The JREF is not an atheist organization

[The Atheist]

Not you you. You as in religious people.

I'll not arrogate to myself the role of spokesman for religious people, for the simple reason that I can't, and that is part of the problem with your overly broad generalization.

Nobody is asking you to be a spokesman for religious people.

There are times when even the laughing dog doesn't begin to convey the irony, the humour and the goal-post-shifting of just a couple of sentences from the Hero of Skepticism.

Nor the derision it deserves.

 

[The Atheist]

Ya could have fooled me.

DR

Beat me to it!

*****!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How does religion not form your most basic understanding of how the world works?

One thing I've noticed when working with TEs in the Crevo debate is that a lot of them are fine with having the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the workings of the Universe. They just think God set those laws in place. They also seem to take a pragmatic approach to their faith apart from salvation issues (Thank God for unanswered prayers).

I know a Christian physicist, geneticist and paleontologist and they do their day job just like you and I do. They just don't sleep late on Sundays.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh?

Ya could have fooled me.

That's a very interesting response.

We cannot say anything about a certain group of believers unless we belong to it?

Does that mean you think the articles on Rob Lancaster's site about Sylvia Browne are worthless? Or any of Randi's writings on believers?

One thing I've noticed when working with TEs in the Crevo debate is that a lot of them are fine with having the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the workings of the Universe. They just think God set those laws in place. They also seem to take a pragmatic approach to their faith apart from salvation issues (Thank God for unanswered prayers).

I know a Christian physicist, geneticist and paleontologist and they do their day job just like you and I do. They just don't sleep late on Sundays.

That's precisely it: They think that God formed everything in the Universe.

 

[cj.23]

To be honest while the JREF forum (as distinct from the JREF) has in the short time i have been posting had many fun debates about religion, there appears to be a sudden plethora of proselytising theists and vocal atheists arguing it out. Is this just me, or has something changed? If so, what? I post a lot on the Dawkins forum, and am as happy discussing atheism versus theism as anyone i think, but it just seems to becoming a dominant theme here which is a bit of a shame in some ways. Is this just a perception error on my part?

cj x

 

[brodski]

To be honest while the JREF forum (as distinct from the JREF) has in the short time i have been posting had many fun debates about religion, there appears to be a sudden plethora of proselytising theists and vocal atheists arguing it out. Is this just me, or has something changed? If so, what? I post a lot on the Dawkins forum, and am as happy discussing atheism versus theism as anyone i think, but it just seems to becoming a dominant theme here which is a bit of a shame in some ways. Is this just a perception error on my part?

cj x

Toppics here tend to go in cycles, I agree, at the moment there are a lot of hardline Athiest/ tehist deates at the meoment, but tehy will die down and a new flavour of the month will spring up.

 

[The Atheist]

Toppics here tend to go in cycles, I agree, at the moment there are a lot of hardline Athiest/ tehist deates at the meoment, but tehy will die down and a new flavour of the month will spring up.

[derail]

Now, I know you're in a Grammar War, but some of these tactics were disallowed at the Gevena Covnetion of '93!]

[/derail]

2 pm Saturday; what are you on?



You might be right on the cyclical nature, though.



I'm surprised this thread's gone on for so long. Randi's always maintained that he has never wanted it to be an atheist organisation, despite being a fairly strong atheist himself.

Carry on...

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a very interesting response.

We cannot say anything about a certain group of believers unless we belong to it?

What does this statement of yours, clumsily ended in a question mark, have to do with my post?

Since I didn't say that, and you just did, maybe you can keep talking to yourself until you convince yourself that you are right.

When done, have a nice shot of brandy and congratulate yourself on your brilliance.

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Toppics here tend to go in cycles, I agree, at the moment there are a lot of hardline Athiest/ tehist deates at the meoment, but tehy will die down and a new flavour of the month will spring up.

I think there's more athiest-but-not-anti-theist/atheist-and-anti-theist deabtes going on, actually.

 

[CFLarsen]

What does this statement of yours, clumsily ended in a question mark, have to do with my post?

Since I didn't say that, and you just did, maybe you can keep talking to yourself until you convince yourself that you are right.

When done, have a nice shot of brandy and congratulate yourself on your brilliance.

DR

You refused to answer a question about religious people, because you didn't think you should act as a spokesman for religious people, since you were raised agnostic.

Is this correct?

 

[Darth Rotor]

You refused to answer a question about religious people, because you didn't think you should act as a spokesman for religious people, since you were raised agnostic.

Is this correct?

You are more than welcome to crawl down that rat hole yourself.

You made the broad brush statement, which point has already been made, and life's too short to answer a stream of Clausian strawmen.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

You are more than welcome to crawl down that rat hole yourself.

You made the broad brush statement, which point has already been made, and life's too short to answer a stream of Clausian strawmen.

DR

I am asking if it is correct. Is it?

 

[athon]

One thing I've noticed when working with TEs in the Crevo debate is that a lot of them are fine with having the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the workings of the Universe. They just think God set those laws in place. They also seem to take a pragmatic approach to their faith apart from salvation issues (Thank God for unanswered prayers).

I know a Christian physicist, geneticist and paleontologist and they do their day job just like you and I do. They just don't sleep late on Sundays.

Second to that is that most religious folk are that way due to their remarkable ability to a) double think, and b) compartmentalise. They can have two conflicting thoughts at the same time and equally believe in both. They can also segregate their thinking skills, addressing some things skeptically but partitioning religious views as being unavailable to criticism.

Therefore their 'world view' isn't affected, and they can be extremely good skeptics with most things. Theism just isn't one of those things.

Athon

 

[six7s]

...remarkable ability to a) double think, and b) compartmentalise

He who has not sinned may cast the first stone

<anecdote>

The year 1981 is synonymous for all (ahem, mature) New Zealanders with what was almost a civil war over the issue of apartheid - raised by a tour by the South African Springboks

For me, racism is instinctively repugnant, so it was a no-brainer figuring out where I stood - despite being a fan and player of Rugby

Three years later, I was in genuine shock when many friends from 1981 were equally vocal in support of a Homosexual Law Reform Bill that was presented to (and passed by) parliament

Being a 'red-blooded male', from a culture that had - for thousands of years - proscribed that men had a duty and obligation to act in accordance with their status (reinforced relentlessly in art, science, commerce and leisure) I simply couldn't see the link... until several people took the time and effort to calmly and politely draw the dots so that I could SEE that all the 'isms' (racism, sexism, ageism, etc) are fundamentally the same: ignorance based fear that hurts others

</anecdote>

 

[athon]

He who has not sinned may cast the first stone

You'll get no argument here. We're all capable of double-think and compartmentalisation. And at its core, this is the struggle skeptical communicators face. Not teaching critical thinking, but teaching how to apply critical thinking without prejudice excluding some fields. And no matter how immune we think we are to it, we all have the ability to preserve some views which we have social and emotional attachment to.

The primary difference is that religious thinking celebrates compartmentalisation. Artefacts of faith should not be attacked. Faith, ideally, is approached with the view that it is strengthened if beliefs within it are challenged and are retained. Science, ideally, can be considered strengthened if beliefs within it are challenged and found to be false.

Athon

 

[Gurdur]

That's precisely it: They think that God formed everything in the Universe.

CFLarsen, I would strongly suggest you should actually talk to a full range of "religious" people, and seeing how each different one actually thinks or what they believe, rather than doing as you appear to do here in this thread and appoint yourself spokesman for religious people and basically say what you think they should be thinking and believing.

Since I'm personally an atheist, it's not my problem, but I do see several big differences between that, what you think religious people think like, and the actual reality of the full range of religious strands.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, I would strongly suggest you should actually talk to a full range of "religious" people, and seeing how each different one actually thinks or what they believe, rather than doing as you appear to do here in this thread and appoint yourself spokesman for religious people and basically say what you think they should be thinking and believing.

Since I'm personally an atheist, it's not my problem, but I do see several big differences between that, what you think religious people think like, and the actual reality of the full range of religious strands.

I have spoken with more religious people of every possible belief than I care to think about.

 

[The Atheist]

...with what was almost a civil war over the issue of apartheid - raised by a tour by the South African Springboks...

Just in case non-Kiwis get the wrong idea, I'd ask people to please not buy into this "almost civil war" garbage - it was nothing like a civil war, unless there have been civil wars where one side runs homebefore the rugby game has finished and the potential opponents come out to play. I've seen lots of people attempt to oversell a few bottle-throwers as "almost civil war" and it's nothing less than historical revisionism.

The Queen St riot was closer to a civil war than any rugby protest.

Does it make it all seem more important somehow to oversell it that way?

 

[six7s]

Just in case non-Kiwis get the wrong idea, I'd ask people to please not buy into this "almost civil war" garbage - it was nothing like a civil war, unless there have been civil wars where one side runs homebefore the rugby game has finished and the potential opponents come out to play. I've seen lots of people attempt to oversell a few bottle-throwers as "almost civil war" and it's nothing less than historical revisionism.

The Queen St riot was closer to a civil war than any rugby protest.

Does it make it all seem more important somehow to oversell it that way?

Well... one of us is obviously an apologist with the scepticism of an idiot

Just in case people want to apply scepticism and critical thinking skills to the consider what really happened in 1981 New Zealand, there is a new thread in the history forum:

History of 'The Tour': NZ 1981 - a sceptical perspective

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Second to that is that most religious folk are that way due to their remarkable ability to a) double think, and b) compartmentalise. They can have two conflicting thoughts at the same time and equally believe in both. They can also segregate their thinking skills, addressing some things skeptically but partitioning religious views as being unavailable to criticism.

Therefore their 'world view' isn't affected, and they can be extremely good skeptics with most things. Theism just isn't one of those things.

So you're another in the "if they haven't become atheist they haven't approached their religion skeptically" camp then?