Anyone else bothered by Atheist orgs frequently using "reason" in their names?

I think they are drawing on reason as the opposite of faith. Atheists usually say that they need no faith, only reason.

I’d agree—faith is the accepting of truth/facts/etc without reason, therefore “Church of Reason” would be following the evidence, wherever it might lead you.

Don’t find it all that offensive.

Not believing in gods is more reasonable than believing in them. And I imagine that many of those organizations are more broadly devoted to skepticism and scientific inquiry (as opposed to just “not believing in gods.”)

So no, it doesn’t bother me.

And guess what? Not all ideologies and beliefs are equal. Some beliefs work better or are more rational than others. The mere fact that religions claim to be true or better than others is their main problem, anymore than the fact that political parties claim to be better than their opponents. The “chief symptom” of religions is their bullshit content, not their claims that said content is better than others.

Nah I’m fine with it. Atheists are a snarky bunch.

I don’t find anything offensive about it. As far as reason being the opposite of faith… well… that just isn’t reasonable. XD

Nope

I see atheist organizations as kind of auto-stereotyping anyway. Quite a strange thing to have an organization for people who’s only thing they all share in common is a thing they don’t do.

I am also always concerned that these organizations are actually religious in a way. Even though atheism is not a religion, it is not beyond belief that a few of them may try to make an organization out of it, specially ex-religious people, I always suspect that atheist organizations are possibly a new type of mini cult.

Then again, I live in Europe where us atheists are more or less left alone. If I lived in the US I would probably be singing a different song, specially after being subjected to faux news. Maybe its just me, but I see atheist organizations as a bit cultish.

EDIT:

’‘Atheist are as adapt at “unreason” whatever that is as much as anyone else.’’

Indeed, ever find your self trying to change the laws of physics with your mind? like when you push down extra hard on your remote control buttons trying to make it work, even when you know fully well the batteries are dead. :P

no more than I am a churches use of divinity purity sanctity or what have you. they’re just words, they have more importance and different meaning for some than they do others. live and let live I suppose.

I’m an atheist and I did not even know these organizations exist. Generally I am not fond of using the word reason because I think it implies theists are unreasonable. I also tend to not be a “joiner,” in fact I kind of associate joining with religion, so as an atheist it seems odd to be part of an organization like this in the first place.

Wow! That must have taken a lot of research into atheism. Are you interested in proving or disproving a connection between reason and atheism?

I generally find that organizations that are so specific in choosing a name or title are more likely to be the polar opposite from that name in their true mission.

People’s Republic of China-ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy, the only thing they have right is China.

Stand 4 Marriage and all the other “protect” marriage and family groups-really only their particular definition of marriage

Fox News-the news part

The Republican Party-originally based on Classical Republicanism that holds that the best kind of government is one that promotes the “common good” and the welfare of an entire society (Abe must be spinning in his grave)

So I guess you have your work cut out for you. Study all your groups and see how my thesis works out.

@Qingu
“And I imagine that many of those organizations are more broadly devoted to skepticism and scientific inquiry”
that might be right, but i’m not sure that entails them being more “reasonable”. I think community outreach and charity is a pretty reasonable thing (except when it demands conversion, which in most localized situations is rare) and churches do that more often than these organizations usually do. maybe, though, that has somethign to do with how society appreciates the atheists themselves.

@galileogirl

I’m more interested in disproving “reason” period; or, rather, a connection between “reason” and any particular organization at all as “reason” is a subjective term.

@Rsam, I think that’s apples to oranges. Giving to charity is certainly nice, and you can certainly make an argument that helping people and communities is reasonable, but churches don’t do it because it’s “reasonable,” they do it because they believe their god commands them to. They also generally do it to help proselytize.

I disagree that reason is a subjective term. Some things are more reasonable—more based on facts and logic—than others. If you don’t believe this, then you might as well not believe anything.

It bothers me as much as religious orgs using the word “Faith” does.

That is to say, not at all. While certain theories, such as Evolution, require faith of sorts, Atheism is as grounded in reality as possible: That which exists is all that exists. That which is unnoticeable to the 5 senses is nonexistent.

Evolution requires faith?

News to me. And every biologist familiar with evolution, I’d imagine.

Our present understanding of it does. It’s not precise, and we’re gaining more and more understanding of it every day.

@Sarcasm, can you give a specific example of what you mean?

I have a feeling you do not understand what our “present understanding” of the theory is.

@Qingu Arguably, it requires the faith/belief that science is the best way to explain the entirety of the universe (eg reality). Which for some (not only the religious) is ludicrous. Example: The Human “sciences” e.g. psychology, sociology, etc.. Those are all helpful in various ways, but still fall pretty short of giving most people any helpful way of understanding why humans do everything they do in anything like the precise detail we can measure out with a geometrical proof.

“More based on fact”—- “facts” essentially do not exist if they havent been acted upon or have something done with them. and when we do something with them, they’re usually toward a particular purpose. that purpose is almost inevitably designed by a particular entity, with a particualr goal. Those particularities define a particular “logic”. Ex. the “logic” of a basketball player heading toward a lay-up, doesn’t look much like that of a researcher investigating the habits of e. coli. Nor does the “logic” of a historian operate in a way completely analagous to that of a NASA rocket scientist.

Yes. I also dislike calling the religious or others illogical.

@Rsam, your argument in your post requires faith/belief in the logical postulates underlying the argument you are trying to make. Therefore, your argument cannot be said to be more “reasonable” than its opposite.

You’re missing my point. You argue that “reason” is superior because it is based upon “facts” due to your assumption that “facts” are an innately objective thing, thus tending toward an innately objective and scientific “reasoning”, and thus, superiority over faith/belief, indeed all other forms of thinking about the world.

My point was to say that such an assumption is not entirely different from a particular faith/belief when made at such a global scale—-remember religion too makes universal claims. Furthermore, you haven’t presented anything to suggest that “facts” as you posit them, lead to a singular “reason” or are any less subjective than I claim them to be.

Lastly, when you say that my argument requires a belief in my logical postulates, you are absolutely correct! But does that make it “unreasonable”? Only if you can provide serious work that shows that those postulates about the nature of “facts” are refutable. Saying they are just “as reasonable” assumes I’m trying to reason “over you”—which I’m not. I’m presenting evidence or concepts which counter yours in a fundamental way.

It irk me yes…I don’t believe religious people are automatically unreasonable because of their faith…and I don’t believe atheists are reasonable just because they’re atheists…

Reason is not a static concept. It changes with the intellectual zeitgeist. Atheists just use the word to emphasise that they don’t (most of us, at least) accept anything on ‘faith’ or any other pseudo-excuse for lack of understanding. We do not say we have absolute truth as the churches do, only that what we hold to be true is something we have thought through to the full extent of our abilities.

@Rsam, my point was that you are using “reasoning” in your post to show that reasoning is arbitrary. You are “presenting evidence and concepts that counter mine” in a post that is attacking the validity of presenting evidence as a form of argument.

It’s rather silly. And rather convenient that instead of actually presenting an argument why theism is more reasonable than atheism, you instead resort to cute metaphysics about the validity of reasoning itself.

Well, they need to remind themselves to use it a little more often and give up their practice of unreasonable, counterproductive polarizing rhetoric and antireligionism.

atheists and agnostics: reason and only reason, no faith allowed. thought should/must trump emotion.

theists: reason and/or faith. often belief that emotion can (maybe should/must) trump logic. (though they tend not to see a contradiction between logic and emotion in terms of their beliefs anyway.)

I have more of a problem with fake skeptics movement that takes skepticism to mean a blanket disbelief in the paranormal (with token gestures to try to pretend that they have open minds).

@Ria777 Why must a person believe in fantastical paranormal tricks to gain your respect?

@Ria777 Show me the proof, and I will gladly accept paranormal.

Actually, there’s a million dollar prize waiting for proof of paranormal.

And I’m sort of Fox Mouldery—I want to believe (that’s the emotional side)

No – atheism is science and reason, religion is faith.

@Rsam I’m thrilled my life is too full to be bothered about what athiests call themselves>

@grumpyfish: a creationist named Ken Hovind has offered a $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution. do you think anyone will win it?

@FireMadeFlesh: Why must a person believe in fantastical paranormal tricks to gain your respect?

it doesn’t have to do with believing in the paranormal. it has to do with appropriating the term “skeptical”.

@Ria777 So you’re saying a ‘sceptic’ who does not believe in the supernatural or paranormal should instead call themselves atheist?

I’m not really familiar with the fake sceptics movement you refer to; although I am an atheist, I avoid organised groups because they tend to focus on continually disproving gods rather than dealing with the amazing results of realising that fact. They never seem to move on from disproofs to the philosophical impact of the disproofs on ethics etc. which is what really interests me.

@FireMadeFlesh: disbelieving in the paranormal doesn’t always believe disbelieving in god(s). (you may smugly dissect this logical fallacy at your leisure. OTOH, I count myself as as an agnostic and I do believe in the paranormal.)

by fake skeptics I mean James Randi and his group CSICOP. those guys. though I have found to my happy surprise UK self-described skeptics actually have a genuinely skeptical attitude.

fairly random fact: a group of indian atheists like to show that they can replicate various miracles while chanting, “no God! no God!” hardcore! (information from the book Net of Magic by Lee Siegel, a book all about indian conjurers/bullshit artists.

@Ria777 That sounds like an interesting book. I’ll have to have a look at it.

@Ria777 I hadn’t heard of Ken Hovind’s prize before now, although he seems to be striking a rather higher bar than the JREF prize:

—
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
—

vs.

—
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”
—

I do accept that the JREF is probably the most vocal/outspoken skeptic group that I know of, but considering that JREF is happy to keep testing people under mutually agreed upon terms, I don’t see why you consider them to be, essentially, offering token skepticism. Would like to know more!

Hovind’s offer was an unwinnable publicity stunt. Whereas there is no evidence to suggest that the offer made by James Randi is anything but legitimate and theoretically winnable.

Perhaps RIA777 could define what he/she means by “paranormal”, provide just a single example of what paranormal activity he/she thinks has sufficient evidence to warrant belief, and specify what that evidence is.

Why are we even bothering to discuss Kent Hovind the guy is not only an ass but a criminal ass at that, this is the guy that thought you could cover the earth with one drop of water

@Critter38: Hovind’s offer was an unwinnable publicity stunt. Whereas there is no evidence to suggest that the offer made by James Randi is anything but legitimate and theoretically winnable.

JR gets to set the conditions of the test. he has the power to veto the test on that basis. another unwinnable publicity stunt, in other words. JR’s test also implicitly ignores the evidence of the paranormal which don’t and can never occur under laboratory conditions.

@RareDenver: if you think that I agree with him, you have missed my point.

@Critter38: okay. I’ll recycle the ones I used a few weeks ago.

number one, the idea of a human aura. the human body does, in fact, have one. it emits photons mystics have always claimed this. now science has verified it.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006256

two, Gurdjieff’s assertion that humans have three brains, each with a specific function. biology has subsequently backed up this one.

three, the existence of mysterious black triangle UFO’s. (I have seen one.) the u.s. government had not yet revealed, at that stage, that stealth aircraft existed.

fourth, OOParts.

fifth, placebos and nocebos, including the kind that can kill you.

@Ria777 Excellent! Now we’re having a discussion =)

(1) Yes, the body emits photons, anything warm does. This: http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006256&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006256.g001 doesn’t look like an aura to me. And I can see auras. And I can tell you, it’s not paranormal. It’s a subconscious back-channel—incredibly cool if you can hook into it.

(2) Link?

(3) UFO’s aren’t paranormal, even if they are extraterrestrial. And, are you saying you saw a black triangle stealth aircraft? They had been around since the 70’s.

(4) I have yet to find a credible OOPA—do you have a good example?

(5) You’re saying that they work through placebo effect, or don’t work through placebo effect?

some good works on paranormality that still remains unexplained:

* Confrontrations by Jacques Vallee. he went to Brazil to investigate apparent EM discharges, injuries and deaths by UFO’s.
* Electric UFO’s (and others) by Albert Budden. another EM and UFO’s books. Budden says that EM discharges cause UFO’s and related phenomena, including hallucinations of humanoid figures.
* Visions, Apparitions, Alien Visitors by Hilary Evans. particularly good for describing bedroom invaders and deathbed apparitions.

@Ria777 Cool, my library doesn’t have Electric UFO’s, or Visions, but I’ve requested another two books from Hilary Evans on similar subjects.

1) if it had do with emitting photons like any warm object, why would they have published a paper about it? (actually more than one paper. apparently this has gotten discovered and re-discovered more than once by different researchers.)

2) Google “three brains”, Gurdjieff, “reptile brain”. you’ll find some links easily enugh.

3) whoah, whoah… let me state that I never called UFO’s extraterrestrial. UFO investigators have other theories other than the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis). I do think that ET UFO’s would count as paranormal because the theory goes outside of consensus reality. UFO’s in general, actually.

the principal thing I want to convey: UFO believers noticed black triangles in the sky before the u.s. government admitted they had them. (they also discovered Area 51 before the u.s. government admitted that that existed.)

4) Google about for it. (sorry.)

5) the placebo and nocebo effect itself remains unexplained.

@grumpyfish: try worldcat.org for libraries and ABEBooks.com and Bookfinder.com for used copies.

(1) I re-read it, and I agree, it’s specifically not thermal emissions. However, I’m not convinced that’s what people mean when they see an aura. Would be a fascinating study to do however—if their detector and someone who sees auras see hot spots in the same place. . .

(2) Will do!

(3) Okay, I’ll buy your point. =) Just to be clear, you’re saying that these sightings occurred prior to the since-declassified start dates for the programs?

(4) I have—and everything I’ve read about OOPA’s makes me think that they’re either misidentified objects, hoaxes, or frauds. I was hoping you had a good example of one.

(5) Unexplained doesn’t mean paranormal, at least not in my book.

That may be part of the problem here—if you see anything unexplained by science as paranormal, and I see anything that violates the known laws of science as paranormal, we’re going to have to stretch far to find common ground.

Anyway—very interested to read the books you mentioned above. I find this stuff really fascinating.

3) I don’t know when they officially revealed them.

4) could you go into some of the specific cases and your alternative explanations?

5) I guess I used a broad definition. the reverse (paranormal equals unexplained) does not always apply.

Cool, I read Jacques Vallee’s Confrontations. That’s an excellent book, and by far the most rational and level headed approach to UFO phenomenon. The simple fact that he came to no conclusions in the book is telling in itself. I think I’m in agreement with him that we just don’t have enough information available to determine what is going on. It, however, very fascinating.

OOPA: Similar to Mr. Vallee’s findings, it’s hard to discover what’s been authenticated and what’s simply made up.

Coso Artifact: Easily explained by a rusting metal object in the ground for 40 years.

Dropa Discs: No evidence any of this actually happened, or the people mentioned in the story existed.

South African Spheres: 2.8 billion old grooved spheres, really cool, but naturally occuring pyrite nodules, and very few are all that spherical or grooved. Non-metallic, not unreasonably hard.

Iron Pillar of Delhi: 1600 year old “unprotected” iron pillar—made using rather advanced forge-welding techniques, and due to the chemical composition of the iron has a corrosion resistant surface film.

Any others you’re specifically thinking of?