James in New York]

I don't think he would say that the tools of science lead him to theism.

Martin Gardner admits that the atheist arguments are best.

He just doesn't want to die. He's a theist because he wants immortality because he finds it consoling.

It's possible he might say that the tools of science lead him to realize his finitude. Hence his theism.

 

[The Atheist]

Martin Gardner is a skeptic and a theist.

Unfortunately, nobody asked that question. There are plenty of christians on this very board who combine skepticism and theism, but that's not what your statement said.

I can't use the tools of science to conclude that there's a deity, and I'll bet you can't either. But others can. That's their business, and quite beyond the business of the JREF. We're about questions, not answers.

Very nice swerve, why don't you just admit your statement was bunkum?

You said, and I'll repeat it again:

So, to be even clearer: the JREF welcomes everyone who wants to explore the world using the tools of science to make provisional conclusions based on the best available evidence. If you conclude that there is a deity of some sort, that IS compatible with our mission.

You are unequivocal that science can lead to theism and that would be fully compatible with JREF's "mission".

Now you're avoiding the subject by saying it's not JREF's business. Well, if the business of JREF one minute is using the tools of science, and the next not, then you've painted yourself neatly into a blind corner.

Watching you yet again make a foolish statement which you are unable to defend, but refuse to retract, is hilarious.