The JREF is not an atheist organization

[The Atheist]

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

How is my scepticism idiotic? Because I didn't accept your hyperbolic statement?

Your over-reaction speaks volumes.

 

[athon]

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

I can't see how anybody can treat a belief such as this critically and still honestly retain the belief. Even deism holds the belief that a commanding intelligence exists at a distance - something for which there is no evidence.

I have no problem with religious people contributing to skeptical discussion and will argue that for the JREF to officially declare itself 'atheist' is to educate the public on a conclusion (which is not skepticism). But for any individual to say they are critical regarding their theism I have to ask how that is possible.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I can't see how anybody can treat a belief such as this critically and still honestly retain the belief. Even deism holds the belief that a commanding intelligence exists at a distance - something for which there is no evidence.

I have no problem with religious people contributing to skeptical discussion and will argue that for the JREF to officially declare itself 'atheist' is to educate the public on a conclusion (which is not skepticism). But for any individual to say they are critical regarding their theism I have to ask how that is possible.

I can't see how that view, to an outside observer, could make an organization of skeptics seem like anything but a de facto atheist organization.

Perhaps having theists here justify how they can maintain their theism and consider themselves skeptics would make for an interesting* Moderated thread.

(* not an itneresting one, we don't want certain trolls here polluting it with crap posts)

 

[six7s]

How is my scepticism idiotic? Because I didn't accept your hyperbolic statement?

Your over-reaction speaks volumes.

Not at all
For a simple illustration of idiocy, we need look no further than your most recent nonsense

Your assertion that my statement was hyperbolic: False. You cherry=picked my 'statement' to suit your own, seemingly perverse, agenda

Need further evidence of idiocy? Consider the fact that you, an articulate man from New Zealand chose to alert critical thinkers that my rhetorical phrase "almost civil war" would convey "the wrong idea" about what happened in NZ around the time of the '81 tour

To reinforce your self-appointed and inappropriate authority, you distorted the emphasis of my post and then went on to pronounce it as "garbage"

"... it was nothing like a civil war..."

True, but then nothing, other than a civil war is like a civil war when words are wielded as a weapon

"... where one side runs homebefore (sic) the rugby game has finished and the potential opponents come out to play."

This is patently falsifiable. I know. I was there. Furthermore, there is ample film footage that shows your words to be lies

"I've seen lots of people attempt to oversell a few bottle-throwers"

150,000 people out of a total population of less than 4 million is "a few"?

"nothing less than historical revisionism"

Indeed

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

If comparisons are necessary, there are links in the OP of the other thread

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

I really wonder why you choose to regard it as 'over-selling'

Methinks you protest too much, and on the wrong side

If you can explain, the other thread is a suitable forum

 

[The Atheist]

If you can explain, the other thread is a suitable forum

Already have, but jolly decent of you to list all your assertions here first.

 

[athon]

I can't see how that view, to an outside observer, could make an organization of skeptics seem like anything but a de facto atheist organization.

Because in my view, it stops short. It's like a shop that sells cake recipes and the ingredients isn't quite a cake shop. Sure, if you follow the instructions, you should get a cake. But if you tell somebody that it's a cake shop, they'll go there thinking they can buy a cake.

The JREF gives the recipe - skepticism. And the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else. But for it to sell atheism in any form is to sell the conclusion, not the process.

Perhaps having theists here justify how they can maintain their theism and consider themselves skeptics would make for an interesting* Moderated thread.

(* not an itneresting one, we don't want certain trolls here polluting it with crap posts)

I agree it would make for an interesting discussion. I'd be interested, yet feel that ultimatetly it would amount to just as I said - an ability to compartmentalise that part of their life away from effective critical thinking.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because in my view, it stops short. It's like a shop that sells cake recipes and the ingredients isn't quite a cake shop. Sure, if you follow the instructions, you should get a cake. But if you tell somebody that it's a cake shop, they'll go there thinking they can buy a cake.

The JREF gives the recipe - skepticism. And the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else. But for it to sell atheism in any form is to sell the conclusion, not the process.

Drawing your analogy out and back to my OP then, is it wrong for JREF to claim its here to sell cake recipes when the goal is actually to have customers buy a cake... or be thrown out on their arse? In the states we call that "bait and switch."

I agree it would make for an interesting discussion. I'd be interested, yet feel that ultimatetly it would amount to just as I said - an ability to compartmentalise that part of their life away from effective critical thinking.

I'm on dial-up for the next three days and on TAA2 for 8 days after that. How about we put this thread on hold and give it a shot on the 10th of Sept. or so? I know, I know... it might be an exercise in futility, but if we make it a modded thread we should be able to control responses and comments.

Keep it in mind.

 

[athon]

Drawing your analogy out and back to my OP then, is it wrong for JREF to claim its here to sell cake recipes when the goal is actually to have customers buy a cake... or be thrown out on their arse? In the states we call that "bait and switch."

Of course that's wrong. It's not wrong for the JREF to sell cake recipes in the hope that people go home and make a cake, though. If people don't make cakes, the JREF has no right to 'throw people out on their arse', IMO. (is it just me or have I just made this argument surreal?)

I'm on dial-up for the next three days and on TAA2 for 8 days after that. How about we put this thread on hold and give it a shot on the 10th of Sept. or so? I know, I know... it might be an exercise in futility, but if we make it a modded thread we should be able to control responses and comments.

Keep it in mind.

I'd be interested in reading some well considered, non-inflammatory responses, to be honest.

Athon

 

[The Atheist]

I'd be interested in reading some well considered, non-inflammatory responses, to be honest.

Athon

You could always the mod to ban Claus and me from entering the thread.



Just out of interest, a Google for JREF and ATHEIST produces this.

 

[CFLarsen]

The JREF gives the recipe - skepticism. And the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else. But for it to sell atheism in any form is to sell the conclusion, not the process.

That would require that the existence of God can be determined, the same way gravity can. I would like to see the skeptical argument for that.

If the existence of God can be determined, the same way gravity can, then agnostics are not skeptics.

 

[brodski]

You could always the mod to ban Claus and me from entering the thread.

Grammar Stalin, persecute thyself!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Grammar Stalin, persecute thyself!

Bad analogy. A Grammar Nazi may be hoist be his own petard, but Stalin was used to double standards.

Edited by Miss A: 

Snip snip

Rule 12, ID, Rule 12!

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

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I plan on presenting this issue to Randi, Hal, Jeff and whoever else from JREF is on the cruise this week. Maybe we can get some closure in this issue.

 

[Smiledriver]

I for one was gratified to read Randi's position on religion and religious claims. 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.

Randi seems to outline a basic logical principle, specifically: When one makes a propositon, one must prove it to be so. If you state: There is no God, you must prove there is no God. 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. Randi makes no propostions he simply demands proof from those who do.

I wish atheists and religious people would not act as though the had absolute knowledge of their respective positions.

 

[six7s]

When one makes a propositon, one must prove it to be so. If you state: There is no God, you must prove there is no God

Atheism, for me, is not stating that 'there is no god'
Rather, I state 'I see no credible evidence for any gods'

I wish atheists and religious people would not act as though the had absolute knowledge of their respective positions.

I wish apologists and theists would not act as though they had absolute knowledge of my position

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

Skepticism is lack of faith in the paranormal, supernatural, or spiritual because to date, no credible scientific evidence has been provided for such things.
Therefore, would you give credence to a person who claimed they were a skeptic but did believe in unicorns with magical powers? Religious people who claim a skeptical outlook are really declaring that they have a scientific and skeptical mind but they grant an exception for their favorite type of woo.
While I'm glad they're skeptical of UFOs, Bigfoot, and psychics, leaving that last little safety zone in your head for angels, demons, and flying space wizards is a definitely non-skeptical thing to do.
In my experience the forum members don't discriminate against religious people as compared to people who believe they have magical powers, or who believe that pan-dimensional reptilians have mind control devices in Alaska.
Pretty much posting anything nonskeptical here is interpreted as an invitation to make that thing a part of a skeptical discussion. Religion isn't granted any more or less protection and respect than the Loch Ness Monster or rods.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I for one was gratified to read Randi's position on religion and religious claims. 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.

I don't have a problem with that and from what I have seen in print and meeting Randi in person he doesn't either. It might raise an eyebrow, but there's definately a difference between homeopathy and the existance of a diety.

Skepticism is lack of faith in the paranormal, supernatural, or spiritual because to date, no credible scientific evidence has been provided for such things.

Not quite. Skepticism is not an entrenched position - it's a process. It's also not an orthodoxy, it's up to individual investigators who arrive at a general consensus of like minded individuals. Skepticism is the ultimate democratic movement which is what concerns me about the issues I raised in the OP... and still have.

 

[cj.23]

Skepticism is lack of faith in the paranormal, supernatural, or spiritual because to date, no credible scientific evidence has been provided for such things.

Can naturalistic science provide evidence for supernatural entities? What do you mean by paranormal? If credible scientific evidence was offered for a paranormal claim it would cease by definition to be paranormal, surely?

Therefore, would you give credence to a person who claimed they were a skeptic but did believe in unicorns with magical powers? Religious people who claim a skeptical outlook are really declaring that they have a scientific and skeptical mind but they grant an exception for their favorite type of woo.

So what about Martin Gardner's fideism? By your definition as a theist he is not a sceptic?

While I'm glad they're skeptical of UFOs, Bigfoot, and psychics, leaving that last little safety zone in your head for angels, demons, and flying space wizards is a definitely non-skeptical thing to do.
In my experience the forum members don't discriminate against religious people as compared to people who believe they have magical powers, or who believe that pan-dimensional reptilians have mind control devices in Alaska.
Pretty much posting anything nonskeptical here is interpreted as an invitation to make that thing a part of a skeptical discussion. Religion isn't granted any more or less protection and respect than the Loch Ness Monster or rods.

Scepticism is to me a process not an ideology. I go where I feel the evidence lies, and while I believe both theism and atheism can be rational, I'm a theist. The JREF is a sceptical organisation, not an atheist one, and I don't think theists devalue it.

j x

 

[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

 

[bluecloud]

Six7s said: Atheism, for me, is not stating that 'there is no god'
Rather, I state 'I see no credible evidence for any gods'

The MerriamWebster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "atheist" as someones who denies the existence of God, not as someone who takes your position (which is also mine btw). It seems the term"agnostic" would fit better here!
Personally, I don't "see" myself anywhere on that scale of values <believer -- agnostic -- atheist>; if I'm anywhere that's on a scale perpendicular to it: one which goes from foolishness at one extreme (God? Hey man, don't bother me; I'm watching the ball game. I believe I'll have another beer) to what I would call the "Mature Buddhist Position": the Buddha himself (is said to have) refused to discuss gods and souls and life-in-the-beyond etc, for the very reason you're proposing and for the lack of relevance in solving the problems of life which we face in the here-and-now (except possibly as an emotional crutch).