The JREF is not an atheist organization

[ImaginalDisc]

One would expect that people exposed to advanced biology courses to show some understanding of evolution. You are giving these doctors much more leeway than you give the pastor. Their belief is wrong, despite exposure to appropriate evidence. His belief is wrong, because of exposure to inappropriate evidence. Which of them is following the available evidence? Which of them are being skeptics?

Why are you needlessly entangling the issues of evolution and belief in god? Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the diversity of life. It has nothing to do with the issue of the existence of god. The question of where life originated is not answered by evolution, that's a question of ambiogenesis. Proving evolution to be true does not disprove god, and neither does it preclude god. Even if god actually had caused life to initially arise on the planet some 3 billion years ago, evolution would still have taken place.

You're just trying to change the subject. Unless your pastor has evidence for god, he's delusional.

P.S. Medical students recieve an undergraduate level understanding of evolution in their pre-med programs. I'm not aware of higher level classes specifically regarding evolution for M.D.'s. I've recieved an undergraduate level understanding of chemistry, but I'm sure if you asked me about the details of some randomly selected chemical theory or pinciple, I'd be as likely to goof as any other educated person. I'm studying ecology, and a precise and accurate understanding of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, for example, isn't required in my field.

Any chain of reasoning is subject to the data available. He is not fooling himself, he is being fooled by his community. I cannot offer any definitive proof; all I can do is attest that he earnestly and frequently advocated questioning of matters of faith and belief, and looking for evidence.

One's community has no bearing on hard evidence. Oxygen has the same poperties for everyone, regardless of the company they keep. You are obfuscating the issue. Where is your pastor's teleological argument which points directly to god, with iron clad reasoning and proof? Does he use some other justification? Where are his facts, his proofs? I'd love to see them. If he doesn't have any such thing, when he claims that doubt and reasoning lead him to god he's just whistling Dixie.

P.S. However earnest he may have been, he was simply wrong. If he had anything meaningful to contribute which would settle the question of the existence of god, I doubt very much he'd keep mum about it.

 

[Mercutio]

Why are you needlessly entangling the issues of evolution and belief in god?
[snip]
You're just trying to change the subject. Unless your pastor has evidence for god, he's delusional.
[snip]
One's community has no bearing on hard evidence. Oxygen has the same poperties for everyone, regardless of the company they keep. You are obfuscating the issue.

I obviously have not made myself clear. Yes, there are piles and piles of overwhelming evidence in favor of Evolution. Yet these students apparently did not approach it critically. They came to a conclusion that agrees (on the face of it) with this evidence: they accepted evolution as Theory and fact. But they did so, if you will, delusionally. Their acceptance of evolution was due to faith in what some authority told them, not in an understanding of the evidence.

One's community has no bearing on hard evidence? Does not one's community have bearing on one's access to this evidence? I am not obfuscating, I am pointing out that we live in a real world, where if you ask for evidence, the evidence you get depends on whom you ask.

Just for clarity, do you also think these medical students were delusional in their beliefs?

Where is your pastor's teleological argument which points directly to god, with iron clad reasoning and proof? Does he use some other justification? Where are his facts, his proofs? I'd love to see them. If he doesn't have any such thing, when he claims that doubt and reasoning lead him to god he's just whistling Dixie.

P.S. However earnest he may have been, he was simply wrong. If he had anything meaningful to contribute which would settle the question of the existence of god, I doubt very much he'd keep mum about it.

He did preach, so he was not keeping mum about it. His evidence quite clearly does not reach your standards, but it certainly moved congregations.

If one does not have access to the science behind emotion, intense and overwhelming emotional reactions can be both powerful and mysterious. They are evidence--but of what? If you ask V.S. Ramachandran, they are evidence of the action of particular dopamine channels in the brain; if you ask Billy Graham, they are evidence of god's touch. (the difference is, if you ask each of them how they know this, you get vastly different answers. But asking the question in the first place is an act of skepticism, and it is one no matter which environment you were in--the one with Ramachandran or the one with Graham.)

 

[DRBUZZ0]

This is really confusing to me, the JREF is clearly and atheist organization. Religion plays no part in the JREF's goals, fund raising, or membership. There's no religious criteria for its admission as a member or its actions. It's a completely secular institution. What it isn't is anti-theist or religious. The JREF isn't in the business of attacking religion, or in promoting it. Religion is irrelevant to the actions of the JREF, religious claims are examined as rigorously as any others, when they are testable.

To say "the JREF is not an atheist organization," is, in my opinion, making the mistake of bending over backwards to avoid offending stupid people. Atheism isn't an organization, affiliation, or codified set of strictures and beliefs, it's just "being without religion, which the JREF certainly is.

That doesn't make the JREF an atheist organization anymore than it makes "Citizens for safer railroad crossings" or any other organization which is non-religious in nature atheistic.

Secular, yes, but atheistic? I would not go that far.

Clearly there are some atheistic undertones, based on Mr. Randi's coments on the subject, the fact that skepticism seems to have some things in common with atheism and such. But I don't see how this makes it an "Atheist" organization.

 

[Hokulele]

Given that 10% of the membership responded, I'm not so sure that it can be just swept away as a flawed poll. I deliberately left no room for movement, becuase I didn't expect anywhere near 50% to agree with the statement. That nearly 50% did is quite telling - unless you're suggesting that lots of members are so dishonest they'd vote according to likes and dislikes rather than what they believe.

I'm not saying it would carry through the whole membership at that rate, but I suspect you might fond a lot higher ratio of anti-theists than you think.

My point was that your poll was about being anti-theism, and MLynn's post was about certain posters being anti-theist. This is very similar to the Christian viewpoint of the difference between hating the sinner and hating the sin.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you suggesting that these things are, in principle, untestable? It seems they only turn untestable when Randi shows up; other than that, every believer has seen tons of proof...

There is a big difference, and I suspect you already know this, between something that is untestable in principle, and making post hoc excuses that render something unfalsifiable after the fact.

I'll answer this along with the next reply, which is the same.

Not at all. If you don't like my answer about what a skeptic is, don't ask me the question.

"Care" is the word, not "like". I reached a decison last week that anyone is welcome to lay out what a "skeptic" may believe in, because the word "sceptic" has been re-defined to include only people who have no theistic or deistic beliefs.

Doesn't he? How can a theist not make testable claims?

Gosh, you don't know many christians, do you? Most of them make no testable claims.

Same applies: How can any of these not make testable claims?

Ok, let's get to the meat of it all.

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

Anyway, these would seem to all be completely untestable claims:

A liberal christian version of god.

This version of god has no input into the world today, with his last visible action being the ressurrection of Jesus. Given that being 2000 years ago, the claim is untestable.

Therefore, a theist can be a "skeptic".

Psychics talking to dead people.

Unless the psychic makes a testable claim, e.g. "Your grandfather was named Mike and worked in a sawmill", that psychic may be classed as a "skeptic".

Astrology

As long as an astrologer makes no testable claim, e.g. "You will get married next year", an astrologer may be classed as a "skeptic".

UFOlogist.

A person could be 100% convinced that aliens visit earth regularly for the reason of anally-probing humans and be a "skeptic". In fact, this one probably goes well beyond skepticism, since there are large numbers of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.


Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

 

[The Atheist]

My point was that your poll was about being anti-theism, and MLynn's post was about certain posters being anti-theist. This is very similar to the Christian viewpoint of the difference between hating the sinner and hating the sin.

Eh? You've answered your own question - the two subjects are identical: anti-theism. Almost 50% of respondents qualify under that term.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

...snip...

Who is this "#2 'skeptic' in the JREF is a deist" ?

 

[Hokulele]

Eh? You've answered your own question - the two subjects are identical: anti-theism. Almost 50% of respondents qualify under that term.

Once again, you are conflating theism with theists. Please re-read MLynn's post.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Care" is the word, not "like". I reached a decison last week that anyone is welcome to lay out what a "skeptic" may believe in, because the word "sceptic" has been re-defined to include only people who have no theistic or deistic beliefs.

By whom?

We seem to all agree that a "skeptic" cannot believe in anything which is capable of proven incorrect by testing, which is just jolly lucky, since the #2 "skeptic" in the JREF is a deist.

Where does a deist make testable claims?

A liberal christian version of god.

This version of god has no input into the world today, with his last visible action being the ressurrection of Jesus. Given that being 2000 years ago, the claim is untestable.

Therefore, a theist can be a "skeptic".

Wrong. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Psychics talking to dead people.

Unless the psychic makes a testable claim, e.g. "Your grandfather was named Mike and worked in a sawmill", that psychic may be classed as a "skeptic".

Wrong. When a psychic claims to be talking to dead people, that is testable.

Astrology

As long as an astrologer makes no testable claim, e.g. "You will get married next year", an astrologer may be classed as a "skeptic".

Wrong. An astrologer makes by definition testable claims, since astrology is based on the claim that the planets' position in certain constellations influence and rule our lives.

UFOlogist.

A person could be 100% convinced that aliens visit earth regularly for the reason of anally-probing humans and be a "skeptic". In fact, this one probably goes well beyond skepticism, since there are large numbers of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

Wrong. Aliens visiting Earth regularly, anally probing humans, is a testable claim.

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.

Wrong. A ghost is a testable claim.

Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

You have been proven wrong.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Ghosts.

Darat believes in ghosts, his claim is untestable and he's a "skeptic". QED.


Fortunately, due to the tireless efforts of The Grammar Stalin, there is a word which excludes all of those beliefs:

Sceptic.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

 

[The Atheist]

Who is this "#2 'skeptic' in the JREF is a deist" ?

He's a retired half-colonel named Bidlack and I understand that he's a deist. Whether or not he's #2 is a moot point, but I think he's probably the next best-known JREF personality behind Randi.

Once again, you are conflating theism with theists. Please re-read MLynn's post.

No, I'm not conflating anything. Theists practice theism.

Where does a deist make testable claims?

Please learn to read what is written - I said that they make no testable claims.

Wrong. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Even for you, that's quite absurd. How can you test it 2000 years ago? Since we don't have the ability to travel in time and test those claims, they are untestable. Thanks for confirming my point - liberal christians can be "skeptics".

Wrong. When a psychic claims to be talking to dead people, that is testable.

Absurd answer again. How is it testable? Your assertion that it's testable is quite laughable. Certainly, some "psychics" may make testable claims, but some don't.

Wrong. An astrologer makes by definition testable claims, since astrology is based on the claim that the planets' position in certain constellations influence and rule our lives.

Total ignorance of astrology noted. Try again; several astrologers make only untestable claims.

Wrong. Aliens visiting Earth regularly, anally probing humans, is a testable claim.

Oh, let's see it, I'm ready for a good laugh. How do you propose testing that?

Wrong. A ghost is a testable claim.

Dumbest comment yet.


Given your total inability to do anything but make assertions, backed purely by your position as a bloke who claims not to be the Uber-skeptic, try to actually present an argument with some bases next time. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy that some believers in astrology, psychics, ghosts and god/s may be "skeptics".

You have been proven wrong.

No, I'm sorry, chappie, but that's not how it works. You have made a series of unfounded assertions. The only thing you've proven is your total inability to back your points with either facts or honesty.

Nothing new.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

No, I didn't miss that at all, unless there's some particular meaning of the word "ghost" I'm unfamiliar with.

Feel free to explain what you actually believe in - given that you've approached the matter "skeptically".

Cheers.

 

[CFLarsen]

He's a retired half-colonel named Bidlack and I understand that he's a deist. Whether or not he's #2 is a moot point, but I think he's probably the next best-known JREF personality behind Randi.

If Hal is a deist who doesn't make testable claims, what is the problem?

If it is a moot point if he is #2 or not, why bring it up? Is it because you didn't know he was a deist, but thought he was a theist?

Even for you, that's quite absurd. How can you test it 2000 years ago? Since we don't have the ability to travel in time and test those claims, they are untestable. Thanks for confirming my point - liberal christians can be "skeptics".

No, they can't. There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. The time difference is irrelevant.

Absurd answer again. How is it testable? Your assertion that it's testable is quite laughable. Certainly, some "psychics" may make testable claims, but some don't.

It is testable, because we can see if the information is more than just cold reading. E.g., pointing to a will, hidden somewhere.

Total ignorance of astrology noted. Try again; several astrologers make only untestable claims.

Name one, and provide a full account of their claims. Also, explain how they can make untestable claims.

Oh, let's see it, I'm ready for a good laugh. How do you propose testing that?

Capture an alien. Get evidence from their ship. Actually observe someone being beamed through their ceiling.

Dumbest comment yet.

Not at all. We can film a ghost, or sometimes talk to one. Technically, there is little difference between a ghost and a psychic talking to dead people.

Given your total inability to do anything but make assertions, backed purely by your position as a bloke who claims not to be the Uber-skeptic, try to actually present an argument with some bases next time. Meanwhile, I'm quite happy that some believers in astrology, psychics, ghosts and god/s may be "skeptics".

It seems as if you consider quite a lot of the paranormal/supernatural beliefs untestable, and therefore outside the scope of skepticism.

Which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Argh - I keep hearing different opinions about who's a "real" skeptic and who isn't:

* Only anti-theists can be skeptics
* Being an atheist isn't enough - you must be "anti."
* Believers are buffoons and idiots who are to be laughed at because they aren't enlightened enough to see "the truth."

I used to think I was somewhat welcome here, but lately the atmosphere here has been really intense. I don't know what to do.

If that is the case then, probably, less people will turn to skepticism for answers to questions they have. So might lead on to the end of skepticism.

Has this place for you taken on the appearence of an extreme fundamentalist state?

Could I ask you why you feel you feel that you are personally are unwelcome here or made to feel such? I am not interested in names just the why.

Nobody should be laughed out, nobody should be belittled for their beliefs. If they force those beliefs on others then I hope they reap what they sowed.

Skepticism is a tool like a calculator. Can it applied to every day life? I would say yes that is my opinion and I do apply it. Others through their posts have shown possibly that it can't.

Another member asked whether I was confusing skepticism with cynicism. I honestly do no know. Perhaps I am being cynical rather than skeptical?

My concern is the use of the term 'skeptic'. Can it be used in the same lines as Christian, Psychologist, Politician etc? If so can a Christan call themselves a skeptic basing on their beliefs? My answer to the latter is no for me. Same applies to those who channel the dead, etc; they are equally not skeptics. They use skepticism but are not skeptics.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Are you saying that you have to be an atheist if you are a skeptic?

Whatever I say you will twist to suit your purpose of arguing for the sake of it.

So let's say in this instance:

• I am
• I am not.

 

[The Atheist]

If Hal is a deist who doesn't make testable claims, what is the problem?

None at all, I was agreeing that deists can be "skeptics". Unfortunately, they won't qualify as sceptics.

If it is a moot point if he is #2 or not, why bring it up? Is it because you didn't know he was a deist, but thought he was a theist?

No, I was pretty confident that he is a deist, I brought it up, because he's clearly very close to James Randi and accordingly, it's highly unlikely that people connected with JREF will rubbish his claims. (whatever they might be)

No, they can't. There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. The time difference is irrelevant.

Oh my word. You should read some of your stuff sometime.

Ok, the claim is testable. How are you going to test it?

It is testable, because we can see if the information is more than just cold reading. E.g., pointing to a will, hidden somewhere.

Ah, I see. While I accept that "skeptics" must obey your guidelines, I didn't realise that psychics must as well. It seems that you're talking about an entirely different type of psychic to me, but I didn't realise that all psychics make identical, testable claims. Thanks for clearing that misconception up! Gosh, you are clever at this, aren't you? I must point out to a couple of people I know who claim to be psychic that they're doing it all wrong. I'll pass on the SkepticReport e mail so they don't mess it up in the future.

Name one, and provide a full account of their claims. Also, explain how they can make untestable claims.

Shirley Russell, Joanne Smith, Janet Cornwall. That's three for a start. They claim that astrology consists of guidelines to live by depending upon one's astrological chart. They don't attempt to predict the future.

If you can find a testable claim in there, go for it and I'll give you one or other of their phone numbers.

Capture an alien. Get evidence from their ship. Actually observe someone being beamed through their ceiling.

Way to be deliberately obtuse. How can a mere human capture an alien life form which is infinitely more intelligent than us, with recourse to technology totally unknown on earth.

Try again.

Not at all. We can film a ghost, or sometimes talk to one. Technically, there is little difference between a ghost and a psychic talking to dead people.

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

It seems as if you consider quite a lot of the paranormal/supernatural beliefs untestable, and therefore outside the scope of skepticism.

Quite right, although "some" would be a better description than "quite a lot".

Fortunately, scepticism doesn't have that problem. Scepticism demands proof before claims are accepted, putting the onus on the claimant rather than the "skeptic" who will seek to find a testable claim to debunk.

Sceptics don't wate time like that, they just say, "Show me the proof or run home to mummy."

Which paranormal/supernatural beliefs do you consider testable?

Ones which can be tested. Unlike "skeptics", sceptics don't generalise.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

...snip...

Again - Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

 

[The Atheist]

It would depend on the definition - for example I have stated many a time here that I believe that ghosts exists and I have arrived at that conclusion by what I consider is skeptical reasoning.

Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

Again - Yes I do believe in ghosts, but I would suggest you go and re-read my post in this thread where I mention that; you seem to have missed something i.e that I believe in a particular definition of "ghost".

Yep, I saw it the first time.

And the second time...

And the third...

Maybe you could be so jolly decent as to enlighten me on what constitutes the particular form of "ghost" your skeptical reasoning has led to.

I get the drift that you recognise only one form - it would just be far more interesting if I knew which one that was.

Cheers.

 

[Darat]

Take it to another thread, that is derailing this thread. I was only interested in correcting your mistaken use of me as an example in this thread.

 

[The Atheist]

Take it to another thread, that is derailing this thread. I was only interested in correcting your mistaken use of me as an example in this thread.

Done.

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever I say you will twist to suit your purpose of arguing for the sake of it.

So let's say in this instance:

• I am
• I am not.

A non-answer.

None at all, I was agreeing that deists can be "skeptics". Unfortunately, they won't qualify as sceptics.

If you are referring to this thread, well..you don't get to redefine terms, and then tell people they are wrong.

No, I was pretty confident that he is a deist, I brought it up, because he's clearly very close to James Randi and accordingly, it's highly unlikely that people connected with JREF will rubbish his claims. (whatever they might be)

That makes no sense.

You bring up Hal's presence as "#2" at JREF as a problem for JREF. Then, when you learn that Hal is a deist, it suddenly isn't a problem anymore.

That sounds like you didn't know Hal was a deist.

Oh my word. You should read some of your stuff sometime.

Ok, the claim is testable. How are you going to test it?

You should read what I said: There is a difference between a claim that is, by nature, untestable, and a claim that is not. It is testable, it just isn't testable today.

Ah, I see. While I accept that "skeptics" must obey your guidelines, I didn't realise that psychics must as well. It seems that you're talking about an entirely different type of psychic to me, but I didn't realise that all psychics make identical, testable claims. Thanks for clearing that misconception up! Gosh, you are clever at this, aren't you? I must point out to a couple of people I know who claim to be psychic that they're doing it all wrong. I'll pass on the SkepticReport e mail so they don't mess it up in the future.

First, it isn't my guidelines. You asked how psychics could be tested, and I told you ways to do it.

Second, what "type" of psychic are you talking about?

Shirley Russell, Joanne Smith, Janet Cornwall. That's three for a start. They claim that astrology consists of guidelines to live by depending upon one's astrological chart. They don't attempt to predict the future.

That's exactly what they do, when they tell people that the planets' positions in the sky guide people's lives. That's a measurable influence.

If you can find a testable claim in there, go for it and I'll give you one or other of their phone numbers.

Why?

Way to be deliberately obtuse. How can a mere human capture an alien life form which is infinitely more intelligent than us, with recourse to technology totally unknown on earth.

Try again.

Even humans, "infinitely more intelligent" than a Portuguese man-of-war, can be killed by it.

Darat is not a "skeptic" then, according to your analysis. Have you told him yet?

Does he claim evidence of them?

Ones which can be tested. Unlike "skeptics", sceptics don't generalise.

Then, don't: Be specific. Which can be tested?