Pharyngula

Posted by: AZSuperman01 | November 19, 2010 11:57 PM

Would the skeptic movement be bolstered by the suggestion that we accept supernatural beliefs without question? Would the skeptical movement benefit in anyway by suggesting that critical thinking should not be applied to ALL topics?

Really, how can anyone seriously claim that atheism "deludes" skepticism?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 20, 2010 12:04 AM

He did say it "seemed unlikely" that some religion's prophet rose from the dead, which doesn't seem too bad on the face of it. On the other hand, I have the feeling that he'd think there was a good deal more to be said about just how unlikely it is that, say, Dionysus rose from the dead, were there frenzied throngs claiming that he had.

I'd say that skepticism should not be taken over by atheism, since it's much wider than mere skepticism over religion. At three out of 15 speeches, and with religion the biggest by far of groups making untenable claims, there seems to be no threat thus far.

We jeer at the Big Tent of ID, with "scientific IDists" somehow finding far more in common with the "religious apologist creationists" than with real scientists. It's idiotic to demand a big tent of skeptics. Let the religious in if they so desire, of course, but don't coddle their fantasies.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Jonathan Figdor | November 20, 2010 12:11 AM

PZ's right. This is a stupid fight. I was lead to atheism from my general skepticism, and see the two as inextricably linked. In fact, I personally doubt whether someone who believes a traditional form of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, could be a true skeptic, as they would not be subjecting their own religious experience to the same rigorous skepticism.

LONG LIVE JT EBERHARD AND SKEPTICON!

Posted by: Doc Bill | November 20, 2010 12:16 AM

Ha, been there MANY years ago!

I was a guest speaker at a Skeptics Club and I titled my talk "The Tooth Fairy and the Virgin Mary." I put together a list of skeptical topics from the Australian Skeptics web page and, as an icebreaker, read through the list and asked for a show of hands if anybody "believed" in a topic on the list.

I expected lots of laughter and no hands, but what I got was hands here and there and a forest of hands over there and, OMG, these weren't skeptics at all!

Some folks believed in healing crystals, others in witches, and dousing, and out of body experiences, Yetis, UFO's and all sorts of things.

I stopped half-way through and in exasperation exclaimed, "What's the matter with you people?" The rest of the talk went well as did the discussion session, but I'll never forget how unskeptical so-called skeptics were!

Posted by: Misfire | November 20, 2010 12:18 AM

I'm still going. Wait, there won't be any immigrants there, right? I wouldn't want the skeptical movement to be seen with them.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | November 20, 2010 12:25 AM

If someone abandons skepticism because they don't like the result...by definition they were not rational. An irrational skeptic is far more likely to hurt the cause than a rational one.

Posted by: Warm Little Pond | November 20, 2010 12:26 AM

I agree, how can a skeptic conference deem certain areas of public discourse quarantined, evading skeptical inquiry? This is bogus. Skepticism regarding religion just represents one of many areas where skepticism can and should be applied. To say that there are too many of one form of skeptic is lunacy.

Also, what's the point of a skeptics conference if not to enlighten people to the many harms of credulity to all aspects of life? While I firmly believe that it benefits the public to doubt things such as homeopathy (fake medicine) and astrology (fake science), it seems like this value is magnified enormously when applied to the single most harmful, unfounded topic of them all--religion.

It appears that Wagg wants to reduce skepticism's applicability to mere urban legends and peddlers of woo such as psychics and reflexologists. Sure, that's noble, but they're just mere flies swarming around the true fetid carcass of credulity: religion.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 12:26 AM

But to conflate atheism with skepticism dilutes atheism and destroys skepticism.

It does? How?

I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they're uncomfortable with the tone

Oh, tone. Gotcha.

and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

So, skepticism about religious claims is too much, it's just a bad, bad thing and people are leaving because skepticism can be applied to religion?

Uh huh.

I believe that if you equate skepticism with anything other than science, you've missed the point.

Oh, Cupcake...you've not only missed the point, you've missed the boat. Skepticism can be and should be applied to all silly claims. That includes religion. All religion.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 12:29 AM

Josh:

and please forgive me wanting to slap the Jeff Waggs of the skeptical movement.

No, I won't forgive you. I will give you a round of applause.

Posted by: Balstrome | November 20, 2010 12:35 AM

Seems to me that folk like that are not lazy per se, but have come to believe that the religious are too powerful to do much about and therefore each should stay in their own camps and not bother each other.

Either you a believer or not, and to get from one to the other requires the examination of evidence or not. Once you start to question (skeptism) then you are an atheist, bugger what wiki says.

One thing, you will not find such a mindset on the religious side, all accommodating, don't be a dick. So why should we become like that which we dislike ?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | November 20, 2010 12:38 AM

Wait, wait, I thought certain things were off the table for skepticism, you know, like the veracity of the psuedoscience claiming the inferiority of minority groups, religion, and anything that may in any way afflict the comfortable and privileged rather than just going after easy targets.

Damnitt, why did all these feminists and atheists have to go and ruin a good thing.

/Half of these concerned "skeptics'" blathering

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 12:41 AM

Caine:

I will give you a round of applause.

Oh, christ, this conversation makes me angry (as it does you)! It's the same thing that bothers me about the "skeptical investigators." They know that what they're investigating is bullshit, and they know it isn't plausible, yet they expect onlookers like you and me to pretend that they don't know this, and to give them kudos for their very fine work. If there's one thing I hate more than a liar it's a liar who expects me to play along with him.

Jeff Wagg knows full well his angst comes from some personal, emotional uncomfortability. Maybe he's a politician at heart. Maybe he has a girlfriend/boyfriend/mom whose religious leanings he can't bear to criticize. Maybe he's dating Chris Mooney. I don't know, and I don't care. But he does know that his walling off of religion from inquiry is not intellectually sound. That's bad enough, but the fact that he expects audience members like us to pretend that we don't know he knows that makes me furious.

/end recursive complaining

Posted by: boobcast.net | November 20, 2010 12:44 AM

I think that what Jeff is saying here is that we are trying to encourage education in critical thinking skills. People who are new to skepticism before they really learn or accept that skepticism should be applied to every aspect of life, can be very put off by the idea of confronting their most deeply-held beliefs.
The people I know who are new to skepticism tend to want to tackle the big issues right out of the box before they have really absorbed how to use the tools of skepticism. So people feel like they are being forced to give these things up before they are comfortable with the idea that it's okay to walk away from those beliefs for the reasons they have figured out for themselves.
I think that people need to be given time to come to their own conclusions while we ask skeptics teach them to use those tools. I think that Jeff was talking about the reputed damage being caused by people being confronted before they are ready to face the idea that there is probably no god.

Posted by: H.H. | November 20, 2010 12:48 AM

Wagg seems to mean this quite literally:

I believe that if you equate skepticism with anything other than science, you've missed the point.

Wagg's version of skepticism, which he not only equates with science, but the neutered form of science promoted by the NCSE, is totally unrecognizable to me. It's certainly not skepticism as I have applied it in my life.

Wagg also does a pretty poor job rebutting Eberhard's response. He insists JT should have included skeptics who are believers on a panel debating whether proper skepticism necessarily leads to atheism, but he doesn't explain why. Apparently he doesn't think non-believers are capable of making a successful argument, which suggests Wagg believes there is a successful argument to be made, but which sadly he fails to provide. He admits that it can be difficult to locate skeptics who are also staunch believers and who are willing to defend this seeming contradiction, but he blames their timidity on the fact that such individuals might face disagreement and so prefer to remain silent. I suspect the more likely cause of their reticence stems the embarrassment and discomfort that comes with having to defend a losing proposition.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 12:50 AM

. I think that Jeff was talking about the reputed damage being caused by people being confronted before they are ready to face the idea that there is probably no god.

If that's what he meant to write, then that's what he should have written. But it is not, in fact, what he wrote. The things he said were far more sweeping, inaccurate, and full of general condemnation.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 12:59 AM

What's more, JT Eberhard caught Jeff Wagg in his own logical contradictions. In the very same essay, Jeff Wagg wrote:

And I fear the damage has already been done. I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they’re uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

and:

My hat is off to JT and the other organizers for putting on what will be the largest event of its type ever. With 1800 people, it’s larger than any skeptics conference I’ve been to, including TAM and CFI’s World Congress.

So, Jeff, what "damage" has been done? Ok, sure. He said "a lot of good people" have been driven away. He didn't say anything about the absolute conference-attendence numbers. But still. Who are these "a lot of good people?" And, why do they matter? If you're going to argue that applying skeptical thought to religious claims is "driving good people away," and "damaging the cause," you need to grapple with the uncontested fact that more people are attending Skepticon than ever. No, pure popularity doesn't make one's position right. But neither does Wagg's pissy/moany anecdotes do the opposite.

You have work to do, Wagg, to support your complaint, and you haven't done it.

And, like PZ, I don't care about the kind of people who are "disappointed" in the refusal to soft-pedal silly religious claims tone of outspoken atheists. I want them to piss off. I think they're not helping. They're not our allies.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 1:01 AM

Tempest in a teapot, anyone?

Snide, irritating dismissal of what people are interested in talking about, anyone?

Posted by: GenghisFaun | November 20, 2010 1:06 AM

Josh, OSG:

I think you need to settle down a little.

... Actually, I'm just kidding. You're rant is awesome. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 20, 2010 1:12 AM

Rorschach,
How so? Isn't that what we want people to do, rather than just blindly accepting what they are told. I count it as a feat when someone I know has looked into the background of some new topic they introduce me to because so often they read one book and assume that it is true because it was published.
Or are you referring to comparing skepticism to science?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 1:21 AM

Jeez, I hope none of these namby-pambies are there tomorrow.

You can bet they will be. But you won't hear from them, not in person. True to form, they'll be too timid to stand up in public and argue their point in a forum where it can be rapidly engaged. They'll wait until they get home, twist their knickers up to 11, and write angsty screeds online about how they felt "wounded."

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 1:23 AM

Isn't that what we want people to do, rather than just blindly accepting what they are told.

I agree, it is a good thing when people look into a topic and don't take the first source for granted.Duh, obviously.My point is, how do you "examine" evidence without the scientific method ? I'm afraid googling just doesn't cut it.The "tools of scepticism" as laid out in that post are not tools that let us arrive at any meaningful conclusions.
By the way, 1 out of 5 talks at Skepticon is "atheistic", not really the overwhelming majority, is it ?

Posted by: Lilie | November 20, 2010 1:26 AM

I've recently been doing research on climate change and have found that climate change naysayers are often called skeptics by the media. As a skeptic I do not like being associated with that group. Their desire to live in a delusion is more the cause of their disbelieving climate change than is any real skeptical impulse. It is the same for evolution naysayers. Btw the strength of the evidence supporting climate change is fast approaching that of the strenth of the evidence supporting evolution.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 1:28 AM

Quite.
The "Don't be a dick" episode(s) broke this camel's back.
As others have pointed out, the high'n'mighty priests of the "Skeptical" movement (exempting James Randi, but including Joe Nickell and his ilk) have settled into a lazy & comfortable retirement plan of recycling credulosity entailing never-ending "investigations" of ghost phenomena, and NEVER EVER coming to the conclusion that it is all bunk, and that they had better get a real job as (say) a dishwasher, or something actually useful.

Demarcation of the religious elements can be for at least two reasons, one of them understandable, and the other one reprehensible:

1) James Randi's reason for not going after religious claims: That it is too much to take on, and others are better qualified to assume this mantle, leaving the JREF to cover it's expert patch without quarantining it from robust inspection. (Acceptable)

2) The "Don't be a Dick" side, who fear the short-term political outfall of confronting the delusional, and specially quarantining just this one aspect of superstition from ANY kind of robust enuiry. (Utterly Reprehensible)

I am completely done with the latter.
They can go and perform acupuncture on themselves with blunt crowbars, as far as I am concerned, the bloody hypocritical mealy-mouthed faitheist misogynistic accomodationist cowards.

I would have been more critical, were I in a bad mood. They are getting off lightly.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 1:31 AM

But jeez. Give it rest people, we're all (kind of) on the same side.

Agreed, almost. You'll find, though, that it's not the outspoken contigent that wants to pick an in-fight. It's the "be quiet and don't alienate" contingent that's constantly forcing this useless, time-wasting conversation on us. It's not a case of equal responsibility. Most people would dearly love to get on with the business of whatever it is we're aiming for without having to deal with the tone complaints at every turn. Don't make the mistake, please, of thinking "both sides are wasting time." If the tone police would shut up, we wouldn't have to have to have these ridiculous diversions.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 1:34 AM

I am an atheist and believe that atheism is part of skepticism, but the I find PZ's article and the comments here to be over-the-top strident.

And we have Bingo !!!

MKG @ 45,

nice one, couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 20, 2010 1:39 AM

Rorschach,
Sorry, I missed the point you were gleaning from the quoted passage. I don't really consider doing some research into other views and data about a subject to have much in common with science and it certainly isn't the scientific method as I understand it. I was just confused by your comment and how it related to the specific passage and now I think I understand.
___

Ex-drone,
Umm, let the strident comment go. That's a good doggy. Go sit on your mat.

Why on Earth would you take a fringe movement and exclude one of its primary topics from discussion? I am not saying that aiming at specific topics isn't possible, but if you hold a conference called Skepticon, it should be about all of skeptical themes in popular culture. That some of the people involved are complaining because the religion angle gets the most ears is just sore egos complaining because they think they have been short changed.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 1:42 AM

However, if we hold an alt-med conference or do outreach at a COMICON, are skeptics going to DEMAND that atheism be covered?

Why would you think that participants at an alt-med conference would "DEMAND" that atheism be covered? I don't know people who would make such a demand, in that context. Are you certain that you're not making up a bogeyman that doesn't really exist?

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 1:53 AM

Maybe Skepticon would benefit from a subtitle that designates the overall theme for the event? A lot of conferences do that to unify the event and direct the content.

I agree with this.

***

Landshark:

If we were able to channel all the energy skeptics spend arguing amongst themselves towards actually advancing skepticism in the world we could do truly great things.

False dichotomy.

I've spent far more time in the last few months worrying about and debating atheism and skepticism, dick vs nice, the lack of women, the lack of people of color, yada yada yada

Yes, you've been super committed in the last few months. I've been amazed by your longstanding dedication to insightful debate on these issues here and yada yada yada.

than I have in preparing and organizing my own skeptics group.

Go for it! Let us know how it goes.

Jesus what a bunch of navel-gazers we are.

We indeed.

It's no wonder the believers have the numbers on us, they just have to wait for us to self-immolate.

Sure.

we're all (kind of) on the same side.

Sure. Well, kind of.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 2:03 AM

You know, when I say that sceptics compartmentalize, it's an observation, I do believe that we need people who are sceptic about any particular topic.Anyone who doubts and questions homeopathy or Reiki is better than nothing.But we have to be allowed to point out that there is a wee little discrepancy and contradiction here.

Maybe Skepticon would benefit from a subtitle that designates the overall theme for the event?

Always thought these were quite diverse and open meetings in the first place.I don't see the point in having a disclaimer like on biology textbooks, "caution: might contain atheism and other stuff that could make you uncomfortable".

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 2:18 AM

SC OM #55
Thanks for proving my point for me. It was very helpful for you to make snarky comments about my post. Very useful. We all learned a lot.

My skeptics group is going fine, thank you, but we've spent too much time debating these issues amongst ourselves, so we're going to move on. Maybe you should as well.

PS I didn't say I've spent far to much time debating these things "here" - because this isn't the only skeptical blog - or didn't you know? But by all means, I'm definitely the enemy - direct your anger at me, a fellow skeptic who's tired of fighting other skeptics.

Posted by: Mr Z | November 20, 2010 2:19 AM

I had always thought there was a small difference between atheists/anti-theists and skeptics. Skeptics seem to be agnostics that don't want to talk about religion.

Meh... take your world view, follow it to its natural conclusions. If you're not happy with that, change your world view. It would appear that more than one skeptic has a fear of commitment.

Further, how can you separate the supernatural from religion? You can't be skeptical about ghosts but have nothing to say about sky-daddies. You can't be skeptical about the efficacy of rhinoceros horn in curing sexual problems and have nothing to say about faith healing.

If he wants to say they are separate, good on him, off he should go to do his own thing... this is not a big club with rules and stuff. LOL

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 2:30 AM

Thanks for proving my point for me.

*crinkles brow*

It was very helpful for you to make snarky comments about my post. Very useful. We all learned a lot.

"We" being, well, you.

My skeptics group is going fine, thank you, but we've spent too much time debating these issues amongst ourselves, so we're going to move on. Maybe you should as well.

Care to link to it? You're commenters here?

PS I didn't say I've spent far to much time debating these things "here" - because this isn't the only skeptical blog - or didn't you know?

Where, then? I mean, I know a few months of these arguments can be exhausting, let alone years. Especially since the representation of minorities is so trivial. Where have you been debating the good debate?

But by all means, I'm definitely the enemy - direct your anger at me, a fellow skeptic who's tired of fighting other skeptics.

My heart bleeds for you.

Posted by: PhD In Heresy | November 20, 2010 2:37 AM

I just left this comment on Jeff Wagg's page:

This debate sounds very familiar. Go to Bike Week in Daytona Beach to hear the ever shrinking group of old bikers at the end of the strip complaining about the yuppie bikers and how they aren’t even “real” bikers.

All the while, 250,000 “fake bikers” have a grand time, and are the reason the motorcycle industry remains vibrant and alive.

Either learn to deal with this trend, or become just as sad and lonely as all the “real bikers” at the tiny bar at the end of the strip.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 2:39 AM

Give it rest people, we're all (kind of) on the same side.

Absolutely not.Just like moderate believers are part of the problem by sharing, and supporting, the same foundation as religious extremists, and like the "Don't be a Dick" folks create opportunity for the religious to keep their charades up, those who limit themselves to sceptic inquiry about one topic alone are most def not helping.

Posted by: jaranath | November 20, 2010 2:48 AM

"In my mind, the odd atheism-free skeptic conference should allowed"

Dude, are you effing kidding me? Read your comment over very carefully. Wagg was just "suggesting" we hold "one or two" atheism-free conferences? We won't ALLOW that? We "DEMAND" atheism be covered in anti-alt-med conferences? You honestly think any generic gathering of skeptics wouldn't naturally involve a lot of talk about atheism and religion?

Listen: I've had it. I've tried very, very hard to understand the accommodationist perspective. By nature I'm very sympathetic to the diplomatic approach. I want everyone to get along, all hurt feelings to be bandaged, all hands to be joined, koombaya, etc. I have plenty of loved ones who would be offended by proper skeptical treatment of their faith; the Grandma Gambit is a painfully real scenario for me. I will always do my best to help gently ease my believing loved ones, friends and acquaintances into critical thought and skepticism. My gut instinct wants to agree with the likes of Wagg.

But I can't. I'm through with being told that I won't allow people to not mention atheism, that I tell people they're stupid, that I yell at religious students in front of the class, that I kick religious members out of my club, that I'm a pseudo-religious dogmatist. I don't know why people are pulling this crap; I have some suspicions, but at this point whatever the reasons, however well-intentioned the reasons, I've had a bellyfull.

Ex-drone, I have tried. I wish I could make you believe that. But I'm finally past the point of caring. If you can't spare the effort to critically analyze your own claims and motivations and biases, and instead continue to misrepresent the likes of me, then at this point I'm afraid the extent of my civility is to avoid telling the likes of you to fuck off in polite company.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/4Sbxdidln.gj_yIpnR9mQHE1qmE-#7d5ec | November 20, 2010 2:55 AM

Skeptic-Creationist = Oxy-Moron

Posted by: Akira MacKenzie | November 20, 2010 3:03 AM

As someone who has hung out for years at on the JREF forums, Wagg's whining about the big-bad atheists ruining skepticism with their outrageous demands that the claims of Jebus-fucks be given the the same credence as Uri Gellar doesn't surprise me at all. These assholes were Accommodationists before Chris Mooney slimed his way onto the scene.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 3:12 AM

These assholes were Accommodationists before Chris Mooney slimed his way onto the scene.

I approve of this comment...:-)

But by all means, I'm definitely the enemy - direct your anger at me, a fellow skeptic who's tired of fighting other skeptics.

I for one, and I think SC as well, are curious as to what exactly this fight entails that you keep mentioning.I saw your earlier post,

I've spent far more time in the last few months worrying about and debating atheism and skepticism, dick vs nice, the lack of women, the lack of people of color, yada yada yada than I have in preparing and organizing my own skeptics group.

I am confused.Which part of this is not worth your time, or distracting you from the true goals of scepticism as you see it ? I have debated and argued in these same discussions for ages, it seems rather relevant to me, and not a waste of time at all.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 3:15 AM

I'm especially interested, Amber, in evidence of your extensive, wearying participation in debates concerning the representation of women and minorities.

Posted by: tielserrath | November 20, 2010 3:19 AM

The reason it's pointless trying to have sceptic conferences focussed to one or two topics is that most of us only get to go to one a year (if that) and would prefer to have a pick'n'mix of topics.

I want science with my atheism, some laughs from Joe Nickell, economics with my anti-woo.

The Global Atheist Conference didn't limit its speakers to atheism - quite the reverse. That was what made it so enjoyable.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | November 20, 2010 3:22 AM

So this Skepticon event is one of the largest ever and the "fault" for that lies in atheist attendance? WTF?

Shorter: I'm all for civil rights, but the participation of all the colored people really makes me nervous.

Enjoy.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 3:31 AM

"So no evidence of all of this fighting you're so tired of?
Piss off."

Wow. That is some amazing Cognative dissonance. You have Alien Hand Syndrome or something? WTF?
Oh right, it's not a structured argument. It's throwing a hissy fit.

The point i think that people aren't realizing is that we're also biting the hand that feeds us. Most people are actually accomodationalists. and while being Smack middle is really rather shitty because it gives way too much credit to the stupid claims of the religiots. But meeting the other skeptics in POLITE CONVERSATION should not be impossible. Shit.

I think Deists are gravy. And they DO believe in mystical old father man guy that was somehow the Prime Mover. And who cares? It doesn't greatly impact anyones ability to move society. If people want to do tiny skeptic meetings for people who don't care about religion (and most people don't care about religion either), then let them. the Atheist movement is too big to be worried about losing something -anything- because of this

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 3:32 AM

SC OM

Do you really need to truncate my post to make it look bad - come on. My point was we spend to much time arguing about the movement. You answer to that was to argue with me about arguing about the movement, to the point of insulting me and accusing me of not arguing about the movement enough to be tired of it.

This is like a snake swallowing its tail. Yes, there are problems within the skeptical movement. Yes, they should be and are being addressed. Pardon me for getting fedup that they are argued ad infinitum all over the internet, the same arguments on every site, over and over again. I think there are better uses of our time and as I said, I'm tired and cranky, no less so after having been attacked by you for expressing my frustration. Just get over it and move on, I'm not attacking YOU personally.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 3:34 AM

Amber K:

I've spent far more time in the last few months worrying about and debating atheism and skepticism, dick vs nice, the lack of women, the lack of people of color, yada yada yada than I have in preparing and organizing my own skeptics group.

You must have spent all your time worrying, because you certainly haven't invested any time here on the frontlines, debating atheism/skepticism, dick vs. nice, the lack of women, the lack of people of color, yada, yada, yada.

Perhaps if you spent less time complaining, you could commit more time to actually discussing these issues with people, in particular, people who genuinely need to be exposed to such issues.

There are plenty of whiners and complainers. Rather than be one of them, decide to discuss the issues or get busy "preparing" and organizing your very own skeptics group (in which, I assume, there would be discussions about...). Amazingly enough, there are a lot of people who manage to do both things. Of course, they don't spend a great deal of time complaining about having to actually tackle issues.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 3:39 AM

There's always time for Ricky Gervais:

If god exists, why did he make me an atheist?

My point was we spend to much time arguing about the movement.

It's funny, because around these parts, we usually don't.What constitutes a movement and what it's meant to try and achieve seems pretty obvious to most people here, with regards to atheism.It's mostly the sceptics who are frantically compartmentalizing for who this seems to be an issue.
On that note, I am looking forward to seeing Rebecca Watson in Melbourne soon...:-)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 3:41 AM

Amber K:

Pardon me for getting fedup that they are argued ad infinitum all over the internet, the same arguments on every site, over and over again.

No shit. Do you really think we don't get tired of it? There are always new people, same old argument. You never know when you'll get through to someone, so yes, same old fucking argument, but, new person.

So, you do what needs to be done. If you don't want to do it, fine. However, don't be fooling yourself that your sniny little group will be addressing fresh problems. The same problems are dealt with because they are still the same 800 lb gorilla problems sitting on the couch.

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 3:46 AM

Caine, Fleur du Mal,#87

Had you read my previous posts you'd see that I actually have founded a skeptics group (we've been meeting biweekly since July). You'd also notice that I was saying that I was fed up with the in-fighting and wish we could get on with the business of doing skepticism. So I was kind of complaining about all the complaining. I also said "maybe I'm just tired and cranky" which I am.

I'm a single parent and I work full time and I run a skeptics group and help run an atheists group. I manage to do quite a few things at once.

I have no idea why SC OM has taken it upon herself to call me a liar or chastise me for not spending all my time here on Pharyngula debating skepticism, but it's not my job to visit the website she dictates nor do I consider Pharyngula to be the "frontlines" - I consider the frontline to be my community, but that's my choice. I enjoy this site and the debate but it's not my primary focus. I'm sorry if my post caused a lot of sturm and drang but I really can't figure out why it did. I'm frustrated with the skeptical movement eating their own. This very conversation is proof of it.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 3:56 AM

I'm frustrated with the skeptical movement eating their own. This very conversation is proof of it.

I think we're all very supportive of what you're doing, but we were asking what you meant by those "wars", and sceptics "eating their own".There's been a fair amount of discussion about tone and dicks, I agree, but if I was to run a sceptics group, wouldn't that be something that would come natural as a point of discussion? I don't see how it could be a bad thing.I think what people here are saying is that if you're going to be a sceptic about X, you might as well extend that thought to Y, and Z, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.And the people at Pharyngula do a lot of Y, and Z.That doesn't mean we're not supportive of your sceptics group, but we do like to follow a train of thought to its conclusion....

Posted by: raven | November 20, 2010 3:59 AM

The logical, inevitable outcome of skepticism is some sort of No Religion. Skeptics shouldn't be surprised if that is where people end up.
Whenever and wherever religions make falsifiable claims, they end up falsified. That is why most intelligent believers have retreated to sophisticated theology, which is another word for untestable claims. God is love and the ground of all being. You can't even make sense of that much less falsify it.

And as several commenters have noticed, the No Religions and Atheist movements are orders of magnitude larger than skeptics, who I've barely heard of.

The number of No Religions in the USA is 24% of the population, 72 million people and growing by around 1 million people a year. To be sure, many of those will have beliefs in paranormal phenomena and medical quackery among other woo. You take what you can get. Some skepticism is better than none.

Posted by: doctoratlantis | November 20, 2010 4:03 AM

One more thing:

A lot of you seem more than willing to throw Jeff Wagg under the bus for talking about whether or not a conference is really skeptical or atheist. WTF?

Jeff Wagg has been a tireless activist for causes that most everyone here agrees with. He says something you disagree with and you're all through with him?

Do you remember him and his run-in with Denny's and the church bulletin fiasco? http://f24.my/2yjYFV

Do you remember all the work he did organizing TAM's?

It is unseemly to disrespect one's allies. I want to go on the record as saying I appreciate Jeff's work. That may get lost in the frenzied blog bukakke that often surrounds issues like this one, but it is still worth remembering. Jeff is an ally.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 4:04 AM

Had you read my previous posts you'd see that I actually have founded a skeptics group (we've been meeting biweekly since July).

And you've posted about representation issues how many times? The conversations of your tiny group have so tired you that you are distracted from doing great things? Is representation an important issue or isn't it?

You'd also notice that I was saying that I was fed up with the in-fighting

Amongst whom? You said you participated in said "in-fighting." Where? Liar.

and wish we could get on with the business of doing skepticism.

This, again, would be a false dichotomy, you twit, even if you weren't a liar. Which you are.

So I was kind of complaining about all the complaining.

Fuck you.

I also said "maybe I'm just tired and cranky" which I am.

You're a lying assclam.

I'm a single parent and I work full time and I run a skeptics group and help run an atheists group. I manage to do quite a few things at once.

Yada yada yada. Perhaps if you were more honest...

I have no idea why SC OM has taken it upon herself to call me a liar

Because you are.

or chastise me for not spending all my time here on Pharyngula debating skepticism, but it's not my job to visit the website she dictates nor do I consider Pharyngula to be the "frontlines" - I consider the frontline to be my community, but that's my choice. I enjoy this site and the debate but it's not my primary focus. I'm sorry if my post caused a lot of sturm and drang but I really can't figure out why it did. I'm frustrated with the skeptical movement eating their own. This very conversation is proof of it.

Lying liar who lies.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 4:10 AM

"The number of No Religions in the USA is 24% of the population, 72 million people and growing by around 1 million people a year."

And yet america is sliding down further in the toilet bowl every year
*shakes head sadly*

Now, i don't really give two shits about being nice to fundies, but to people who Are going to question things, let them question what they want, when they want.
By the way, the fact that Atheists have the bases well covered seems to me to indicate that Yes, it isn't entirely necessary to bring up the topic every week. As the Vice President of my club I don't find it worth the effort to keep mentioning the philosophical vacuum that is theology or the blatant stupidity of creationism/anti-global warming points. We simply do not have time for all that.

Besides, religion is Boring and stagnant. It is just the same shit for hundreds of years with the occasional heretic starting an even crazier denomination (church of Christ, Scientist, Mormonism, yada yada).

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 4:14 AM

doctoratlantis you have my nomination for OM this month (@99)

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 4:18 AM

I can't imagine that anyone could possibly believe that Amber has participated in these discussions in any context to the point that she sincerely believes it's detrimental to the movement. It strains credulity. In fact, I now have a torn credulus. Thanks, Amber.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 4:23 AM

doctoratlantis:

A lot of you seem more than willing to throw Jeff Wagg under the bus for talking about whether or not a conference is really skeptical or atheist. WTF?

Did you manage to read and comprehend the utter garbage that Wagg wrote? Try it. He's starts by moaning that atheism has a presence at a skeptic conference. Let's see, he thinks 3 talks dealing with atheism/religion out of 15 is just oh.so.excessive. How about you take your WTF and cram it? Oh, How about you take your WTF and cram it, please? I wouldn't want my tone to upset.

Jeff Wagg has been a tireless activist for causes that most everyone here agrees with. He says something you disagree with and you're all through with him?

Cupcake, go upthread and read Josh's post at #14. What Wagg does is continue to refute things which have already been refuted. Continually. And while it's important, it doesn't begin to get near the biggest con game of them all - religion. Wagg is not being logical, nor is he being skeptical. He's saying, "oh, c'mon, leave religion alone! Really, guys, religion is off limits!"

Do you remember him and his run-in with Denny's and the church bulletin fiasco? http://f24.my/2yjYFV

It seems apparent, in his own words, that he now feels religion is off limits. Skepticism should have nothing to say (outside of obvious cons, such as bleeding statues, which don't actually address religion at all, just obvious con artists). Seems Wagg has developed a soft spot for religion, as he states that skepticism cannot be applied.

Also, and? You want Wagg to coast on one incident, so his recent words on a subject don't matter, 'cause, hey, remember Denny's, man?

Do you remember all the work he did organizing TAM's?

And? PZ properly pointed out that if Wagg has so many problems with Skepticon, he can organize his own conference. Once again, you're asking for all of us to respect this person because of past acts. It doesn't work like that.

It is unseemly to disrespect one's allies.

Going by what Wagg himself wrote, he's no ally. Not even close to it.

I want to go on the record as saying I appreciate Jeff's work. That may get lost in the frenzied blog bukakke that often surrounds issues like this one, but it is still worth remembering. Jeff is an ally.

How about you kiss ass somewhere else? You dare to write "blog bukkake" after refusing to comprehend what Wagg said, then come here to kiss his backside?

According to Wagg's own little dictates, you don't make the skeptical grade.

Posted by: tsig0 | November 20, 2010 4:27 AM

Now we know why Jeff is an ex-employee of the JREF.

He's just pissing on his former boss.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 4:29 AM

BTW, I think "The Laughing Man" might be a banned troll. I may be wrong.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 4:35 AM

Rorschach, bite me.

I thought you'd never ask !! Where's my guest post, btw ?
As to this "movement", I imagine it would be difficult to run a sceptics group, exactly because there would be such defferences in what people see as the target of their scepticism, and in what would make them uncomfortable.If I had the choice, I'd rather run an atheist group...:-)

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 20, 2010 4:37 AM

When someone purports to be a skeptic but then cries foul when the irrational beliefs of his own religion are the subject of the skepticism, then what you really have on your hands is NOT a skeptic. What you have is a person who pretends to be a skeptic just in order to be allowed to make fun of other people's weird beliefs besides his own (akin to the Christians who criticize Islam but their motivation for doing so is merely the bigoted feeling that it's not Jesusy enough or not Western enough rather than because of an actual concern for the human beings it harms or an actual concern for promoting rational beliefs). You know - the irony is that such a person is being a skeptic for purely hateful reasons - "Hey if I call myself a skeptic I get to make fun of stuff that's not mainstream!" - but is usually the first one to throw that accusation toward atheists who are simply applying skeptical principles across the board evenly and fairly.

Posted by: doctoratlantis | November 20, 2010 4:39 AM

@Caine - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I did go read Jeff's post. It said that he thought skepticon should be called atheist con because skepticism and atheism are not the same thing.

The con is called "Skepticon 3: Examining and dissecting the pretensions of religion."

I think Jeff's right. I think skepticism and atheism are two different things.

I don't feel any particular need to kiss his ass, though.

But thanks for being a dick. It is very helpful and persuasive, despite what "some people" say. I mean I feel like atheism is a vibrant and supportive community where people come together and really work hard to make the world safe for secular rationalists now! I'm sure Jeff's work at outreach pales in comparison to yours.

Posted by: doctoratlantis | November 20, 2010 4:43 AM

@Caine - Dick posts aside, I like your photos.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2010 4:46 AM

Your mistake is to think Amber is truthful.

To be honest, I think she is truthful, if not very experienced in blog discussions.

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 4:49 AM

@Rorschach

I'm actually very experienced in blog discussions, however, I try not to be a bitch on those where I use my real name. I should probably try not to be a bitch ever, but sometimes it leaks out of the edges.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 4:51 AM

"Your mistake is to think Amber is truthful."

so where did she supposedly lie? Somewhere off the net? Because for you SC, that makes her about as untestable as GOD for your purposes. and since she is an actual Person, i'm going to assume she has integrity. so what's the vote now? 3-4>2? not that this is an ad populum, i'm just gauging whether or not it makes any sense for what is now the minority position to continue to repress decent, intellectual duologue.

Posted by: F | November 20, 2010 4:56 AM

I think we're having here a problem because Atheists want to own skepticism, which is a little silly. And this Really, Really has produced a ridiculously angry reaction.

And there it is. Yes, it certainly is silly.

Did this idea leave a parking orbit around Mars prior to arriving here?

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 5:02 AM

I'm actually very experienced in blog discussions, however, I try not to be a bitch on those where I use my real name. I should probably try not to be a bitch ever, but sometimes it leaks out of the edges.

Yes, definitely an individual who should be doing community organizing in 2010.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 5:09 AM

The Laughing Man:

He and Amber are being adults.

Oh? You think someone who responds "You're a mean girl, aren't you" is behaving in an adult manner?

Okay. My ghast is flabbered. Well, Amber uses high school flames and as a woman herself, is unable to address SC as a woman rather than a girl and you managed the almighty feat of resorting to sexist language by yelling "bitch".

Doctoratlantis (Atlantis, really?) seems to be of the opinion that a person who has done some things in the past they consider good should not, under any circumstance be questioned, no matter how moronic they are being in the present.

Nothing like high school grade insults, sexist insults and a lack of skepticism, eh?

Yes, I can easily see how the three of you fit together. What a pity.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 5:14 AM

Sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I should have used the term "dick"?

How anyone can manage to be both so stupid and so dishonest is a mystery.

Of course, we skeptics should probably leave it alone...

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 5:18 AM

@Caine,

I admitted what I said was childish and I stopped, because you were right. I did not receive the same respect in turn, so I'm going to have to call foul on your argument there. SC responded by calling me a liar, several times, plus a few other choice names in several consecutive posts (one of which was "fuck you"). You're being intellectually dishonest by ignoring that completely.

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 5:23 AM

@Caine...

And I'm sorry, if we feel free to use the term "dick" then we don't have the right to object to "bitch," both are equally sexist. Also "fuck you" I believe is inappropriate to say to anyone at anytime, but I didn't see you objecting to that.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 5:25 AM

Amber K:

You're being intellectually dishonest by ignoring that completely.

No, I'm not. Whatever issue you have with SC or she has with you, it does not excuse you responding the way you did.

I'm talking about the specific language you used, not confronting SC.

If you are the skeptical, rational person you claim to be, then 'mean girl', 'girl' and 'bitch' have no place in your discussion, period.

I understand being tired and cranky. I understand being pissed the fuck off. No problem.

As for you and SC, I am unaware of any history; and I'm not making any judgments based on her feelings. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm piling on, I don't mean to do that. Several of your posts set me on edge, so I responded.

I'll be going to bed now, so you won't have to worry about me biting anymore. G'night.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 5:29 AM

Amber K:

And I'm sorry, if we feel free to use the term "dick" then we don't have the right to object to "bitch," both are equally sexist.

And you'd be wrong. You'd be seriously fucking wrong. This has been discussed, in depth, here, more than once.

If you had been around, fighting on the frontlines, you might know that. At any rate, I really need to go to sleep, so you'll have to attempt to educate yourself without my help.

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 5:33 AM

@SC

You've got to be kidding.

I owe you NOTHING.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 5:33 AM

What pisses me off is the condescending and patronising attitude of the likes of Wagg.

He is in effect arguing that religious believers are so sensitive and unable to deal with opinions that dare suggest their god does not exist that they simply cannot cope. That is taking a pretty dismal view of the intellectual abilities and emotional intelligence of believers. It infantilizes by saying they should not be exposed to the type criticism and scepticism that he is quite happy to subject homoeopaths (to give one example) to. He considers them so vulnerable and unable to cope that he wants to wrap them in cotton wool.

Well fuck that. I will treat adults like adults, and in the adult world you better get used to ideas you cherish coming in for criticism.

Posted by: Amber K | November 20, 2010 5:41 AM

@Caine,

I'm still wondering who decided that Pharyngula is the "frontlines?"

But you're right, I have to be up in a little over 3 hours (really! I swear!). Time for bed. Night all. I can't say it's been a complete pleasure, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

Posted by: Noddin | November 20, 2010 5:44 AM

Arguing with these people is like sucking a slice of mango out of your Dad's asshole. It's completely nasty, but ultimately sweet.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 5:49 AM

The Laughing Man:

Sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I should have used the term "dick"?

Does the word dick mean male dog? I must have missed that somewhere along the line.

Did it once occur to you to use the word "ass"? Perhaps "asshole"? You see, everyone has an ass, everyone has an asshole. They are both gender neutral. How difficult would it have been to call SC an asshole? How difficult would it be to call me an asshole? I'll tell you, not difficult at all.

However, that's not what you did. You went right for a sexist word which is used specifically to demean and dismiss women.

I don't care if you call me or anyone else a nasty name. I do care about idiots who can't be bothered about their use of sexist language. The fact that you can't be bothered tells me too much about you. Now I'm sorry I welcomed you back in the endless thread.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 5:52 AM

Amber debated sexism for years with her cousin at Canadian band camp. We wouldn't know him.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 5:55 AM

Maybe if I gave a shit about what you thought

Nope. Regardless. Not about me.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 6:07 AM

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM, MPP The Laughing Man:

Sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I should have used the term "dick"?

That Wasn't me. And Grow up. Females are treated very well in this country and are actually more economically and educationally well off than the males, so you can stop the fucking charade of "oppressed woman."

Besides, you were supposedly going to BED. Jesus.

Posted by: SC OM Amber debated sexism for years with her cousin at Canadian band camp. We wouldn't know him

well i'm so glad that wasn't petty

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 6:10 AM

That Wasn't me. And Grow up. Females are treated very well in this country and are actually more economically and educationally well off than the males, so you can stop the fucking charade of "oppressed woman."

What do you mean by "this country". I note you cannot be bothered to actually specify a particular country.

Here is some advice. There are commentators here from a number of different countries, so using terms like "this country" shows you are not thinking and do not give a fuck.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 6:11 AM

Oh, and I would add that here in the UK women are not financially better off.

Kind of a lie to claim they are.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 6:13 AM

@Matt Penfold

I'm very tired. USA, there was an article in Time about it. Sheconomics, actually.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 6:15 AM

I haven't made any claims that can't be substantiated or that even need to be,

hahaha

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 6:17 AM

I'm very tired. USA, there was an article in Time about it. Sheconomics, actually.

Except women in the US earn less than men on average.

So the claim ain't true even in the US.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 6:21 AM

[meta]

1. Amber's conduct here seems odd given her contention and advocacy.

2. Laughing Man is derailing the thread.

[on-topic]

I find the claim that religious beliefs (such as the existence of the supernatural and its denizens) are out-of-limits to skepticism because they're untestable laughable.

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 6:26 AM

Indeed, i've derailed it. Sorry 'bout that. Good short summary yeah. We can move on nowz?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 20, 2010 6:44 AM

Ok, cupcake, this far, no further.I have entertained your frequent bouts of unhinged irate jumping on new commenters for a while now, but this one is well and truly uncalled for.I don't care what you say about me and my "bouts of misogyny", I guess you'll substantiate those allegations later ? No rush, hey.But while most of us would disagree with Amber on some of the things she's mentioned, I don't think we should just dismiss her contribution, or some of the points she made, on what goes on inside a sceptics group, and on the points they are debating. Now, as to my misogyny, put up or shut up.

Rorschach, you have taken the opportunity, many times, to call me names, to call other women names, simply because we've called you out on occasion. Mattir has mentioned your dances with misogyny on the endless thread, so has Ol' Greg and others. I don't have time at the moment, because I really, really should be trying to sleep (5:35 am here) to find all those posts, but if you insist, I will.

As for Amber, the post you decided to say she would make a great contributor here? The one where she defends her use of the word bitch. You don't find that a bit telling? Not even a little bit?

As for this:

I don't think we should just dismiss her contribution, or some of the points she made, on what goes on inside a sceptics group, and on the points they are debating.

What contribution? Her inflated claims of debating certain issues in depth and to death? She's refused to back that claim up. People have asked - all she needed to do was provide a link or three. Nope, no way.

As for what goes on inside a sceptics group? In one post, she claimed debating prevented her from preparing and forming said group. Then she said she already had such a group (and seemed to expect a medal for it). Her major "insight" into such a group was this: "I'm tired of the infighting." "I'm tired of discussing the same situations." That's not insight, it's not anything. It's someone saying they don't want to discuss central issues at all.

As for the points they're debating? Well, we got that Amber's all tired of them, because she's debated them to death, you see, except she won't say where these debates took place. She claims to extensive online debates, but...

Amber sez: "I have nothing to prove! I don't give a shit about you! I have debated, I have!"

Yes, that, along with her refreshing use of bitch and mean girl makes her a prime candidate for the frontline of debate and discussion. Yep.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 6:56 AM

Not mentioning names, but can we try and keep this thread on its wobbly rails, please?
If you wish to trade personal insults, or persist in ritual insult-combat, may I suggest that one does this via email, rather than clogging up an otherwise fine topic?

Posted by: The Laughing Man | November 20, 2010 7:02 AM

Thank you MKG, finally one to move the horde in a direction

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 7:09 AM

Oh dear, Mr. T.L. Man!
I sounded like a teacher there.
And only just "got" your very clever Pratchett reference to "The Silver Horde", replete with Mr. Saveloy.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | November 20, 2010 7:16 AM

Not wishing to get involved in the main debate here, but this...

Females are treated very well in this country and are actually more economically and educationally well off than the males, so you can stop the fucking charade of "oppressed woman."

...is simply demonstrably wrong, and rather ignorant. Just saying.

Across most of the developed world, women have significantly lower average pay, are disproportionately concentrated in less prestigious jobs, and are more likely to be pushed into dropping their careers or working part-time to "take care of their families". Women in public life, politics and the media are regularly attacked for their appearance and lifestyles in ways that their male peers are not. Women, to a much greater extent than men, are held to rigid media-enforced standards of physical appearance and dress, and are discriminated against if they don't meet those standards. Not to mention that women are far, far more likely than men to be victims of rape and domestic violence.

But hey... the Laughing Man says that women are "treated very well" in this country, based on, no doubt, his groundbreaking research in sociology and social psychology which challenges the scholarly consensus. And I'm sure he actually, y'know, talked to some women about their experiences before coming to this conclusion. Because he couldn't possibly have pulled it out of his ass based on sexist prejudice. Oh, no. (Perhaps he might deign to substantiate his comments with some evidence... but I wouldn't hold my breath.)

Posted by: natasha | November 20, 2010 7:19 AM

Caine, I'd also like to see the evidence of Rorschach being a mysogynist, actual quotes not other also accusing him of this. I've been reading this blog for a while now and have found Rorschach to be the opposite so I'd be very curious to see some evidence of Rorschachs mysogyny

Posted by: Aquaria | November 20, 2010 7:28 AM

Someone gets upset about "fuck you," but calls women "bitch" and "mean girls".

Wow.

The hypocrisy is as stunning as the cluelessness.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 7:31 AM

Mr. T. L. Man, if you want creotard in-fighting, the place to visit is USENET, not he intertoobz.
USENET is far older, and far more primitive, but distilled to the essence of textual argument.
I recommend it.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | November 20, 2010 7:35 AM

Just curious, but does this place get any creotards that linger to get bashed? Sing the sign in policy was instated, I imagine not so much :(

That's cuz they're too dumb to figure out how to sign in, :P.

Before then however, Alan Clarke was here for months until...well, you can take a look at The Dungeon page to see why he's there. There were also a few other creationists and godbots that kept coming back.

Posted by: Dan Hall | November 20, 2010 7:41 AM

When I was first intrigued by skepticism I was still religious enough to be shocked by the books advertised in the back cover of SKEPTIC mag. I would not have been comfortable at that time with flat out denial of Christianity. But following the interest driven by a year of reading articles on just non-atheistic skepticism and ordering a couple of the easier books (Like Sagan's "Our Demon Haunted World") led me to borrow "The Age of Reason" from the library. Imagine my shock reading Thom. Paine's words! Then and only then was I prepared to accept atheism.
I did not mean to turn this comment into my conversion experience but it illustrates my point which is that there are often stepping stones on the way to enlightenment. For many, like me I suspect, outright atheism would have frightened off. I see the point of maintaining some differentiation between skepticism and atheism. Let's keep the steps there for searching but slightly timid people.
-Dan

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 8:08 AM

@Dan Hall:
Your refrain is a familiar one.
It spans the gap between two "strategies", as it were.

1) The Intellectual Stratagem:
(Distilled) No gods have been shown to exist.
Theology doesn't work except barbarically negatively. Science repeatedly delivers positive results. What gives us our 80+ yr time span? Prayer or Science? Case closed.
Why lie about it?
Treat them like the adults that they plainly are.
Would you pussy-foot about when discussing their political persuasion? I hope not.

2) The "Faitheist" Stratagem:
Pretend that you know better than the poor benighted believers are less intelligent than you, and cannot cope with reality being revealed to them. Feed reality to them drop by drop, as the poor weak-minded buggers cannot cope with the faucet of reality running full blast.
This is the most insulting stance of all. Treating another adult as though they are mental children, whereas you have "grown up" and can lead them by the hand like a knowing messiah!
In other words: treat them like infants, with you being the master. that is not an acceptable form of interaction between sane adults.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 8:32 AM

@Eidolon:
I understand that the otherwise skeptical skepchick, Rebecca Watson perilously and possibly insouciantly but most enthusiastically defended Dr. Plait in his appallingly condescending and fact-free "Don't be a Dick" lecture to illusory nasty atheist straw-men. (None of the cohort of supposed evil atheist "Dicks" he has even vaguely attempted to identify for a reason I know of which:- in that they do not exist outside of his testosterone-fueled white-charger heroic-maiden-rescuer imagination.)
She may regret having done such a thing for a long time.

It takes an age to establish a reputation, but an instant to demolish one.

Posted by: paulparody | November 20, 2010 8:50 AM

A few years ago the "shut down your atheistic brain or else shut your mouth" command at the skeptics' conferences not only shocked me, too, P.Z., but it's the reason I stopped attending. It felt as though whenever I was involved in a conversation, I always had one hand tied behind my back. It was stifling. Apparently the current law states that we're not allowed to shout "atheism" in a crowded skeptic's convention. No thanks. Ain't worth the price of admission.

Posted by: boobcast.net | November 20, 2010 8:59 AM

Jeez, I hope none of these namby-pambies are there tomorrow.
#39

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay, Death's Case Manager Author Profile Page | November 20, 2010 1:21 AM

Jeez, I hope none of these namby-pambies are there tomorrow.

You can bet they will be. But you won't hear from them, not in person. True to form, they'll be too timid to stand up in public and argue their point in a forum where it can be rapidly engaged. They'll wait until they get home, twist their knickers up to 11, and write angsty screeds online about how they felt "wounded."

Oh HELL no. I'm here at SkeptiCon and I am anything BUT a "Namby-Pamby". My real name is Maria Myrback and I have shoulder length pink hair. Find me today and we'll discuss this in person.

As i said in my original post, my big concern is that people are pout off because they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group. Why should we care? Because we WANT this community to grow. I'm not saying that we should handle everyone with kid gloves. I'm saying that it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis when dealing with people one-on-one.
So find me today and we'll talk about it.

Posted by: boobcast.net | November 20, 2010 9:02 AM

Sorry about all the typos and the bad posting format. I wasn't sure how to quote so I just cut and pasted.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 9:08 AM

As i said in my original post, my big concern is that people are pout off because they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group. Why should we care? Because we WANT this community to grow. I'm not saying that we should handle everyone with kid gloves. I'm saying that it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis when dealing with people one-on-one. So find me today and we'll talk about it.

So growth is what is important, not truth ?

Odd view for a sceptic.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | November 20, 2010 9:27 AM

@Caine & Rorschach -

Just to make myself clear, I often think that Rorschach is abrasive, but apart from stating that bodies were sexier than brains, I can't think of what else he's said that could be interpreted as sexist. Even that was simply a statement of personal preference, rather than male privilege, and the discussion was about the sexiness of brains. During my first foray into Pharyngula, possibly using my old nym (which was also gender-neutral), he tore me several new orifices for my (mis)perceived sexism.

Pharyngula can be a pretty scary place to be a new poster, but none of you rise to truthmachine levels.

I think the best response to the Wagg silliness is to point out that Skepticon is whatever the hell the Skepticon organizers want it to be, and if he wants to try to do some other event that could draw 1800 people to freaking Springfield, Missouri, in NOVEMBER, he should go for it.

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 20, 2010 9:48 AM

My real name is Maria Myrback

...my big concern is that people are put off because they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group.

Why should we care? Because we WANT this community to grow.

I'm not saying that we should handle everyone with kid gloves.

I'm saying that it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis when dealing with people one-on-one.

So find me today and we'll talk about it.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 20, 2010 10:01 AM

Oh, my. Deep Rifts within The Movement. Movements.

Hey, kids, we could put on our own Conference! Yeah, we'll get speakers to preach to our choir! And party!

Posted by: Zeckenschwarm | November 20, 2010 10:14 AM

@boobcast.net:

...my big concern is that people are put off because they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group.

PS: To qoute, just put quote around the passage you want to quote (without the '*').

Posted by: oihorse | November 20, 2010 10:19 AM

@Matt P

So growth is what is important, not truth ?
Odd view for a sceptic.

Indeed. Growth is what wins politics and religion. Drown out facts and logic with sheer volume of noise.

Quantity over quality. It's all the rage. Just as long as *we* win.

Blech.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 20, 2010 10:22 AM

That comment from Waggg, highlighted by QED, that it is unlikely that Jesus arose from the dead but that there not much to say about it, is pretty pathetic.

One could say the same thing about claims that life on Earth was put her by aliens performing an experiment. Do you think Wagg would treat that claim with as little scepticism ?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2010 10:44 AM

You are, on times, more fucking tone than pissing argument, oaf.

Posted by: Marc Abian | November 20, 2010 10:48 AM

I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they're... disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

Right, lack of skepticism is a problem, so let's stop being skeptical about religion. Makes sense to me.

2) The "Faitheist" Stratagem:

Pretend that you know better than the poor benighted believers are less intelligent than you, and cannot cope with reality being revealed to them. Feed reality to them drop by drop, as the poor weak-minded buggers cannot cope with the faucet of reality running full blast.
This is the most insulting stance of all.

I'm not entirely convinced on that point. Losing religion is usually a gradual process. It takes time to accept the arguments, and it takes time to deal emotionally with the implications.
When you get people's guard up, they often latch onto anything to "win" the debate instead of actually thinking about and adressing points. At least that's been my experience.

As for insulting, so what? It's insulting to say people will believe in utter nonsense or that they'll fuck each other over for profit. But we know that happens.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 20, 2010 10:57 AM

boobcast.net #201

As i said in my original post, my big concern is that people are pout off because they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group. Why should we care? Because we WANT this community to grow.

So you're another faitheist who thinks goddists are too fragile to be exposed to the concept that religion might have some irrational features. "Oh no, Mabel, that person doesn't think God has a flowing white beard, now where are my smelling salts?"

How very condescending you are to both the goddists and to skeptics. But I shouldn't say anything more about this until you've found Mabel her smelling salts.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | November 20, 2010 11:02 AM

Atheists aren't the ones starting this argument.

Atheists are simply being good skeptics. This makes pseudo-skeptics feel bad, and then they lash out by telling the atheists to SHUT UP.

Then the atheists feel compelled to defend themselves, and then the skeptics sit around patting themselves on the back because look at all that vitriol coming from those nasty atheists!

It's just like a kid who pokes his brother over and over and over and over until the brother finally hauls off and punches him for it, and then the kid goes off whining that his brother is mean.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 20, 2010 11:03 AM

SC OM

Amber debated sexism for years with her cousin at Canadian band camp. We wouldn't know him.

boobcast,

But you won't hear from them, not in person. True to form, they'll be too timid to stand up in public and argue their point in a forum where it can be rapidly engaged. They'll wait until they get home, twist their knickers up to 11, and write angsty screeds online about how they felt "wounded."

Michael Kingsford Gray

Then why not post as such? I see this evasion as furtive and infantile. Others may make what they want of hiding behind a pseudonym only to reveal ones-self as though said pseudonym was for no protective purpose.

I have little interest in a codified movement. If skepticism has to define itself in a fashion that precludes atheism then it has ceased to be a means of approaching reality and has become as bad as the things it purports to oppose.

Posted by: Zeckenschwarm | November 20, 2010 11:11 AM

@Dhorvath:

boobcast,

But you won't hear from them, not in person. True to form, they'll be too timid to stand up in public and argue their point in a forum where it can be rapidly engaged. They'll wait until they get home, twist their knickers up to 11, and write angsty screeds online about how they felt "wounded."

Well, isn't that what all of us are doing?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 20, 2010 11:16 AM

More people believe in religion than in homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ghosts, vaccines cause autism, etc., combined. Jeff Wagg is all upset because atheists dare raise their ugly heads and spend time subjecting religion to the same skepticism as dousing and aroma therapy.

The accommodationists are alive and well in skepticism. Just like atheist accommodationists like Chris Mooney and Phil Plait, they're long on whining but short on actual evidence that "atheism is hurting the cause." So please excuse me if I feel skeptical about their ideas concerning the place of atheism in skepticism.

Posted by: iamnothouse.com | November 20, 2010 11:46 AM

Just a modification of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "No true (or should that be "tru") Skeptic would dare criticize religion/global warming/ESP/Flying Spaghetti Monster

Posted by: shonny | November 20, 2010 11:51 AM

Shit, that didn't work.
Forgot that the 'smaller than' is a HTML command.
Wasn't that important anyway!

Posted by: Q.E.D | November 20, 2010 12:08 PM

I gather these [skeptics] are people who debunk psychics, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and ghosts.

Someone has to because the nonsense keeps getting new audiences. It's continuing education.

That said, I entirely agree with Raven that the single most important target for skepticism is still religion.

This is what makes Wagg so wrong. He wants to protect faithead's feelings while their religions hate on the gays, prevent birth control, kill civil rights, meddle in politics and generally do their best to make atheists into second class humans.

Fuck.That.Shit

Posted by: BlandOstrich | November 20, 2010 12:18 PM

Skeptics shouldn't need to be through-and-through, skeptical about everything in order to be in the club. One should expect some people at skeptic conferences who haven't explored every facet of skepticism, or people whose approach to skepticism starts from credulity (clumsy, maybe, but a viable method with some advantages). Otherwise, what's the point? A "finished" skeptic would hardly have any reason to attend a convention.
On the other hand, these skeptics should hardly expect their pet belief to be off-limits to others. Sure, the conference could deconstruct Bigfoot, but what's the point? To parrot raven's comment, how many people have died in the name of Bigfoot lately? Religion is one of the most relevant and pervasive flights of fancy out there, so it makes sense to address it.
Either of these things - expecting total skepticism, as well as avoiding relevant and potentially sticky topics in favor of resolved ones, are masturbatory exercises. Don't get me wrong, masturbation is lovely. But I'd hope that in a group of 1,800 people there would be more stimulating options available.

Posted by: Misfire | November 20, 2010 12:42 PM

More and more skeptics getting less and less skeptical. Just call yourselves "alternatives" and go to bed.

Posted by: SheepdogB | November 20, 2010 12:48 PM

There is something that's puzzling me as I read this thread and that is the apparent problem with the perception of accomodationists wanting to "spoon feed" skepticism to people in order to avoid chasing them away entirely by immediately threatening their fundamental world-view based though it may be on demonstrably false assumptions and beliefs and held together by a string of logical fallacies.

In one way I consider the accomodationists reprehensible because I myself am devoid of and therefore opposed to world views based on mysticism, woo, illusory concepts of mind-body dualism, imagined cosmic consciousnesses, deities or any other imagined constructs not amenable to rational scientific inquiry and analysis and consider them to be evidence of a species-wide cognitive dysfunction. When I'm reading about the Jeff Waggs in the skeptic world my initial emotional response is indeed that of a "dick" looking at him as a namby-pamby knuckling under to social pressures-real or perceived and thus damaging to the idea of skepticism being free of artificially imposed limits based on a misguided desire not to "offend" and thus drive away those most in need of the instruction.

Becoming a rational skeptic is, I believe, a matter of choice and the question that came to me while reading this thread is this: Is the ability to make this choice uniformly distributed throughout the human species? Is it possible that for a number of people the emotional investment in a false view of the universe so deeply imbedded that the mere hint of a threat to it is so frightening that they must be put in a position where the ultimate questioning of core beliefs "sneaks up" on them and thus comes not as a threat but an internally generated realization? They " do it to themselves" rather than having it " done to them."

It may be possible, admittedly I'm speculating here, that the ability to make that level of choice with a minimum of psychic trauma is a typical normal distribution with those, say, two or three standard deviations along the right tail being the ones able to accomplish it with much greater facility than those who cling to one last "sacred cow" in the one to two range.

I of course could be dead wrong. I'm simply trying to come up with plausible explanations for what I perceive as the accomodationists "coddling" behavior.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 20, 2010 1:05 PM

Josh, Official SpokesGay, DCM,

Dhorvath, that was from me, not boobcast, and there was a context preceding it.

Ah hell. That'll teach me to post first thing in the a.m. Sorry to misattribute and misconstrue, I'd like to blame the lack of distinction between quoted text and new text in that comment from boobcast, but the truth is I saw what I wanted to see. Which was of course someone complaining on the internet about how other people will complain on the internet.

Posted by: Schenck | November 20, 2010 1:16 PM

It should also be pretty obvious that /EVERY/ religious believer is EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL, of other religions. Fundamentalist Christians don't also accept Sikhism, they have no problem being skeptical about that. So what does it matter that almost everyone is skeptical of all but one religion, and atheists are skeptical of just one more religion? To say that religious skepticism damages skepticism is flatly and obviously absurd. And so say that having a twentieth of talks at the conference being about religious skepticism is damaging 'skepticism' is idiotic.

If the conference goers assembled /en mass/ tomorrow outside the nearest church and demanded samples of a eucharist to test for human tissue proteins, /that/ might be bad PR, but skepticism in side of a skeptics conference? That should be /normal/.

Posted by: Lost in Utah | November 20, 2010 1:39 PM

Of late I am encountering an infuriating resistance by climate change seemly based on “God won’t let this happen to us”. This follows “it’s the sun” - no actually we re in a solar minimum. Then “its volcanos” - no actually volcanos emit around 1% of human emissions. Its “natural variation’ - well no we have ice core records going back 800,000 years during which time atmospheric carbon was 100ppm less than today. And so on. Naturally after beginning to discern the underlying reason, i.e. faith and not reason- one goes a bit berserk at this. What about all those killed in the Haitian earthquake? What about all those killed in the Indonesian tsunami? Better yet what about those 18 million killed by the Spanish Flu in 1918 or the million plus “Christian” men killed in one day on the battlefield in WW1? Your God let these and hundreds others events happen. What this says to me is this is not scepticism at all but re-branded ignorant fundamentalism resting on an unjustifiable sense of exceptionaism. What they are truly suggesting is either (1) all those people killed don’t count somehow or (2) and worse yet that me and mine are more worthy of salvation than all others before us. Are others of you encountering this nonsense and how to you deal with it?

Posted by: llewelly | November 20, 2010 2:23 PM

I think there is a serious error being made in this thread. People are assuming we can all be skeptical of religion. But no-one can be skeptical of everything. If you're skeptical of everything, you're even skeptical of your friends, which would of course drive them away. Therefor, everyone needs a bit of Woo in their life. Now, since no real skeptic wants to be accepting of more than one crank topic, we must agree to specialize. Some of us must choose to accept moon-landing denialism, some must accept global warming denialism, some must accept medicine denialism, and so forth. So I recommend we form a number of skeptic subgroups:
SEBA: Skeptics of Everything But Astrology
SEBIV: Skeptics of Everything But Immanuel Velivosky
SEBTFOM: Skeptics of Everything But The Face On Mars
SEBPBA: Skeptics of Everything But Pyramid Building Aliens
SEBCSD: Skeptics of Everything But Carl Sagan's Dragon
SEBH: Skeptics of Everything But Homeopathy
SEBSCAM: Skeptics of Everything But Supplements and Complementary / Alternative Medicine
SEBC: Skeptics of Everything But the Chupacabra
SEBL: Skeptics of Everything But Libertarianism
SEBJS: Skeptics of Everything But Julian Simonism
SEBGWD: Skeptics of Everything But Global Warming Denialism
SEBSB: Skeptics of Everything But Sylvia Browne
SEBR: Skeptics of Everything But Religion

Posted by: Zeckenschwarm | November 20, 2010 2:56 PM

@llewelly:

If you're skeptical of everything, you're even skeptical of your friends, which would of course drive them away. Therefor, everyone needs a bit of Woo in their life.

When I get to know someone, of course I will use sceptical thinking to determine whether they are suitable to be my friends.
Thinking sceptically about the people in your life does not mean distrusting them.

If you have good reasons to trust a person or a scientific theory, then you don't become unsceptic by doing so until contradicting evidence comes along.

Now, since no real skeptic wants to be accepting of more than one crank topic, we must agree to specialize. Some of us must choose to accept moon-landing denialism, some must accept global warming denialism, some must accept medicine denialism, and so forth.

Posted by: theswede | November 20, 2010 3:05 PM

But no-one can be skeptical of everything.

Everyone can be skeptical of everything. Skepticism is not the same as rejection, or suspicion, or non-acceptance. It means going where the evidence leads. If the evidence leads to your friends being trustworthy and you trust them, you are being skeptical. If the evidence leads to them being untrustworthy and you don't trust them, you are being skeptical. If the evidence leads to them being untrustworthy and you trust them, you're being gullible, and will suffer for it.

Your false dichotomy is worthless, and your observation incorrect. Skepticism is a basic approach to everything, not some kind of active rejection.

Posted by: Jockaira | November 20, 2010 3:26 PM

"it'll make skeptics who believe in homeopathy uncomfortable", or "it's diluting medicine and destroying skepticism"

I chuckled when I read this and my hat's off to PZ if he intended it. It was very punny!

Posted by: Zeckenschwarm | November 20, 2010 3:45 PM

@Dhorvath:

Zeckenschwarm
llewelly is playing games. Don't take it too seriously.

Posted by: Rincewind'smuse | November 20, 2010 3:57 PM

they feel that the skeptical community is demanding that they give up something that they hold dear to be part of our group.

Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death | November 20, 2010 4:24 PM

Skepticism is not the same as rejection, or suspicion, or non-acceptance. It means going where the evidence leads.

Now if only the evidence would lead us to believe this. Certainly the dictionary doesn't.

Skepticism
n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
Philosophy.
2. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
3. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
4. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
5. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

Posted by: Zeckenschwarm | November 20, 2010 4:30 PM

4. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Of course, the other definitions are valid too. That's the problem with ambiguous language.

Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death | November 20, 2010 4:41 PM

Well actually PZ prefers keeping the language of skepticism ambiguous. Like he said, he is against one acceptable definition of it. Therefore, ambiguous language is a solution, not a problem.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 4:53 PM

Screechy_Monkey - where you been? I missed your comments!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | November 20, 2010 5:16 PM

Sniff, sniff. What is that foul odor. Smells like a donkey eating sulfur farted. Oh, Franky-Sore-Ass.

Tee-hee-hee. Reminds me of a novel I'm reading where one character describes a woman as a "corpse in petticoats" and a "scented She-donkey."

Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2010 6:34 PM

I think that one of the big problems with trying to divide poorly grounded beliefs into "religion" and "woo" is that the overlap isn't just large, it's virtually indistinguishable. Aside from a few popular subjects which (usually) avoid any obvious connection with the so-called supernatural -- such as global warming denial, free energy, or holocaust denial -- we're basically talking about the same sorts of assumptions and assertions in both categories. It's all connected. Thought power. Vitalism. Mental causation. Souls. Enlightened beings. New Age isn't just pseudoscience: it's religion. And religion is a stealth form of pseudoscience -- empirical assertions of fact trying to do an end run around the systematic need for rigor while laying claim to an unearned credibility.

Michael Shermer has more than once mentioned that he's frequently approached by fellow skeptics who feel that a pet issue is being unfairly attacked -- megavitamins or 9/11 conspiracies or alt med. Add religion to that.

I was trying to imagine a situation on the other side: a faith-based charity perhaps with insiders asking their fellow theists to go easy on the prayers because otherwise atheists might feel "unwelcome." Maybe. Though I think that the atheists who felt unwelcome are much more likely to want to debate over the need for prayers than slink off and expect the nice moderates to make it safe for them to come back.

Posted by: articulett | November 20, 2010 6:49 PM

It used to be that a skeptics convention or skeptics forum was one of the few places an atheist could speak freely-- now some self appointed "skeptic experts" want to take away this freedom so that the faithful can feel more comfortable as they do in every other sphere of their lives. From my observations, Jeff's actions caused the loss of a lot of great skeptics from JREF-- not the atheists that he imagines are driving good religious skeptics away.

I don't consider "faitheists" to be on my side nor part of any cause I'm on board with. Moreover, I think catering to faith just prolongs the infantile delusions of the religious folks that are crying for this coddling. If their gods were real, why in the world would it matter that people lacked faith in them? It's only when they fear he may not be real that such scrutiny feels threatening. And the real threat comes from their indoctrinators-- believers are afraid they'll miss out on "happily ever after" if they scrutinize their faith. How can an honest skeptic be okay with furthering such a meme?

Why are the more ineffectual skeptics so insistent that their more effective counterparts "tone it down" and be more like them? Surely these "skeptics" must know that their personal "anecdotes" don't equal evidence.

Posted by: theswede | November 20, 2010 6:57 PM

I do think that it's impossible to be skeptical of everything. No-one has that much time on their hands.

Sure it is. And your heuristic is way too long. Mine is very simple:

Claim not fitting in with my existing knowledge? I don't believe it until presented with evidence I should.

Things which are important enough to me that it matters whether I trust in their veracity will require my investigation anyway, so cutting to the chase saves time. And if they're not that important, why should I bother believing in them? All that can do is cause me harm in the end.

And best of all, it takes no time at all for the things I don't find important. If you don't have enough time for THAT, you really need to plan your time better.

Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2010 7:06 PM

I was at the last TAM and button-holed poor Phil Plait in the hallway right after his "don't be a dick" speech. Okay, who specifically was he referring to? Did he mean PZ? Dawkins? The gnu atheists? His description of people shouting in faces didn't seem like it, but this is who people are going to think he meant, you know. I was "concerned."

As I best recall, he told me that no, he did NOT mean PZ Myers -- well, not really, maybe a little -- but for the most part no, he wasn't thinking of him, but some Others who had been and were being dicks. Couldn't pin him down on a name, but I got the impression (which others at the convention confirmed) that there had been some nasty recent arguments either on the Forum or at Rebecca's and Phil was addressing this.

What I found particularly problematic with Phil's talk was that technically he said nothing I found particularly controversial. I could simply plug in my own version of someone who just goes "too far" in being obnoxious with skepticism or atheism and nod along comfortably with what he was saying. But the heart of the controversy is where to draw the line, and I think Phil should have known this and either been more specific, or made more effort to distance himself from any misunderstanding.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 7:23 PM

Misfire, indeed.

Atheism is a special case of scepticism.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 20, 2010 7:33 PM

John,
Well, that came out pretty poorly. what I was meaning is that I have always found your comments precise, and this one really surprised me because I disagree with it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2010 7:37 PM

*makes note on a good list*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2010 8:14 PM

A person can employ reason without employing doubt.

Give up loser BOY. Adults acknowledge you are a liar and bullshitter. BOY...

Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death | November 20, 2010 8:33 PM

Sticks and Stones, Nerd.

John:
Do you maintain a distinction between rationalism and scepticism? If you don't, then my point is obviously moot

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | November 20, 2010 8:37 PM

In terms of scepticism for religious beliefs, I think John Loftus has it covered. I'd be interested to see someone who is sceptical by nature who has applied it to their religious beliefs who is still a committed believer. What rationale would they give?

It's like saying that someone who is sceptical can be an astrologer, because astrology is a position and scepticism is a process. They could profess to use scepticism, but I'd struggle to see how their position is anything other than the failure thereof...

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 8:55 PM

Frankosaurus:

Do you maintain a distinction between rationalism and scepticism?

The two aren't synonymous, so yes, I believe there is a distinction; that said, their relationship is very close. Indeed, I believe that scepticism is, in a sense, an instance of rationalism.

I here define each in my own words extemporaneously:

* Skepticism: The attitude that novel claims are not to be (provisionally) accepted without satisfactory justification¹.

* Rationalism: The process of honestly examining potential beliefs on the basis of the totality of available evidence and of pre-existing belief, via the process of logical inference² before determining one's opinion about such.

--

¹ I should note that I consider rationalism the only epistemically-justifiable method for objectively examining claims.

² Whether deductive, inductive or abductive.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 9:28 PM

Frankosaurus:

which camp would you place reasoned atheism?

What do you seek to elicit from me? :)

I've been quite clear, I believe.

If one's position regarding theism has been determined by rationalism (as per my earlier definition), then I consider that a reasoned position, which implies it was taken from a position of scepticism. Thus, I don't discount the possibility that some theists are sceptics.

I note that one significant key word in my definition was honestly; intellectual honesty is what I find (most) theists lack — and the avoidance of such (presumably due to consequence) is why I don't consider their position to be rational (indeed, I consider it to be self-serving wishful thinking at best).

They heed not Cromwell's famous plea¹: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

--

¹ A God-fearing man, he, who apparently did not apply this plea to his own god-belief.

Posted by: llewelly | November 20, 2010 9:47 PM

Lost in Utah | November 20, 2010 1:39 PM:

I am encountering an infuriating resistance by climate change seemly based on “God won’t let this happen to us”.

I've been hearing this as a standard response to almost any large-scale environmental problem for as long as I've been living in Utah, and capable of recognizing such a response. I take it as a strong reason to oppose religion.

I think there are two general types of strategies: (a) Attempt to dismantle the other person's religion. (b) Attempt to convince the other person that their religion actually requires them to be good stewards of God's creation. See E.O. Wilson's book Creation. (I had felt certain PZ reviewed it - I even thought I recalled the title of the post: "E. O. Wilson's wonderful book for other people", but I can't find the review, if it ever existed.)

I focus on trying to dismantle their religion.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | November 20, 2010 9:50 PM

SC @292:

In any case, the dishonest "noob" wasn't using it "repurposed as strength," so it's a moot argument.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 10:08 PM

SC OM, I did not say that she was using it that way, merely that the term is still around in some feminist usage.

Which no one was disputing, and has been discussed in depth.

And therefore its use is not sufficient evidence to damn a newbie.

She used it in a specific way, which was not the way you're referring to. And there are plenty of other grounds to criticize her. In fact, my responses to her posts mentioned that barely at all.

And I do think that you are being too hard on new people too soon.

I really don't care. I'm tired of dealing with dishonest assholes who show up to lecture "us" on what "we" should be doing based on false or exaggerated representations of what they've been doing.

I think that Amber's initial comment was vacuous (if you're genuinely sick of topic X, then just don't join in a discussion of topic X!) but not worthy of such a hobnailed stomping.

I think she was lying, and even if she wasn't she was minimizing significant issues with her idiot yadaing and "Give it rest people." But she was. And her initial comment was lecturing.

Maybe not, but Amber wasn't here for the previous discussions.

You're an idiot.

And the irony of you bursting out in self-righteous indignation about it

About what?

after flinging insults back and forth like monkeyshit from the get-go

Bull. Read my first responses to her.

was a bit much for my meter.

I'll try to live with your confused disapproval, random person on the internet.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 10:18 PM

[meta]

SC, Cath is not that random — she's both a regular here and has a presence on FB (the which those of us who are her "friends" are aware of).

She, like you, was but expressing an opinion (and, as far as I can tell, neither of you is 'wrong').

--

That said, I sympathise with your exasperation.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2010 10:28 PM

[OT]

SC, since you can't see it, I need to tell you that I'm blushing. My bad, due to carelessness and tab-hopping.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2010 10:43 PM

Did you really get a Molly, or are you pulling a Mark Kirk on us? It seems hard to believe after seeing your posts here.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 11:10 PM

Wow, what a stunning rebuttal. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

There was nothing to rebut. You hadn't made a cogent point, which you would recognize if you weren't stupid.

About using "bitch", i.e. what this whole sub-conversation has been about.

Which I did not "burst into self-righteous indignation" about.

Well, the first one was a sarcastic,

Horrors.

mildly insulting,

As was hers, to which it was responding.

content-free post much like the one I'm responding to now,

You would recognize the content if you weren't stupid.

which resulted in her becoming more annoyed and annoying and both of you quickly descending into the gutter. Wonderful discussion strategy you have there.

The gutter? Oh, my word. Amber could substantiate her claims and argue the substance anytime.

Did you really get a Molly,

Yes. I realize it's difficult for people of limited intellectual abilities such as yourself to understand.

Posted by: SC OM | November 20, 2010 11:41 PM

Aw. *blush* :)

Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death | November 21, 2010 12:49 AM

Say, why do skeptics require a convention anyway? I thought convention was the enemy.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | November 21, 2010 2:42 AM

Say, why do skeptics require a convention anyway? I thought convention was the enemy.

Posted by: Mriana | November 21, 2010 4:29 AM

Thank you, PZ! :) I love it! You have no idea what you helped to do for my neck of the woods and it actually made the news! I'm so glad you and others came to help make this years Skepticon one of the largest, if not the largest! YOU GO!

Mriana

Posted by: pasadena beggar | November 21, 2010 10:24 AM

I'm sorry to be a dolt, but would one of you be kind enough to explain what a "molly" is? And if you continue to be so inclined, I would appreciate knowing what "OM" means when it occurs in someone's name/address line.

Thank you.

Posted by: Victor | November 21, 2010 11:56 AM

As far as I've seen, Skepticon is (an always has been) an atheist event. So, a bunch of Skeptics go to an atheist event, then claim the atheists are taking over? Weird, but true.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2010 12:08 PM

I'm sorry to be a dolt, but would one of you be kind enough to explain what a "molly" is? And if you continue to be so inclined, I would appreciate knowing what "OM" means when it occurs in someone's name/address line.

Thank you.

Posted by: locka99 | November 22, 2010 12:13 PM

In the case of skeptic events I can understand why some people would rather keep them apart. Skepticism might share a large overlap with atheism but its not the same thing. There are skeptics who hold religious views, who manage to keep their personal beliefs separate. Having the militant wing of the atheist movement growling at attendees is likely to frighten more people off than it would attract.

Posted by: Ophelia Benson | November 22, 2010 2:32 PM

Good grief.

Nathan Bupp, formerly of the Center for Inquiry, picked up this post on his Facebook page, with a snotty truculent comment. He's been raging at gnu atheists on his page for the past week or more. (Or maybe months or years, I don't know, I just happened to see one of his updates about a week ago and then got interested.)

"Well lets see PZ, you and your gang have already hijacked the humanist movement, why not the skeptics movement as well. Let's just turn everything into a crusade for atheism. What movement to subsume next? Madalyn Murray O'hair must surely be smiling.....*somewhere*"

What the fuck is he talking about? What hijack, what gang, what movement, what other movement?

Posted by: skeptifem | November 22, 2010 2:47 PM

Is everyone else completely ignorant of why Jeff Wagg is formerly of the JREF? Hes fucking loaded. He got rich off of a lucky investment, and won't ever have to work again, and decided to give a lot to JREF. He spent a lot of time in charge of the forum (and trying to fuck his underlings, and other women from the forum and chat), but its not like hes a god damned philosopher. He isn't known for being insightful or something. I don't know why anyone gives a shit about what he thinks, considering.

Posted by: skeptifem | November 22, 2010 3:01 PM

josh@330

I loved her! No bullshit, straight to the point, established American Atheists and ended prayer in school. Whats not to like? Too bad she was murdered. : /

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | November 22, 2010 7:23 PM

All your skepticism are belong to us.

Posted by: skeptifem | November 22, 2010 9:53 PM

er- I need to recall the thing I said about jeff wagg and his money. I was wrong. Sorry everyone- it was something I misinterpreted from the past. the other thing I stand by though...

Posted by: graham martin-royle | November 23, 2010 5:15 AM

"harming the cause".

What cause?

Posted by: gr8hands | November 23, 2010 11:20 AM

Damien Tomeric @336, how dare you point out that Caine has a hair trigger response of calling 'misogny' even on other women. How dare you point out that SC and Caine were being, in your words "possibly two of the biggest assholes I've seen on the web in a while." How dare you point out they seem to revel in the victim status.

Oh, wait . . . perhaps because it's true? Hmmmm, we're skeptics, so what would the evidence support?

Right. Except that in the incestuous in-group things are always different for them and their close friends. So quick to label others, and then demonstrate hypocrisy by making the same kinds of offenses themselves.

Oh, and the immediate response of curse words only shows low class. Not intelligence, not anger, not righteous indignation, not linguistic dexterity, not accuracy. Just low class. I am surprised that isn't universally understood. Wait . . . I think it is, but those who hurl them perhaps think it doesn't apply to them.

Pharyngula is the "front lines"?? Really? Anyone believing that needs to get out more.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 24, 2010 11:28 AM

Well, John Morales, let's see . . .

It would need to be some place where, as you point out, skepticism actually meets woo -- which would probably not be a blog or convention devoted to skepticism (nor one devoted to woo, obviously). That would be for training or education/research, but not the front lines.

It would probably need to be public, otherwise it wouldn't be 'front.'

That narrows it down considerably.

While I don't believe that there is any kind of authoritative body who makes specific lat/long physical descriptions of where the 'front lines' are, I believe most would consider public schools to be one, daily newspapers, television news stations and programs, the courts, politics, public ad campaigns, public demonstrations, and other public forums where a wide variety of people view or participate.

I do not believe that every encounter between skepticism and woo is a "front line," or the phrase becomes meaningless. (I do believe that every encounter can be a teaching moment, if handled with respect of the persons involved, perhaps not so much their beliefs. We don't demonstrate rationality if we constantly explode into cursing rants, and our credibility is ruined if we make constant condescending ad hominem attacks.)

These are, of course, only my thoughts on the subject, and I could be completely wrong. I welcome other people sharing their thoughts -- which is instructive and helps us all learn.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 24, 2010 5:58 PM

No, I don't think it is public enough in the sense of utilization by the public, and far too small. This area is really quite niche (I've asked many people where I work, and socialize, and none of them -- many in academia, many atheists -- have ever heard of it, or JREF, or TAM, etc.), and quite antagonistic to those not in-group.

I relate this more to boot camp, or advanced individual training in the military rather than the front lines. Again, not every encounter should be considered front lines.

The overwhelming majority of people who look here or participate here are clearly on one side of the discussion. There are far too many people who just start flaming for real inquiry to occur.

And I believe that is what Jeff Wagg is criticizing. That tendency by too many in our group to lace too many discussions about theism with insults and not enough about rationality. I've brought a couple people to skeptic conventions on several occasions, and they said they were repulsed by the disrespectful and insulting things being said. I had to agree -- I would not wish to attend a meeting where I constantly heard how repulsive fags are (I'm gay).

That isn't being 'tone police' -- it is making the reasonable suggestion to focus on skepticism and rationality, and not merely namecalling others we're trying to demonstrate our rationality to.

However, I submit that such conventions are not the front lines, because they are designed for non-believers.

I do see that you're interested in showing that Pharyngula can be considered 'front line' -- and I'm certainly not an authority (nor can anyone or any group be), but in my personal opinion, it isn't. And that's okay, because we need a place for us. A safe harbor where we can be ourselves without needing to always explain.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted by: Randy | November 24, 2010 10:19 PM

Pharyngula can't be the frontlines because there is no battle going on here between truly opposing forces. The only fighting is conflict between members of the same camp. And while the exchanges get pretty passionate and ugly at times, the real enemy is not to be found among those posting here.