The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Prometheus]

My last post in this thread: 30 July 09
Date of this post: 2 Aug 09

Way to stay current.

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one?

Also: Unnecessary pedantry is a pet peeve of mine, as are people who seem to think that I should be forced to listen and respond to everything they say.

Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?

 

[Thomas]

This is far from the first time I've seen this particular poster get a bit incoherent, though previously it's been in a different environment.

You're the one who's a "bit incoherent"; wants a skeptics organization to back off on religion. A child can see how wrong that is.

 

[remirol]

Is there some rule against responding to a post that's just 6 posts before the current one?

If one is going to speculate about my mental state, it would behoove one to ensure that it hasn't been 3 days since I might have been in the particular state. Hence why it actually mattered in this case; normally it wouldn't.

Is this an example of the sort of attitude that's supposed to be better at winning people over than Piggy's approach?

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps!

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

 

[remirol]

The explicit statement that the JREF is not an atheist organization is unneeded, singles out for special exclusion, and only draws attention to an artificial distancing of the JREF from atheism. There is no legitimate reason for this statement. One wonders what the reasons for making this special distinction are; what audience is the statement directed at.

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

 

[RevDisturba]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization?

; }?>

 

[remirol]

Why on earth would anyone think JREF was an atheist organization?

Not sure the "why" matters anymore, after 600+ posts, but many people seem to either think it is or should be.

 

[Piggy]

As far as the other part... Piggy prefers to be pedantic about his sub-issue rather than addressing the actual topic, and so I placed him on ignore back where it reads *plonk*, as another little educational demonstration about how you can't force people to read or respond to something they don't consider significant... and yes, I still don't consider his quibble significant. I wonder how it would've gone if he had bothered trying to convince me it was, rather than telling me about "hooks" and what he thought I was thinking?

Huh. I guess we'll never know, now, will we?

Well, the one person who is sure to never know is remirol.

As for me, my ironymeter just went off the charts with the explanation of the *plonk* bit. So remirol's "educational demonstration" of effective persuasion is to ignore people?

And personally, I don't see how it is a "pedantic sub-issue" to point out that a poster's argument is without merit.

As I've said, it is directly relevant to the OP whether or not theistic claims are/aren't dis/provable.

remirol seems to acknowledge that, since he was discussing the point himself.

I think it's absolutely necessary for skeptics to think about our assertions, examine them fully, and actually discuss counterpoints rather than ignoring them.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that.

I did nothing different than what you were doing. You accused someone of having emotional investment, I stated that if anyone was having any emotional investment in the issue, it was you. I don't particularly see why the timing of my post was so important, either.

You are free to be annoyed at that if you like. I don't mind.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is it more important for critical thinking to be a tool or a tribal tatoo?

I vote for the former.

 

[Darat]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

 

[remirol]

Depends on how cool the tattoo is.

And where.

 

[dglas]

As I understand it, there is no such explicit statement in the JREF statement of mission, charter, or whatever the thing is called. This statement has only been made in response to people who have directly asked "Is the JREF an atheist organization?" In other words, the only reason this is even coming up is because someone presumed it _was_ and made statements based on that.

Taken in this context, the statement is both needed and appropriate, as would all your original examples be if someone had asked the corresponding question.

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

...but, very well, I am asking now...

Mr. Randi,

Is the JREF a theist organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization?
Is the JREF a gays organization?
is the JREF an <insert racial group> organization?

Surely there will be no problem with expressly stating, publicly, in precisely the same manner it was expressed that the JREF was not an atheist organization, that the JREF is none of these, yes? And right now, I AM presuming that the JREF is a theistic organization, specifically because it has gone to special public effort to distance itself specifically from atheism.

 

[Prometheus]

Nope. I was merely mildly annoyed that Lonewulf, like yourself, chose to come in and address the arguer, not the argument. I drop little educational hints when people do that. Hope this helps!

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.

Now, I see you've passed up a perfectly good post from Dglas you could've responded to about the topic. Perhaps your next post could be about that instead, rather than about how you don't like me. I know you don't. I don't care. Let's move on.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil. As to the other part, I neither like nor dislike you, as I don't even know you beyond a small handful of exchanges here. But I agree--let's move on.

 

[remirol]

The who is being reassured and why does the JREF feel the need to reassure him/her/it/them?

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.

Make no mistake, if the JREF is neither an atheistic nor a theistic organization, then the proper response to the question is that it is neither a theist nor atheist organization. The proper response is not to single out one and make a statement against it specifically. There's another word for doing that.

Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".

...but, very well, I am asking now...

Mr. Randi,

Is the JREF a theist organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization?
Is the JREF a gays organization?
is the JREF an <insert racial group> organization?

Surely there will be no problem with expressly stating, publicly, in precisely the same manner it was expressed that the JREF was not an atheist organization, that the JREF is none of these, yes? And right now, I AM presuming that the JREF is a theistic organization, specifically because it has gone to special public effort to distance itself specifically from atheism.

Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

 

[remirol]

Actually, if you truly want to be helpful, perhaps you could explain how you interpreted my post as addressing the arguer rather than the argument. It seems to me that that's what you were doing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification as to whether you thought you were providing an example of the sort of posting behaviour that you argue for.

I agree with Dglas. I actually agree with you regarding the importance of not burning bridges with people who you might hope to engage in the future, also. I don't understand your problem with Piggy, though, as I've never found his posting style to be anything but lively, intelligent and civil.

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)

But I agree--let's move on.

And stuff.

 

[Prometheus]

In the interest of permitting this thread to move on, I can respond to some or all of this in PM if you care that much; however, I am pretty sure that detailing out my problem with Piggy and his approach here will fall too close to the "bickering, personalization, and off-topic" line. (Or at least, it would if I were a mod -- I doubt anyone, including Piggy, really gives a rat's bottom.)



And stuff.

You're right; let's forget about it.

 

[dglas]

You are welcome to dig into the history behind the now-historic OP in this thread. Me, I don't care that much.



Semantic twaddle. When the question is asked in the form "Is the JREF an atheist organization?", a perfectly correct response is "no", or "no, it is not an atheist organization".



Let me know how much of a response you get on that one; "argument from hyperbole" didn't hold water with me earlier in the thread, and I'm not inclined to pay it much mind right now, either.

Semantics are how we understand the world.
Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

 

[remirol]

Semantics are how we understand the world.

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

 

[dglas]

And, in this case, how we crowbar words around with all our might in an effort to create artificial significance where none actually exists.

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Thank you for your valuable and sophisticated attempt to offer some sort of insight into the point, but the point remains unaddressed.

I can see the concerted effort you are making to consider the matter thoroughly. I am inspired by your example.

You are attacking the arguer, and the use of words, rather than the argument. The point remains unaddressed.

 

[remirol]

Apparently there was sufficient significance for Randi to publicly and pointedly express, in writing, that the JREF was not an "atheist organization."

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

You are attacking the arguer,

Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

and the use of words, rather than the argument.

That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.