The JREF is not an atheist organization

[tsg]

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

Your opinion only. And your second quoted sentence makes no sense. If they are not bedmates, what is the relationship?

ETA: Just saw Caius T's post 34, and agree.

 

[Mercutio]

The result of the process of skeptical inquiry is going to be dependent on the quality of the evidence. If one is raised in a religious community, where the available information (trusted authorities, institutions, literature, even personal experience) can be most easily interpreted in accordance with a theistic view, then a good skeptic will be a theist. Some here seem to be assuming that everyone will magically have access to the exact same information, and it doesn't work that way in the real world.

I think Jeff Corey will be able to back me up on this--an analogous situation can be seen with respect to "mind". In various arguments in the Science, Religion, and Politics areas on this forum, it is quite clear that quite a few of you "skeptics"--perhaps even a majority--believe that you have a [causal] mind, and can exercise free will in making choices. Some will defend this view vigorously--Pesta even makes a career of studying it. Of course, "mind" is a prescientific remnant of a cartesian worldview, every bit as fictional as any god, and invoked to explain many of the same actions (where we once might have said "god softened his heart", we now say "he changed his mind").

Can a skeptic believe in mind?

(Somewhere in an old SWIFT--if memory serves, which it rarely does--there was an article claiming that Radical Behaviorism was the only proper stance for a good skeptic. It has been too long since I saw that paper for me to comment on whether it presented a good argument, though.)

 

[Kahalachan]

This doesn't scream atheist foundation to me at all. It is more science than atheist.

I think might be possible to be a weak theist (deist or pantheist most likely) and a skeptic. I suppose a desire to believe in a metaphysical intelligence isn't a direct violation of skepticism. If it's more of a personal belief and there's no argument made then it probably doesn't count as an extraordinary claim.

 

[tkingdoll]

The result of the process of skeptical inquiry is going to be dependent on the quality of the evidence. If one is raised in a religious community, where the available information (trusted authorities, institutions, literature, even personal experience) can be most easily interpreted in accordance with a theistic view, then a good skeptic will be a theist. Some here seem to be assuming that everyone will magically have access to the exact same information, and it doesn't work that way in the real world.

That is a fair point. All principles are not equal. However, if someone comes to this forum then they've opened up their information avenues.

Talking of principles, I would say that it's sensible that JREF distances itself from atheism because to be an openly atheistic organisation in the USA today is commercial suicide. Plus, there are some excellent and hardworking supporters of JREF who are deists, so if we're defining JREF as 'the sum of its staff and volunteers' then it's certainly not an atheist organisation. So I think the disclaimer is fair.

I still don't find a distinction between one belief-with-no-proof and another, but that's my personal stance.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

Bollux. As in, you're paying too much attention to the bollux. You can't use a lance or lasso an animal as well riding sidesaddle, or do any work at all. If there's too much. . .ouch, in your groin, stand taller in the stirrups.

See, humans have the capacity for rational thought, in identifying a problem, and finding a sollution. Your gobbly-gook about humans being inherently irrational is an excuse to hide from reason, and a bad one at that. Just because humans are prone to irrational behavior that doesn't mean we should abandon reason entirely. Skepticism is the practise of applying an evidence-based method of inquiry to claims. Whatever the failings of foibles of each individual skeptic, the method is sound and clear.

Humans have miserable vision, but we can see the stars billions of lightyears away. We have a terrible sense of smell, but we can identify hundreds of thousands of chemicals and compounds. We do these things by using sound methodologies to reach beyond our limitations, methodologies including skepticism and the scientific method. Your position, if taken to its conclusion, would replace progress with stagnation.

 

[Mercutio]

That is a fair point. All principles are not equal. However, if someone comes to this forum then they've opened up their information avenues.

At which point, we may ask how long is a reasonable time to overcome a lifetime of prior learning? It happens, certainly, but a couple of weeks arguing in an internet thread is not a lot of exposure. If we recognise this, and have a bit more patience, it might be a bit less rancorous.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why?

Because, if you are religious, religion forms your most basic understanding of how the world works. It permeates every aspect of your life.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

What am I, then? Amoral?

 

[tkingdoll]

At which point, we may ask how long is a reasonable time to overcome a lifetime of prior learning? It happens, certainly, but a couple of weeks arguing in an internet thread is not a lot of exposure. If we recognise this, and have a bit more patience, it might be a bit less rancorous.

Ah, so are you saying that a reasonable person, if exposed to greater opportunities for learning, should in time reject religion?

 

[thull]

Check out the top banner, underneath JREF. Whatever someone's belief or limited experience, if people approach subjects within the forum with an open mind and a friendly attitude I don't see the problem.

Read on these forum the other day:
"skepticism was my first step along the path to atheism"

True, not all people draw the same conclusions from the information and experiences they encounter. However it does point out that JREF risks loosing a portion of their audience at a critical stage in their beginning to question the world around them. So to broadcast a possible end result instead of focusing on the distribution of concrete knowledge and the pursuit of truth... seems a little short sighted to me.

 

[Caius Textor]

If there's too much. . .ouch, in your groin, stand taller in the stirrups.

One can ride pretty comfortably even without stirrups. Just sit properly (put things in their proper places) and you can have a deep seat and low stirrups.
Use extra clothes if you´re uncomfortable.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

One can ride pretty comfortably even without stirrups. Just sit properly (put things in their proper places) and you can have a deep seat and low stirrups.
Use extra clothes if you´re uncomfortable.

You ride without stirrups? Are you reenacting Alexander the Great's battles or something?

 

[prewitt81]

Just a general reminder: It is now a rule in the public threads to keep posts on topic. Please keep this in mind.

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

 

[Caius Textor]

I CAN, doesn´t mean I do all the time.

 

[Beady]

Beady, you do understand how I can use your reasoning to justify pretty much anything I do or say, right?

Absolutely correct. Just because it's an inconvient attribute, however, does not justify denying its existence, and the person who does so is in both denial and a certain amount of jeopardy.

BTW, I am not sanctioning human illogic, I am merely recognizing its existence and its extent and taking both into account. "Humanity" means a lot of things, many of them unpleasant, and in asserting what people will or won't, should or shouldn't do, you're doing yourself a disservice by insistantly behaving as if this side of the species either doesn't exist or is not in control.

Maybe people should examine their religion logically, but they don't. Maybe people shouldn't believe mutually contradictory things at the same time, but they do. Maybe people shouldn't act in their own worst interests, but they do. Maybe people shouldn't deny reality, but they do. All the time. What are you going to do, play God and change the species? It might be more realistic to recognize your fellow creatures for what they are.

I CAN, doesn´t mean I do all the time.

Precisely. Just because you can think logically doesn't mean you do. In fact, it doesn't take much to make you think illogically: hunger, fatigue, desire...

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't like the "athiest organization" because it implies it is an organization of atheists, which JREF is obviously not.

OTOH, I would say that it is an atheistic organization, in that it is an organization without god. You (and even I) may prefer the term "secular organization," but I think atheistic is also appropriate. Contrast that to, for example, the Knights of Columbus, which is a religious (or theistic) organization. Similarly, given how things are now, I would say even the Boy Scouts would be a theistic organization.

Atheistic and theistic are more descriptive than the nominal labels.

 

[Darat]

Yes, it's only because of the organisations around the belief that they have any sort of special status at all. So organisations could also reverse that thought. But religion has special status at JREF too. So...

...snip...

Where does religion have special status at the JREF?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I think Jeff Corey will be able to back me up on this--an analogous situation can be seen with respect to "mind". In various arguments in the Science, Religion, and Politics areas on this forum, it is quite clear that quite a few of you "skeptics"--perhaps even a majority--believe that you have a [causal] mind, and can exercise free will in making choices. Some will defend this view vigorously--Pesta even makes a career of studying it. Of course, "mind" is a prescientific remnant of a cartesian worldview, every bit as fictional as any god, and invoked to explain many of the same actions (where we once might have said "god softened his heart", we now say "he changed his mind").

Can a skeptic believe in mind?

(Somewhere in an old SWIFT--if memory serves, which it rarely does--there was an article claiming that Radical Behaviorism was the only proper stance for a good skeptic. It has been too long since I saw that paper for me to comment on whether it presented a good argument, though.)

I recall that article, too, but can't find it.
I agree that not believing in some "mind" thing that is responsible for our behavior seems most consistent with a skeptical point of view, as does atheism, materialism and determinism.
As to radical behaviorism, I came to it out of a Hullian, methodological behaviorist, intervening variable background. My skepticism about the various psychodynamic schools was strong from the start of my training.

 

[Mercutio]

Ah, so are you saying that a reasonable person, if exposed to greater opportunities for learning, should in time reject religion?

*sigh*

No. Not even close. For several reasons.

It is obvious that "greater opportunities for learning" can lead in any number of directions.

"Reasonable person" is a distasteful phrase; a behaviorist mantra is "the rat is always right." It is not up to the person to be "reasonable"; it is up to the environment to reinforce the behavior. (Besides which, it gives the NTS dismissal a foothold--this person is not rejecting because he is not reasonable.)

"In time" is much too vague to be of any use; do you mean days? Weeks? Generations?

I really am at a loss to see how you got what you did out of my post.


What I was saying--what I did say--is that if we understand that a person comes to a thread with a lifetime of learning, it might put the pace of change in perspective. Any change. I learned a great deal in my arguments with Interesting Ian, for instance, and we both changed as a result of our interaction; it was not a case of only one of us coming to understand something that the other person brought to the table. There are none of us here who have learned everything there is to learn.

 

[Caius Textor]

Absolutely correct. Just because it's an inconvient attribute, however, does not justify denying its existence, and the person who does so is in both denial and a certain amount of jeopardy.

You don´t understand: your ARGUMENT is flawed. I´m not denying its existence, I´m stating its falsehood. You´re mixing things up: I never said that irrationality does not exist. I am saying that we shouldn´t use it deliberatly. See the difference?

Sorry for the off-topics, BTW.