The JREF is not an atheist organization

[CFLarsen]

If someone is easily convinced that someone is psychic, then they are either not using skepticism as well as they could be, or they have access to convincing evidence that will either find it's way through skeptic circles or not.

In which circumstances would it not?

 

[chillzero]

Chaos and CFLarsen: I asked you to take it to PMs, or elsewhere.

Split to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97733

 

[chillzero]

Please read the offer again. I am only saying that I won't be arguing against deism or hinduism etc, but only against belief in an Abrahamic god. I am not saying anything about those other positions at all, other than I won't be addressing them.

This is to put focus to the debate, only.

Please focus this thread back to the specifics of the JREF. Discussion of belief systems, or the definitions of religion, etc should be taken to Religion & Philosophy. Thanks.

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

ETA: Discussion moved to R&P: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98127

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Nominated.

This rounds up pretty much everything I've been trying to explain about the whole skepticism and atheism issue.

 

[dglas]

Where does religion have special status at the JREF?

I think I shall answer this.

The JREF makes special allowance for religion, and theism in particular, by specifically pointing to a particular "other" group ("atheists") and loudly, publicly, unequivocally proclaiming that the JREF is not that.

There is a reason the JREF chooses to make a special point of saying this. What that reason is is a matter for debate, but it does not alter the fact that a special point was made to say it. Apparently the JREF feels the need to rise above mere atheism, in a public way.

A much better way of saying what may have been intended, is that neither theistic nor atheistic attitudes have any special status as far as the JREF is concerned. But that's not what was said, is it? Instead, the JREF shines the spotlight specifically at atheists and decrees "that is not us."

Shall I give you analogies to illustrate the point?

A group says: "Sexual preference is a matter of personal freedom," and then says "...but this is not a gay group." Why would they say this?

How about this: "Only merit (not gender) should have influence on how one is treated or perceived, but this is not a womens' group." Why would they say this?

Strictly speaking, these clarifications may be "true," but making these clarifications draws attention to a particular subset of people now to be considered a threat, a liability, a dirty secret, an embarrassment somehow to the primary principle.

It is trying so hard to include the one that the other is set apart and marginalized, and that's special treatment and the providing of it represents special status...

Get it? No?
Forget I said anything. I am unbeliever; I somehow warrant special dismissal...
Honestly, I feel excluded from the JREF now.

Does your bread have more butter now...?

 

[CFLarsen]

I think I shall answer this.

The JREF makes special allowance for religion, and theism in particular, by specifically pointing to a particular "other" group ("atheists") and loudly, publicly, unequivocally proclaiming that the JREF is not that.

There is a reason the JREF chooses to make a special point of saying this. What that reason is is a matter for debate, but it does not alter the fact that a special point was made to say it. Apparently the JREF feels the need to rise above mere atheism, in a public way.

A much better way of saying what may have been intended, is that neither theistic nor atheistic attitudes have any special status as far as the JREF is concerned. But that's not what was said, is it? Instead, the JREF shines the spotlight specifically at atheists and decrees "that is not us."

Shall I give you analogies to illustrate the point?

A group says: "Sexual preference is a matter of personal freedom," and then says "...but this is not a gay group." Why would they say this?

How about this: "Only merit (not gender) should have influence on how one is treated or perceived, but this is not a womens' group." Why would they say this?

Strictly speaking, these clarifications may be "true," but making these clarifications draws attention to a particular subset of people now to be considered a threat somehow to the principle.

It is trying so hard to include the one that the other is set apart and marginalized, and that's special treatment and the providing of it represents special status...

Get it? No?
Forget I said anything. I am unbeliever; I somehow warrant special dismissal...
Honestly, I feel excluded from the JREF now.

Does your bread have more butter now...?

....because the question arose, something like: "Is JREF an atheist organization?"

So, the answer was: "No, we're not." And that's the end of that.

There is no spotlight shining specifically at atheists.

 

[dglas]

....because the question arose, something like: "Is JREF an atheist organization?"

Who asked this question, and why?
Why did the JREF feel compelled to answer in this particular "disclaimer" way?

Claus: Think first; post after.

 

[Thomas]

There have been many good posts in this thread, I'll just add my two cents anyway.

I have always found it slightly hypocritical that the JREF only aims for the small fish in the pond, officially. It does however have some benefits to publically state that it isn't an atheist org, it means more members and it means less possible resistance from political powers in the United States, not to mention possible resistance from the churces. They have lawyers too.

I hope that in the future, when it has grown in size and strenght, that it will officially declare itself an atheist org on par with other skeptic orgs, yet not exclude religious members or even religious employees. It doesn't matter much, religion is often under the knife in both SWIFT and the R&P section on this board. The only difference will be that the public image will be more consistent and that we don't need to have this debate.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who asked this question, and why?
Why did the JREF feel compelled to answer in this particular "disclaimer" way?

Claus: Think first; post after.

Because skepticism and atheism is often linked, justified or not?

Think about it(!): The Skeptics Society publishes Skeptic magazine. Shermer goes on lectures. Talks about skepticism and critical thinking. He goes up against Creationists. There are also plenty of articles on God.

If this question was asked of the Skeptics Society, would you similarly ask why the Skeptics Society felt compelled to answer in a particular "disclaimer" way?

There have been many good posts in this thread, I'll just add my two cents anyway.

I have always found it slightly hypocritical that the JREF only aims for the small fish in the pond, officially. It does however have some benefits to publically state that it isn't an atheist org, it means more members and it means less possible resistance from political powers in the United States, not to mention possible resistance from the churces. They have lawyers too.

I hope that in the future, when it has grown in size and strenght, that it will officially declare itself an atheist org on par with other skeptic orgs,

Which?

E.g., Skeptica, the Danish skeptics, is not atheist. Neither is the Skeptics Society.

yet not exclude religious members or even religious employees. It doesn't matter much, religion is often under the knife in both SWIFT and the R&P section on this board. The only difference will be that the public image will be more consistent and that we don't need to have this debate.

You see skepticism and atheism as intrinsically intertwined? One cannot exist without the other? One leads to the other?

 

[dglas]

Because skepticism and atheism is often linked, justified or not?

So, what if they are? There is a need to deny this linkage?

Think about it(!): The Skeptics Society publishes Skeptic magazine. Shermer goes on lectures. Talks about skepticism and critical thinking. He goes up against Creationists. There are also plenty of articles on God.

If this question was asked of the Skeptics Society, would you similarly ask why the Skeptics Society felt compelled to answer in a particular "disclaimer" way?

Yes. Yes, I would, and my questions, unanswered, still stand.
Who asked the question, and why? And why the "disclaimer" answer?
Really. Honestly. Atheists have bad breath or something?

 

[Thomas]

Which?

E.g., Skeptica, the Danish skeptics, is not atheist. Neither is the Skeptics Society.

Skeptica states in the about section on their webpage that they are independant from religion. I don't know if that's the same as to say they are an atheist org, but it's pretty damn close.

Source

In any turn, then I was thinking of the myriad of atheist orgs which I consider rationalist/skeptics orgs, because they are skeptical towards religion. And I'm not too sure, is CSICOP officially an atheist org? They sure lauch critique of religion now and then in their mag. But hey, so does Randi in SWIFT.

You see skepticism and atheism as intrinsically intertwined? One cannot exist without the other? One leads to the other?

I don't know what gave you that idea. And I don't know what leads you to ask that question when you are well aware that I don't.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes. Yes, I would, and my questions, unanswered, still stand.
Who asked the question, and why? And why the "disclaimer" answer?
Really. Honestly. Atheists have bad breath or something?

As long as 90% of Americans are religious, are we more likely to recruit them into organized skepticism if JREF takes a neutral stance to general religious belief, if it declares that it's officially an atheist organization?

--------
Some of the stuff I've been reading about the need for atheist orthodoxy in skepticism in this thread reminds me of how the Creationists are forever telling TEs how they're not real, full or complete Christians because they accept evolution. This thread is almost the bizarroworld versions of ones I've read in Crevo forums.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, what if they are? There is a need to deny this linkage?

Nobody is denying the linkage. There are, as we know, quite a lot of atheists of various flavors among skeptics. But that doesn't mean that skepticism and atheism are the same.

Because others have expressed interest, even concern, that this was so, especially when it came to JREF, JREF just stated clearly that it isn't atheist. That's all.

Yes. Yes, I would, and my questions, unanswered, still stand.
Who asked the question, and why? And why the "disclaimer" answer?
Really. Honestly. Atheists have bad breath or something?

But then, any skeptic organization would be accused of having to make what you call a "disclaimer" answer.

The question itself leaves no other possibility than to cast suspicion.

Skeptica states in the about section on their webpage that they are independant from religion. I don't know if that's the same as to say they are an atheist org, but it's pretty damn close.

Source

Oh, no, it's the exact opposite. When we say we are religious independent, it simply means that we do not argue against religion, unless there is a religious claim which means an invalidation of natural laws.

Religion is simply not something that Skeptica deals with. We each have our own, independent take on religion, of course. But none of us claim evidence of anything religious.

It also says that we are politically independent - we are not against having political views, either.

In any turn, then I was thinking of the myriad of atheist orgs which I consider rationalist/skeptics orgs, because they are skeptical towards religion. And I'm not too sure, is CSICOP officially an atheist org? They sure lauch critique of religion now and then in their mag. But hey, so does Randi in SWIFT.

CSICOP is not officially an atheist group.

I don't know what gave you that idea. And I don't know what leads you to ask that question when you are well aware that I don't.

That's why I asked.

When you say that the public image will be more consistent, if JREF declares itself an atheist organization, it somehow leaves the impression that you are saying that skepticism and atheism are intrinsically intertwined.

Can you see that?

 

[Thomas]

Oh, no, it's the exact opposite. When we say we are religious independent, it simply means that we do not argue against religion, unless there is a religious claim which means an invalidation of natural laws.

Religion is simply not something that Skeptica deals with. We each have our own, independent take on religion, of course. But none of us claim evidence of anything religious.

Ehm ok, maybe you forgot that I can read danish (and latin to some extent): Here a skeptica writer just call it credo aquia absurdum (yes, he spelled it wrong). That was the first, and last, link I checked, because one counter-example is enough.

It also says that we are politically independent - we are not against having political views, either.

Mhm.. I'm not gonna dig into that, I don't really care.

CSICOP is not officially an atheist group.


That's why I asked.

When you say that the public image will be more consistent, if JREF declares itself an atheist organization, it somehow leaves the impression that you are saying that skepticism and atheism are intrinsically intertwined.

Maybe you shouldn't rely too much on somehow.. Especially not when it's italicized, you see, in contemporary skepticism, then there's this carte blanche to be skeptical only when it doesn't hurt your own feelings. You can pick on those guys over there for wearing blue shirts, despite the fact you wear an identical shirt yourself. Think it over, there's no need to elaborate for the independent mind.

Can you see that?

Hehe.. I don't answer to patronizing baloney, do you have anything of substance to add?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maybe you shouldn't rely too much on somehow.. Especially not when it's italicized, you see, in contemporary skepticism, then there's this carte blanche to be skeptical only when it doesn't hurt your own feelings. You can pick on those guys over there for wearing blue shirts, despite the fact you wear an identical shirt yourself. Think it over, there's no need to elaborate for the independent mind.

Who exactly appointed you arbitor of what, or more importantly, who constituted modern or organized skepticism?

I'm drawing on something that's been bugging the crap out of me for a long time on here that the militant atheists have been raging, frothing and fuming about here for a long time, and that's "respecting" religious believers or their beliefs. Without going on for several explanitory paragraphs - there is a big difference between respecting your fellow human even if they have a belief different from yours regarding the existance of the supernatural and respecting their particular beliefs or claims about the supernatural. If something is outside the perview of scientific, and therefore skeptical realm of investigation, I don't have a problem with someone who isn't a woo holding those beliefs.

As soon as they start telling me Jesus helped them win the Lottery, Vishnu protected their store from a robbery that occured next door or Xenu helped them win the Oscar... I've got a problem with that and will confront them as gently as possible. There's a world of difference between mollycoddling woo and accepting that some people have thoughts that are beyond the perview of science.

------------
Tangental but related issue - do any of you atheist orthodoxers know that Laura Schleshinger (sic?) was on the board of the Skeptics Society and, if so, why she left?

 

[Thomas]

I was raised in an international class (elementary school) where all mainstream religions were present. 11 years of being taught everyday to respect nonsense. I got wiser, how about you?

 

[Checkmite]

Yes. Yes, I would, and my questions, unanswered, still stand.
Who asked the question, and why?

It was a long time ago, and nobody probably remembers.

And why the "disclaimer" answer?
Really. Honestly. Atheists have bad breath or something?

It's not a disclaimer answer at all. It's a simple yes/no answer.

"Is the JREF an atheist organization?"

"No."

End of story. Some people want elaboration, so the JREF elaborates - but this isn't being "disclaimerish", it's just answering a question.

If someone asked, "Is the JREF a Christian organization", the answer would be the same. This doesn't mean that the JREF is somehow singling out a Christian connection as inherently bad!

 

[Checkmite]

It was a long time ago, and nobody probably remembers.

Ah, but the forum remembers. The first time this issue was discussed, it appeared that the majority of members did not want the JREF to be officially atheist. Note that the majority of JREF members are atheist.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ehm ok, maybe you forgot that I can read danish (and latin to some extent): Here a skeptica writer just call it credo aquia absurdum (yes, he spelled it wrong). That was the first, and last, link I checked, because one counter-example is enough.

The chapter is written by Thor Bak, who isn't a Skeptica member.

And nobody speaks for Skeptica. That's why we emphasize the "independent" part.

Mhm.. I'm not gonna dig into that, I don't really care.

Fair enough - but it underlines the point.

Maybe you shouldn't rely too much on somehow.. Especially not when it's italicized, you see, in contemporary skepticism, then there's this carte blanche to be skeptical only when it doesn't hurt your own feelings. You can pick on those guys over there for wearing blue shirts, despite the fact you wear an identical shirt yourself. Think it over, there's no need to elaborate for the independent mind.

Hehe.. I don't answer to patronizing baloney, do you have anything of substance to add?

It's not patronizing or baloney. You really cannot see how it could be read that way?

I was raised in an international class (elementary school) where all mainstream religions were present. 11 years of being taught everyday to respect nonsense. I got wiser, how about you?

Who said anything about respecting nonsense? It's simply a matter of realizing what scientific skepticism can deal with.

 

[Thomas]

The chapter is written by Thor Bak, who isn't a Skeptica member.

And nobody speaks for Skeptica. That's why we emphasize the "independent" part.

Smooth.

Fair enough - but it underlines the point.

It's not patronizing or baloney. You really cannot see how it could be read that way?

Not in the light of other premisses that are obvious to me. I.e. JREF is a skeptics org that exist without official refutation of organized religion.

Who said anything about respecting nonsense? It's simply a matter of realizing what scientific skepticism can deal with.

Ok, then we can start with the fabulous biblical cosmology, my favorite, which is an obvoius copy/paste of the Babylonian cosmology. Easy to debunk, even the xians have noted that. How would you like to measure that up against modern scientific astronomy?

Anyway, I'm off to a weekend party in the suburbs now, see ya early next week perhaps