The JREF is not an atheist organization

[UnrepentantSinner]

In the context of this thread?

If so, please DO explain

(sorry this response took so long)

We can analyze homopathic remedies in the laboratory.

How are we supposed to put a deity in a beaker?

 

[six7s]

there's definately a difference between homeopathy and the existance of a diety

In the context of this thread?

If so, please DO explain

(sorry this response took so long)

We can analyze homopathic remedies in the laboratory.

How are we supposed to put a deity in a beaker?

You're the one claiming a distinction

You figure out how to test your deity

If you can't, simply retract your claim

Easy

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We can analyze homopathic remedies in the laboratory.

We can't put a deity in a beaker!

Ergo there's a difference between homeopathy and the existance of a deity.



Is that better?

 

[six7s]

Better? No, not at all

If you can't test your deity, you have NO IDEA if they are significantly different, very similar or exactly the same

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Better? No, not at all

If you can't test your deity, you have NO IDEA if they are significantly different, very similar or exactly the same

You're arguing semantics which belong in another thread.

there's definately a difference between homeopathy and the existance of a diety

The difference is we can study and test homeopathy while we cannot study and test the existance of a deity.

How is that not a difference?

 

[six7s]

The difference is we can study and test homeopathy while we cannot study and test the existance of a deity.

How is that not a difference?

Ask Smiledriver:

Likewise if you state: There is a God, then you must prove there is a God. Unless, you don't care if anyone believes you, then you don't have to do anything

I guess you don't care

Randi makes no propostions he simply demands proof from those who do.

You seem to be asserting that because you have no proof, your woo is somehow (uniquely?) exempt from sceptical enquiry as applied to other (testable) woo claims

Skepticism is not an entrenched position - it's a process

Which step in this 'process' involves apologising for the absence of evidence relating to a woo claim?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ask Smiledriver:

Oh I see the problem. Here let me definatively answer you then.

I'm not Smiledriver.

Which step in this 'process' involves apologising for the absence of evidence relating to a woo claim?

Where did I do such a thing? (and let's stop with the game playing before you just cut and paste something I've already given you an answer to. that's a load of offal. explain to me how I'm "apologizing" for blah blah... TYIA)

 

[six7s]

Oh I see the problem

Seems not. Maybe you might... if you get off your high horse and read what you have written

Here let me definatively answer you then.

I didn't ask a question

I'm not Smiledriver.

No need for the histrionics... I have read what you wrote, in context

Tip: try it yourself and you will see how your post implies that you not only endorse Smiledriver's double standard, you have an custom made apology for it

Where did I do such a thing?

Please... at least try to pay attention... it's not the most complicated thread AND you have more than enough links back to the post that prompted my enquiry - one you have chosen to skirt

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What you seem to think is so obvious I must be missing. Perhaps words mean different things in Kiwi than they do in 'Merican.

I, as a Christian man, do not apply the same scrutiny to my religious beliefs that I do to, say water divining. Make what you will of that.

...there's definately a difference between homeopathy and the existance of a diety.

I understand where he is coming from as a religious skeptic, and I'm telling him as an atheist skeptic I have no problem with that since there is a difference between the investigation into a homeopathy (or water devining) and the existance of a deity (or one's personal religious beliefs {caveat - though not personal religious claims}).

This dance is getting boring and it's off topic for this thread. If you wish to continue it start a new thread in the proper forum.

 

[six7s]

I understand where he is coming from as a religious skeptic

Yeah... Sceptapologyville, capital city of the mythical whirled where specific woo is exempt from sceptical enquiry

and I'm telling him as an atheist skeptic I have no problem with that since

since you're an apologist too

This dance is getting boring

You're playing the tune - shame you can't keep the beat

 

[prewitt81]

This is a general warning not to personalize the debate.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[articulett]

Randi and the Jref can't test claims that aren't saying anything. Unless your god does something that is testable it's on the same level as all the other invisible immeasurabe entities people believe in. We can't test whether some invisible immeasurable entity exists somewhere-- it is only claims that we can test. If you say "god answers prayers" we divise a test to see if prayers are answered. If you you are just saying "I believe in god"-- we can't prove whether you do or don't believe-- much less what that god is or does. We can say that no one has presented any evidence to show that any kind of consciousness can exist absent a living brain and we have lots of evidence to say that humans have often been fooled in this manner--seeing agency, design, gods, and demons in what later turned out to be more natural and prosaic explanations.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't think even the religious members of JREF or the forum are suggesting that individual religious claims and even some larger issues (Creationism, Faith Healing*) can't be or shouldn't be studied. That's a different issue than the question asked in the OP though.

(The only one I have a quibble with is prayer efficacy studies because no one has suggested how we're supposed to control for devine caprice yet.)

 

[chippy]

I get a little turned off when I try to have an honest discussion of religion and get called a "rude jackass" in the process. Sure, it may not be solely composed of atheists here, but it's quite clear to me that anyone indicating that he is anything other than an atheist will undoubtedly be ridiculed for it.

To put it simply, JREF might as well be solely an atheist organization.

 

[Darat]

One I don't agree with your view of the Forum and secondly the Forum is not the JREF and as the various disclaimers make clear "Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors."

 

[homer]

I respect the views of Hal Bidlock who is a highly visible member of the JREF and is not an atheist . I like the JREF since all shades of opinion are allowed .
Skeptics will mostly be atheists since we will not accept ideas that simply demand that you 'believe' hence they will tend to be the majority here.

 

[SkepticalEd]

Randi's quote: "I’ve said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot."

In my opinion Randi's position is a weak one. There can only be one kind of atheist and it has nothing to do with militancy. I'm an atheist, period. I know why people believe in religions and it is only because of ignorance that they believe in mythical beings who perform miracles and that we are ALL governed by a Jewish god. Any one with any intelligence understands that religions exist ONLY because mental conditioning exists. Atheists are NOT mentally conditioned therefore we hold no religious beliefs. Additionally, those atheists who study religions, such as I do, know that no religious person worth his religion is going to challenge an atheist to prove that there is no god. It is a given that there is no god, or Jesus, or Buddha, etc. These are all human constructions. That is the only conclusion anyone doing religious research can come to. It is no challenge to prove that there is no god. History is the best witness to that.

 

[chillzero]

Richard Dawkins discusses this view of atheism in "The God Delusion". He is in agreement with Randi, but differentiates the two types by stating that the latter type, although we call ourselves atheists, are actually agnostics because of this open-ness to evidence.

 

[Gurdur]

Richard Dawkins never was strong on logic and philosophy.

The point made was that you can say that:
1) There is no God -- the evidence says so
or
2) It is safe to pragamatically conclude there is no god, on all the evidence etc.

Claim no.#1 is over-stated and is too problematical evidentialwise, owing to the necessary burdening of perception by previous patterns of thought.

Claim no.#2 is eminently reasonable, and very justifiable.

Both are claims for atheism. I am an atheist, and would make claim no.# 2

Actual agnosticism is something quite different. Actual agnosticism is a different laying on the emphasis. While atheism lays the emphasis on what is being concluded, agnosticism lays the emphasis on how the evidence is weighed. It's basically a different category.

Dawkins' statements are also driven by his emotional reasons -- he wants outright atheism to win, so his analysis is bent by that. He's not able or willing to step back and describe it dispassionately, then come back after that and say what he prefers; he conflates what he prefers with his description of reality.

 

[Erin]

Gurdur,

I agree with what you posted and I am quite relieved. I didn't think much of "The God Delusion", I understand what he is saying but it was a little long winded for me. I was also feeling a little concerned about my intro post stating that I was a confirmed atheist, I'm not particularly confirmed about anything at the moment, I have been having a bit of a mental clear out and hope to find something on this board that might help.​