The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Darat]

Replace 'god' with 'telepathy'. Now it just sounds absurd to hold that viewpoint whilst calling oneself a skeptic. There have been efforts to test for the existence of god (e.g prayer expts) just like telepathy.

Although of course if you invent your own god, it becomes untestable. Convenient, that.

Well of course it depends on how you define "god" since there is not a single definition of any god never mind a definition of THE god. But the same can be said for something like psi in general, for example some people define telepathy as no more than "intuition" some as "transferring information via some unknown sensory mechanism". Definitions are always important.

 

[tkingdoll]

Well of course it depends on how you define "god" since there is not a single definition of any god never mind a definition of THE god. But the same can be said for something like psi in general, for example some people define telepathy as no more than "intuition" some as "transferring information via some unknown sensory mechanism". Definitions are always important.

But you agree that it wouldn't be skeptical of me to claim I accept the existence of psi in the absence of any evidence?

And in fact there is some, albeit weak, evidence in favour of the existence of psi, I believe. But still not enough for me to be anything but agnostic about it.

We occasionally get people here who spout their beliefs about all sorts of woo topics. They get mocked, often. At no point does anyone say 'hey, it's not unskeptical to believe in something even though there's no evidence for it'. I'm not sure why god is any different

But to go back to a point I made a while ago in this thread, is it not more the case that JREF is distancing itself from atheism for other reasons? Political, economical, etc. I doubt it's a philosophical stance, it seems more a pragmatic one to me.

 

[brodski]

But non-atheists make specific claims ALL THE TIME! Like prayer, for example. Which can, and has, been tested.

And the JREF takes a stance on those specific claims, and those claims are only made by a specific subset of non-atheists (theists), althpugh I am also aware of atheist groups who offer prayers and claim results- check out SGI.

Nam Yoho Renge Kyo.

The opposite of atheist is...what?

grammatically "theist", a word which was coined specifically as the opposite of "atheist", or we could include deists here too- the opposite of atheist is not “religious”.

Does it just mean 'people who believe but don't follow an organised religion which makes specific claims' in this context? Cause that's not what 'the JREF is not an atheist organisation' will mean to most people.

"the JREF is not an atheist organisation" does not mean the same thing as "the JREF is a theistic organisation", just as the statement "I do not believe in god" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe that there is no god", perhaps part of the JREFs mission should be to educate people on what such statements of belief and lack of belief actually mean.

Or are we separating 'belief in god' from 'religion' here? Is there a difference between religion and organised religion?

religion can be athiestic, and belife in god can be non-religious (see deism). It’s debate is about atheism, not religion.

I simply do not accept that it's skeptical to say "there is no evidence for the existence of X so I choose to believe it anyway".

So it is unskeptical to accept the existence of life on other planets? Is Dawkins no true Skeptic then? How about those that believe in string theory, or M-theory? No evidence of their truth, but people believe in the non the less. No true skeptic there?

SETI is a poor example, by the way. You might as well use it as an example of an attempt to establish the existence of god.

Can you explain what you mean here?

If I said "there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, so I choose to believe in them" you would all shout me down in a second. You would tell me that the only skeptical position to arrive at in the absence of any evidence supporting the existence of aliens, is one of agnosticism. Why is belief in god any different here?

many skeptics do take that position on aliens, all be it they use the word but rather than so, in much the same way that many non-atheist skeptics talk about god.

If there is no evidence for the existence of god, how is it skeptical to accept the claim anyway?

It may not be sceptical, but can it be skeptical? Yes I think it can, there is a lack of evidence either way, and taking the hard view that “it is a fact that god does not exist” is also not sceptical. Given that a definite answer is not going to be found using the tools of scientific scepticism, why should a skeptic organisation take a position?

 

[Darat]

But you agree that it wouldn't be skeptical of me to claim I accept the existence of psi in the absence of any evidence?

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.

And in fact there is some, albeit weak, evidence in favour of the existence of psi, I believe. But still not enough for me to be anything but agnostic about it.

BUT the interesting thing in those studies (if you mean the ones that are quite often brought up here) is that it is not what is usually defined as "psi" - so if they are showing a real phenomenon it is not what most people mean when they say "psi". So again it's a matter of definitions.

We occasionally get people here who spout their beliefs about all sorts of woo topics. They get mocked, often. At no point does anyone say 'hey, it's not unskeptical to believe in something even though there's no evidence for it'. I'm not sure why god is any different

I don't so I'm not the person to ask about that mocking. I have always been quite happy to accept that people believe things for a myriad of reasons, what I "object" to is when people make a claim like "telepathy exists and I can prove it" or "it's been proved" and so on.

But to go back to a point I made a while ago in this thread, is it not more the case that JREF is distancing itself from atheism for other reasons? Political, economical, etc. I doubt it's a philosophical stance, it seems more a pragmatic one to me.

I don't think the evidence points to that. From the number of non-atheists we know have been intimately associated with the JREF over the years, to Randi's comments to the type of panels there have been at TAM, they all indicate it is quite agnostic on this matter.

 

[tkingdoll]

I don't think the evidence points to that. From the number of non-atheists we know have been intimately associated with the JREF over the years, to Randi's comments to the type of panels there have been at TAM, they all indicate it is quite agnostic on this matter.

I think your comment there is more evidence that supports my assertion. The JREF benefits from the involvement of non-atheists. That's a good reason to publicly state that it is not an atheist organisation.

Regarding the definition of god, I make no claim in the belief of such an entity, so I can't offer a definition other than a dictionary one. However, I suspect that deists who don't follow an organised religion have their own definition. Maybe one of the theists here can confirm that.

But again, that prompts me to point out that I can make up anything any claim belief in it despite no evidence for its existence. But I don't accept that it would be skeptical of me to do so. I also don't believe my belief would be readily accepted by the skeptic community.

 

[kittynh]

I'm here.

Proof enough.

I'm what is refered to as the "one white crow"

I'm welcomed, loved and proudly a friend of Randis.

I know of 3 other white crows. (here on the forum)

We aren't welcome at other skeptic sites and organizations.

Here, we are respected.

Religious leaders are supporters of Randi. His book, "The Faith Healers" brought not only myself, but many others that follow a more religious lifestyle into the JREF fold. If you read the book, you learn why Mr.Randi is a good friend indeed for all "believers".

 

[kittynh]

Oh and a tenant of all good religious people is that their faith be tested. That doesn't mean 40 days and nights in the desert. It means THINKING and reevaluating your beliefs. It means challenging them and seeing what you really believe and what you are just spouting as dogma.

Belonging to JREF and having it make you THINK, is a good thing.

I want reason and sanity to be the key words here. don't go soft on anything!

If I want soft sell I can go to church. Which is also nice. But if I want to really know what I think and believe, I come here.

 

[Caius Textor]

So it is unskeptical to accept the existence of life on other planets? Is Dawkins no true Skeptic then? How about those that believe in string theory, or M-theory? No evidence of their truth, but people believe in the non the less. No true skeptic there?

It is not the same thing as what Teek said.

There is no "belief" in string theory. Some people think it is a sound and promising theory, but Ed Witten doesn´t pray for it every morning. It is a hypotheses that is SEVERELY CRITICIZED because it is and will be extremely difficult to test experimentaly. And no scientist would ever say that string theory IS the ultimate description of the universe even after evidence has been sought and not found, or found to the contrary.

The same goes for life on other planets. It seems logical that there is, and that is a good REASON to believe in it. But no scientist would hold that position in light of new discoveries.

It´s not even logical to believe in deities. On top of that, they are either untestable (therefore unfoundable) or testable and not existant. The only thing that supports belief is belief itself.

 

[Caius Textor]

Oh and a tenant of all good religious people is that their faith be tested. That doesn't mean 40 days and nights in the desert. It means THINKING and reevaluating your beliefs. It means challenging them and seeing what you really believe and what you are just spouting as dogma.

There can be no "test" to faith. Talking to yourself and reaching the conclusion "Oh, yeah, I REALLY believe in this!!" is not a test. One can have no idea what goes on in your mind, so you shouldn´t use that as an argument.

So either you (or anyone else) present a cohesive and logical argumentation to support your belief (that would be your "thinking") or you´ll have to stick with the old an irrational formula of "I can´t explain it to you. I simply know it to be true."

 

[tkingdoll]

Given that a definite answer is not going to be found using the tools of scientific scepticism, why should a skeptic organisation take a position?

But it HAS! "The JREF is not an atheist organisation' is taking a position!

Will address the rest of your points tonight when I have more time. But re: SETI, perhaps you meant Project Phoenix rather than SETI? If not, then my point stands. SETI is to discover something about the origin of the universe, and to find evidence of other intelligent life. That could be god, or aliens, or the FSM. No-one knows til something is found. But SETI covers 63 different types of projects, not just 'listen to the sky and hope ET phones home using a narrow band signal'. As far as an 'experiment' goes, it's not a great one.

 

[brodski]

But it HAS! "The JREF is not an atheist organisation' is taking a position!

Will address the rest of your points tonight when I have more time. But re: SETI, perhaps you meant Project Phoenix rather than SETI? If not, then my point stands. SETI is to discover something about the origin of the universe, and to find evidence of other intelligent life. That could be god, or aliens, or the FSM. No-one knows til something is found.

Saying that “the JREF is not an atheist organisation” is no more taking a position than saying “the JREF is not a Newcastle United fan club, there is nothing to stop either Interesting Iain or Ducky supporting the JREF (a Magpies supporter IIRC, and a NUFC despiser respectively) despite the fact that one position may be considered more rational than the other. That does not mean that the JREF cannot hold a position on the design of St James’s park, or the decisions taken by Sam Allardyce if those topics come up in relation to something which the JREF does take a stance on.

 

[brodski]

It is not the same thing as what Teek said.

There is no "belief" in string theory. Some people think it is a sound and promising theory, but Ed Witten doesn´t pray for it every morning. It is a hypotheses that is SEVERELY CRITICIZED because it is and will be extremely difficult to test experimentaly. And no scientist would ever say that string theory IS the ultimate description of the universe even after evidence has been sought and not found, or found to the contrary.

The same goes for life on other planets. It seems logical that there is, and that is a good REASON to believe in it. But no scientist would hold that position in light of new discoveries.

It´s not even logical to believe in deities. On top of that, they are either untestable (therefore unfoundable) or testable and not existant. The only thing that supports belief is belief itself.

Many of those that posit a deity do not worship at all, and do not claim proof. They argue that there are logical reasons to suppose some kind of deity, or at least logical reasons not to reject the idea out of hand. Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

 

[Chaos]

It is highly relevant, because we are talking about atheists vs. religious people.

The exchange between you and me was about whether or not amoral people are necessarily a danger to society.

I'm not shifting the goalposts. But it makes no sense to talk about the (lack of) morality of atheists unless you also talk about the (perceived higher) morality of religious people.

But I wasn´t talking about that all, damn it.

Why else do you think this is such an important point to some religious people? They really think they have the upper hand when it comes to morality. Yet - and the evidence show this - they don't, quite contrary.



I did read it, and I agree completely. There is just more to it than that.

I know. It just wasn´t what I was talking about with you.

Social stigma may be compelling enough to keep atheists from committing crimes, or it may not. There is no reason to think it would apply more to atheists than religious people, though. Whatever reasons there may be, it certainly results in less jail time.

I never claimed that it applied more to atheists than to religious. Stick to what I said, and adress that. Otherwise there is no point in us having a discussion here.

 

[Caius Textor]

Many of those that posit a deity do not worship at all, and do not claim proof. They argue that there are logical reasons to suppose some kind of deity, or at least logical reasons not to reject the idea out of hand. Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

I have never seen any of those "logical reasons" stand the test of reason itself. The ones I heard were more like excuses but, heck, I would gladly consider those arguments if they were presented.

 

[CFLarsen]

The exchange between you and me was about whether or not amoral people are necessarily a danger to society.

But I wasn´t talking about that all, damn it.

I know. It just wasn´t what I was talking about with you.

I never claimed that it applied more to atheists than to religious. Stick to what I said, and adress that. Otherwise there is no point in us having a discussion here.

I never said you did, and I have addressed what you said.

However, you responded to my post #93, where I specifically spoke about atheists vs religious people, and morality. When you brought up social stigma, I pointed out that it applies to everyone. You then got all angry and condescending, even accusing me of "shifting the goalposts".

I didn't. If you don't want to talk about morality and religious people, don't. But don't tell me what I can and cannot talk about. If I want to make a point about religious people and morality, I sure don't need your permission.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

There is definitely an issue of "Where does one draw the line" in how skeptism addresses religion.

Clearly, and based on the battles fought in the past, I think most in the skeptical movement do have a very real problem with religion being used to further a scam or to keep people away from mainstream medicine or science.

I have a problem with creationism in public schools. I have a problem with Popoff selling his cancer-curing debt-eliminating "holy water." And I have a problem with some of the more militant Evangelical groups trying to inject their belief systems into politics.

But that's just me. I'm not sure where one draws the line as an individual or as a group/movement. I don't have a problem with religion in general and I don't see it as conflicting with skeptism, as long as it stays within the bounds of not being an outright scam or excuse to oppose reason, science and secular politics.

I am just not sure if there is any way that a consensus can be arrived of what sorts of religious activities reach the point where they are legitimate targets for a skeptical organization.

Most importantly though, I do not think that people who go to church on sundays should be made to feel they are unwelcome within the JREF or the skeptical community. I suppose that's partially Randi's dig, when it comes to this foundation, but *I* have no problem with them and I would imagine many here also have no problem with such persons and may even fit that.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

"the JREF is not an atheist organisation" does not mean the same thing as "the JREF is a theistic organisation", just as the statement "I do not believe in god" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe that there is no god", perhaps part of the JREFs mission should be to educate people on what such statements of belief and lack of belief actually mean.

This is an absolutely brilliant iteration of part of why I started this thread. Thank you.

 

[Cuddles]

Claiming that the JREF is an atheist organisation would mean that the JREF has taken a stance that gods cannot, and do not exist, that is not a sceptical stance.

Nonsense. I don't believe unicorns exist. That doesn't mean I think unicorns cannot exist. It simply means that there is no evidence that they do exist and therefore the logical position is to assume they don't until evidence that they do is provided. I don't believe gods exist. That doesn't mean I think gods cannot exist.

Atheism is the position that something doesn't exist, not that it can't exist.

 

[athon]

Saying that “the JREF is not an atheist organisation” is no more taking a position than saying “the JREF is not a Newcastle United fan club, there is nothing to stop either Interesting Iain or Ducky supporting the JREF (a Magpies supporter IIRC, and a NUFC despiser respectively) despite the fact that one position may be considered more rational than the other. That does not mean that the JREF cannot hold a position on the design of St James’s park, or the decisions taken by Sam Allardyce if those topics come up in relation to something which the JREF does take a stance on.

I'll back you up here Brodski.

The JREF, as a skeptical group, should provide no preformed conclusions on things, even if the people within it as individuals do. Skepticism isn't a conclusion but a tool to understanding the universe. The JREF communicates the use of skepticism, IMO, not offering a conclusion they have arrived at using it.

If used well, others should come to similar conclusions. But the JREF sells the tools and not the product.

Athon

 

[athon]

Nonsense. I don't believe unicorns exist. That doesn't mean I think unicorns cannot exist. It simply means that there is no evidence that they do exist and therefore the logical position is to assume they don't until evidence that they do is provided. I don't believe gods exist. That doesn't mean I think gods cannot exist.

Atheism is the position that something doesn't exist, not that it can't exist.

Small distinction, but beside the point in terms of the argument.

Think of it this way; is it more accurate to see the JREF mission as to tell people that there is no God, or to communicate how skepticism works, and they use it to work out there is no God? Because there is a massive difference.

Athon