PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy

[KoihimeNakamura]

As for the special treatment of god beliefs, one example is the concept of faith based beliefs being separate from 'standard' evidence based beliefs. Am I wrong to think that when you consider the personal experiences you believe are evidence for gods (to the theist) you draw a different conclusion about the personal experience evidence for homeopathy the homeopathy believer bases their belief on? In other words, are you giving your theist friends a pass you would not give to someone else who drew their conclusion based on a temporal association the believer interpreted as a causal relationship?

Just as a guess, I would say morality based claims and claims that cannot empirically tested are in fact different from beliefs that can be empirically tested.

Also:

Am I wrong to think that when you consider the personal experiences you believe are evidence for gods (to the theist) you draw a different conclusion about the personal experience evidence for homeopathy the homeopathy believer bases their belief on?

One is an untestable ancedote (no effects) vs another WITH effects.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just as a guess, I would say morality based claims and claims that cannot empirically tested are in fact different from beliefs that can be empirically tested.

This requires a full thread to reply to. My view of morality is that it is a biological process, not a magical one. I'll leave it at that but elaborate on the concept further below.

One is an untestable ancedote (no effects) vs another WITH effects.

It's off topic and has been discussed in other threads, but to summarize, I don't buy the 'outside the realm of science' and untestable claims apology.

I think the mistake that has been made is twofold:

One, there is evidence all gods are mythical beings. So it depends on which question you ask, "what accounts for god beliefs" vs "prove gods don't exist".

And the second mistake is trying to deal with describing the real Universe by putting everything into a testable hypothesis format. Falsifiability is a concept that has to do with setting up a testable hypothesis. There is more to rational thinking about the rational Universe than just testing hypotheses.


The rational Universe is one where rules apply to logic and observation which give us the most successful interpretation of the Universe we exist in. If someone believes a white blur on a photographic image is evidence of a ghost, we don't set up some falsifiable hypothesis trying to test if the afterlife exists. We look at what the evidence says about the cause of the white blur on the photographic image.

If you describe a Deist god that supposedly makes no testable claims, I say that's just an attempt to move the goalpost off the playing field. I don't buy it. The description is a claim that a god exists. If you say you are only proposing that god could exist but you aren't claiming it does, it becomes a totally irrelevant fictional concept. I can look at what the evidence says about a Deist god. Logic asks, how would anyone be aware of such a god? History says, this god description only emerged after the evidence against gods existing began to emerge. And an analysis of how god beliefs developed in the first place provides evidence of a consistent overwhelming pattern, gods are fictional.

I don't find anything to be gained about understanding the rational Universe by describing gods and other supernatural beliefs as untestable. It's like saying science cannot test for the existence of some specific fiction. Well, d'uh. But is that a useful concept? It helps us understand a little more about fiction, maybe.

Where I don't find it to be a useful concept is when it is used to exclude things people believe in from rational consideration of those things.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

This requires a full thread to reply to. My view of morality is that it is a biological process, not a magical one. I'll leave it at that but elaborate on the concept further below.

"magical"? I hope you didn't mean that as an der..

(You know what? Outright dismissing the claim with a convient label? Let's call that Argument to Labeling. I dunno what it actually is, but hey. And since this needs a formal writeup

>>FALLACY: Argument to Labeling
>>DEFINTION: Summarizing something up in a derisive name or refering to concepts using terms designed to discredit it.
>> SECONDARY COMMENT: Even if those terms are not neccesarily derisive. Why? Intent.
Argument to Labeling [-10] (90pts left)

It's off topic and has been discussed in other threads, but to summarize, I don't buy the 'outside the realm of science' and untestable claims apology.

Argument to Labeling [-10] (80pts left)

I think the mistake that has been made is twofold:

One, there is evidence all gods are mythical beings. So it depends on which question you ask, "what accounts for god beliefs" vs "prove gods don't exist".

Confusing an deductive for an inductive (Absolute vs relative) (more formally: Hasty Generalization, unless you wish to present _all_ of them, or at least a good sample.) [-10]
"Absence of evidence != evidence of abscense" [-10]

(60pts left, but flag on the Hasty Generlization: so, it's 70.)

And the second mistake is trying to deal with describing the real Universe by putting everything into a testable hypothesis format. Falsifiability is a concept that has to do with setting up a testable hypothesis. There is more to rational thinking about the rational Universe than just testing hypotheses.

Wait. I am interested to learn how this hurts my argument.

The rational Universe is one where rules apply to logic and observation which give us the most successful interpretation of the Universe we exist in. If someone believes a white blur on a photographic image is evidence of a ghost, we don't set up some falsifiable hypothesis trying to test if the afterlife exists. We look at what the evidence says about the cause of the white blur on the photographic image.

Oh. Special pleading. More specifically, this goes to the problem of proving a negative. Which means both examples are of this. So, [-20 (2x proving negative)] 50pts!

If you describe a Deist god that supposedly makes no testable claims, I say that's just an attempt to move the goalpost off the playing field. I don't buy it. The description is a claim that a god exists. If you say you are only proposing that god could exist but you aren't claiming it does, it becomes a totally irrelevant fictional concept. I can look at what the evidence says about a Deist god. Logic asks, how would anyone be aware of such a god? History says, this god description only emerged after the evidence against gods existing began to emerge. And an analysis of how god beliefs developed in the first place provides evidence of a consistent overwhelming pattern, gods are fictional.

So you call a false fallacy even though that WOULD be a god claim because it also happens to be the one you can't test. Also, evidence required on the history and deist thing

Finally, and for the bonus point, I would like you to explain how the set of all known gods == all gods (-30 points, in order: Moving the Goalposts (redefining god beliefes), Assertion (History and Deism thing), Composition(all gods known are all gods that can possibly exist)

20pts left. (I'm also for convenience sake leaving out beliefs like Buddhism and animism. And any gods that interact through luck or other similarly untrustworthy methods (Since that would, hilariously, be a Law of Large Numbers problem. As well as the issue of determining cause since there really IS no cause in the random number domain. But, you CAN make a claim there that's at best, going to reach the null hypothesis.))

I don't find anything to be gained about understanding the rational Universe by describing gods and other supernatural beliefs as untestable. It's like saying science cannot test for the existence of some specific fiction. Well, d'uh. But is that a useful concept? It helps us understand a little more about fiction, maybe.

There's nothing lost, either. It's mainly the issue of there being no ability to tell.

Where I don't find it to be a useful concept is when it is used to exclude things people believe in from rational consideration of those things.

I.. see. Well, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"magical"? I hope you didn't mean that as an der..

No. It was not intended to be derogatory. It is a description that answers the question, if my morality is not derived from biology (and evidence morality evolved can easily be demonstrated), then where is it derived from? Does a magic sky man sprinkle pixie dust in the eyes of newborns? Do we pull it out of thin air?

The reason I say magical is to illustrate that it is either biology or magic. take your pick or feel free to offer some other evidence based source of morality.

The rest is getting off topic. There are other threads we've had this discussion in. In no way did I dismiss anything. I'm looking at the evidence.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

As this is getting off topic, I will simply say that you could have linked to them. And with the above false dichotomy, I will end. Not worth it.

 

[Beth]

I don't tend to use the word, delusional for theists. I would reserve it for people like the 9/11 terrorists or Dr Tiller's murderer. Falwell with his 'the Rapture is coming and humans are incapable of destroying God's creation' reached the level of delusion, in my opinion.

Okay. I have no problem with using the word 'delusional' for folks like Fred Phelps. It's applying it to all believers that I find grating.

But I wouldn't assume a talk asking if god believers were delusional to be gratuitously insulting without hearing what was in the talk. You've noted that you find any discussion of delusion related to theism to be inaccurate on its face.

No, not any use of the term. It's fine for descripting 9/11 terrorists and the Westboro Baptist Church. Using it when referring to mainstream religious belief is what bugs me.

Some people who believe esp or clairvoyance exists are also deluded and believe they have such powers. If I were to discuss delusional esp believers, chances are people who merely conclude there is evidence for esp would not be offended.

If you were to discuss only those religious believers who are delusional, mainstream believers wouldn't be offended either. It's the broad brush painting all those who share the belief as delusional that's offensive.

The quotes I gave as examples were not specific statements of theists, the quotes were intended to describe the reality of the situation. Do you not think theist skeptics expect their god beliefs to be off limits or outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

I don't think it describes the reality of the situation. I don't think that theist skeptics expect their god beliefs to be off limits. I do think that some beliefs are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. I don't see a problem with recognizing and accepting that some people knowingly choose to believe without objective evidence. I don't see this as a skeptical "blind spot".

However, I would characterize the insistence that everything is within the realm of science to be a "skeptical blind spot" since some things are not. You may analyze why some people find puns funny and other do not, but you can't scientifically say that yes, a particular pun is funny or no, it is not. That aspect is not amenable to scientific inquiry. The closest science could come would be to determine what proportion of people hearing it find it funny. That's not quite the same thing.

But discussing the conclusion theists believe in gods without any evidence has different implications for a skeptic. It is not a matter of drawing a different conclusion from the evidence. It has a different impact on theist skeptics than a debate about what the evidence supports. You challenge a belief on the basis of skeptical process, not on the basis of evidence.

As for the special treatment of god beliefs, one example is the concept of faith based beliefs being separate from 'standard' evidence based beliefs. Am I wrong to think that when you consider the personal experiences you believe are evidence for gods (to the theist) you draw a different conclusion about the personal experience evidence for homeopathy the homeopathy believer bases their belief on?

Yes.

In other words, are you giving your theist friends a pass you would not give to someone else who drew their conclusion based on a temporal association the believer interpreted as a causal relationship?

No.

 

[Quinn]

I ask this at the risk of doing nothing more than restating Skeptic Ginger's question (which I've struggled with myself), but possibly from a slightly different angle:

Okay. I have no problem with using the word 'delusional' for folks like Fred Phelps. It's applying it to all believers that I find grating.

Then what word would you suggest we use to describe the inaccurate (according to atheists, obviously) beliefs that are common to both Fred Phelps and mainstream believers? If we grant that "delusional" is too rude, then what other word for "believing in things that aren't true" can we use in its place? What about just plain old "wrong"? Or "mistaken"? Or "incorrect" or "erroneous"? Maybe "deceived"? Are any of those sufficiently inoffensive, or do we have to start making up laughably PC terms like "accuracy-challenged" or "differently correct"? Because if we can't find a word that can be comfortably used without apology or tiptoeing, then we have to start considering the very strong possibility that the real problem is not the terminology, but rather the underlying content itself; that telling people they're wrong is, according to many people, inherently rude, no matter how you say it.

 

[AlBell]

The old moral philosophers thought 'judge that ye be not judged' was a possibility to consider. They even wrote stuff like that in their literature.

If you don't like that one you could try: Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you comment on his situation; that way when he discovers you stole them you'll be a mile away and he'll never catch you.

 

[Beth]

I ask this at the risk of doing nothing more than restating Skeptic Ginger's question (which I've struggled with myself), but possibly from a slightly different angle:




Then what word would you suggest we use to describe the inaccurate (according to atheists, obviously) beliefs that are common to both Fred Phelps and mainstream believers? If we grant that "delusional" is too rude, then what other word for "believing in things that aren't true" can we use in its place? What about just plain old "wrong"? Or "mistaken"? Or "incorrect" or "erroneous"? Maybe "deceived"? Are any of those sufficiently inoffensive, or do we have to start making up laughably PC terms like "accuracy-challenged" or "differently correct"? Because if we can't find a word that can be comfortably used without apology or tiptoeing, then we have to start considering the very strong possibility that the real problem is not the terminology, but rather the underlying content itself; that telling people they're wrong is, according to many people, inherently rude, no matter how you say it.

Yes, those words are sufficiently inoffensive when used without other demeaning or derisive comments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As this is getting off topic, I will simply say that you could have linked to them. And with the above false dichotomy, I will end. Not worth it.

You could search for them just as easily as I could.

Morals Without God

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, gods are mythical beings

Nature has no sense of morals

Criticisms of Gould's NOMA


As for the false dichotomy, I asked you for any third or more options so feel free to offer one. I don't think that simple answer would take the whole thread off topic.

If morals are not biology or magic, what is their source? Here, I've started a new thread so you can answer it:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't disagree with your point about the term, delusional, Beth. But without hearing the talk with delusion in the title, and having one person who did hear the talk say it was an appropriate title, I don't draw the conclusion the title did not apply.

As for your perception theists are only offended because atheists are offensive (I know that is an oversimplification), that is not my experience. My experience is that most people are defensive when their beliefs are challenged no matter how politely the challenge is made. And skeptic theists are particularly sensitive within the skeptical community, I think, because they cannot defend their beliefs skeptically.

When you can defend your beliefs with evidence, confidence is not an issue. When your challenged beliefs are indefensible, outrage is one means of not having to address the evidence problem. It is human nature.

 

[FSMLovesYou]

Considering how religion influences politics, education, the number of people who believe it (alongside some fairly unscientific claims...) etc, religion should not escape the critical eye of the skeptics. Skepticism may not necessarily turn one into an atheist, but it does make one realise that various religions across the world make extraordinary claims about afterlives, reincarnation, spirit beings, ghosts etc.


"I still consider atheism and agnosticism religious beliefs"
They're not, the belief in a god is not in itself a religious belief. Is your belief in Jupiter existing a religious belief? How about blackholes? Being an atheist because you find the evidence for gods lacking, or agnostic (addresses KNOWLEDGE, atheism addresses non-belief) are not necessarily religious. I think you're misusing the terms, whether it's an intentional dishonesty on your part or not, I cannot determine. I get sick and tired when people misuse the terms racism, religion etc, they use these words in such a nebulous manner as to render them meaningless.

Now excuse me whilst I indulge my religious belief in chocolate being preferable to sex in my religion of foodism.

 

[Kil]

I have skimmed this thread. Going back to the OP, Jeff's concern isn't that religion was being looked at. Hell, I can't think of a skeptic event that I've attended where religion wasn't at least a part of the agenda. And that includes the last five Vegas TAMs.

What some of us are concerned about is the conflation of skepticism and atheism. Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion. Duh. A "skeptic" con devoted to (mostly) one conclusion could lead the media, noobs, and others to make the mistake of conflating skepticism with atheism. That's the concern. It's not that atheism can't or shouldn't be questioned. It's that the method shouldn't be conflated with a conclusion, which could be the take away if what is really an atheist con is promoted as a skeptic event.

Here is a local NBC affiliate news channel take on the con:

Atheists, agnostics gather for convention in Springfield MO

This kind of conflation is what some of us are worried about. Not that religion isn't beyond what we, as skeptics, can question.

To my thinking, the newscast pretty much supports Jeff's concern.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have skimmed this thread. Going back to the OP, Jeff's concern isn't that religion was being looked at. Hell, I can't think of a skeptic event that I've attended where religion wasn't at least a part of the agenda. And that includes the last five Vegas TAMs.

What some of us are concerned about is the conflation of skepticism and atheism. Skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion. Duh. A "skeptic" con devoted to (mostly) one conclusion could lead the media, noobs, and others to make the mistake of conflating skepticism with atheism. That's the concern. It's not that atheism can't or shouldn't be questioned. It's that the method shouldn't be conflated with a conclusion, which could be the take away if what is really an atheist con is promoted as a skeptic event.

Here is a local NBC affiliate news channel take on the con:

Atheists, agnostics gather for convention in Springfield MO

This kind of conflation is what some of us are worried about. Not that religion isn't beyond what we, as skeptics, can question.

To my thinking, the newscast pretty much supports Jeff's concern.

But the theme of the event was religion and skepticism. Would you expect to see talks on "How I resolved my god beliefs and skepticism"?

And would there be any other non-evidence based beliefs that warranted the same sympathy among skeptics as theism does? Can you picture a Skepticon with a bad medicine theme getting complaints from skeptic acupuncturists or skeptic chiropractors?

I understand your point about the process vs the conclusions. But I see no way to square the elephant god in the room. At some point god beliefs will more consistently be seen by skeptics for the woo that they are. As a group, we don't have the same trouble agreeing that homeopathy, Sylvia Brown, Uri Gellar, and ionic bracelets are woo. We don't worry that the JREF is an anti-S. Brown or anti-homeopathy group. The subject never comes up despite all the discussion of S. Brown or homeopathy.

The problem here is not the talks at Skepticon or the problem with the skeptical movement moving to predominantly atheist/agnostic membership. The problem here is the transition of god believing skeptics. Some skeptics can't let go of god, some skeptics are clear theism is not consistent with skeptical thinking. And a bunch in the middle just don't want to rock the boat.

 

[Kil]

Skeptic Ginger:
The problem here is not the talks at Skepticon or the problem with the skeptical movement moving to predominantly atheist/agnostic membership. The problem here is the transition of god believing skeptics. Some skeptics can't let go of god, some skeptics are clear theism is not consistent with skeptical thinking. And a bunch in the middle just don't want to rock the boat.

Some of us in the “middle” feel that if what we bring to the table is mostly rational and well reasoned, that’s a good thing, blind spots and all. (We all got ‘em.) The thing is, not all skeptics are atheists, and not all atheists are skeptics. I think that for most of us it’s not a matter of rocking the boat. If it were, then religion wouldn’t be discussed at most, if not all skeptic conventions. But it is. And I can name some very prominent skeptics who are atheists but cling to ideas that makes many of us cringe. (Cough… Shermer… cough.)

Really, once again, the main concern that Jeff was expressing and that I agree with is that skepticism should not be conflated with atheism. It’s not that religion shouldn’t be questioned. If a con has the word “skeptic” attached to it, it should be made clear that the focus of the event is about the method and not the conclusion. Otherwise there could be some confusion by those on the outside of our movement or by n00b’s about what skepticism is about. Some of us feel that Skepticon may have blurred that line.

Don’t get me wrong though. I’m not flipped out about this or anything. But again, I think Jeff called it correctly.

And hey Ginger, it’s good seeing you. Looks like yours and my positions on this haven’t changed much over the years. The good news is that we probably still agree much more than we disagree on most things skeptical…

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some of us in the “middle” feel that if what we bring to the table is mostly rational and well reasoned, that’s a good thing, blind spots and all. (We all got ‘em.) The thing is, not all skeptics are atheists, and not all atheists are skeptics. I think that for most of us it’s not a matter of rocking the boat. If it were, then religion wouldn’t be discussed at most, if not all skeptic conventions. But it is. And I can name some very prominent skeptics who are atheists but cling to ideas that makes many of us cringe. (Cough… Shermer… cough.)

Really, once again, the main concern that Jeff was expressing and that I agree with is that skepticism should not be conflated with atheism. It’s not that religion shouldn’t be questioned. If a con has the word “skeptic” attached to it, it should be made clear that the focus of the event is about the method and not the conclusion. Otherwise there could be some confusion by those on the outside of our movement or by n00b’s about what skepticism is about. Some of us feel that Skepticon may have blurred that line.

Don’t get me wrong though. I’m not flipped out about this or anything. But again, I think Jeff called it correctly.

And hey Ginger, it’s good seeing you. Looks like yours and my positions on this haven’t changed much over the years. The good news is that we probably still agree much more than we disagree on most things skeptical…

Hi Dave, good to 'talk' with you again too. Hope all is well with you and the Skeptic Friends.

From my view I see theists overreacting to being challenged. Some of them want a pass on their blind spot. And I see "faith based belief" apologies as contrived and as a double standard. I also think that when you allow that double standard, it can come back to bite you in the long run when you cannot defend some other aspect of critical thinking in light of the double standard one applied earlier to "spiritual needs" outside of the skeptical approach to understanding the Universe.

If it weren't for this theist overreaction, then I think the views of atheist skeptics would seem as uneventful as their views on anything else skeptics disagree about. The political threads are a perfect example. You don't see people whining that the JREF is too much of a Libertarian organization even though Shermer and several other prominent skeptics are openly Libertarian. No need to cough around that subject, people are not offended when Libertarian views are attacked or expressed because there is not that threat to Libertarian or non-Libertarian skeptics. Who cares if Shermer is a Libertarian, I'm confident he's wrong.

But theist beliefs are indefensible except through outside-the-critical-thought-box means. I really think it is this internal dissonance that makes theist skeptics see atheist skeptics discussions of the lack of evidence for god beliefs as threatening. And that comes out as being offended, feeling the need to declare the discussions excessive or whatever means they deal with the cognitive dissonance.

I agree and have said many times, we all have blind spots. Our brains are designed to fool us (guess we are happier that way). And I don't care that theists have their blind spots. But I do care that I should self censor my discussions of god myths. I don't self censor my discussions of economic theories or global warming science. And no one sees discussions where we disagree as inherently lacking in critical thinking. You can conclude the person who disagrees with you isn't being objective or is cherry picking, whatever. But when it comes to god beliefs, there's a qualitative difference in the disagreement. You are challenging the process the theist is using to form their beliefs. That's much different than challenging the facts or conclusions. And when one cannot defend one's beliefs, it is not uncommon to react emotionally, (another means the brain uses to avoid uncomfortable thoughts).

 

[Aepervius]

But you can’t prove that there is no god (you can believe it, but not prove it). By the same token, there is no evidence that a god exists; you can believe it but not prove it.

This. You definitively want to give a free pass to theism. If the same ****** logic was used to prove any of the Chi/Alien/telepathy/ESP/Woo/bigfoot/politics thingy, everybody would be calling them. But use the same reasoning for gods of all ilk, and suddenly it is acceptable.

No. Sorry. gods are on the same level as any other subject. Have evidence for it ? Fine, it will be judged on those evidence ? Have no evidence on it and still believe ? Well this is not skepticism.

Skeptic Theist needs to recognize that they are compartmentalizing, and that their belief is definitively not something special which one should step warily around, lest they get their fragile ego damaged. They need to admit openly that they are not applying skepticism on their faith. It is fine. We maybe all have point where our skepticism fail. But they need to accept that faith is their own point of failure, and not force the rest of us to thread around lightly.

Deal with it. You wanna have faith in something Bigfoot ? Alien ? Gods ? Fine. But a skeptic should not be given a free pass on one specific woo (religions) whereas other faith/belief are not.

*EITHER* give a free pass to *ALL* "beliefs" however absurd, or to *NONE*. I don#t see a middle ground.

please note that I am assuming we are still holding a civil discourse. Being polite in discourse is something different than being given a free pass.

 

[Aepervius]

Fine then tell me the actually names of the water structures that are commonly accepted in science and tell me why the theory of water memory should have never actually been published.

Going from one extreme to another, much ? I see where you get your name.

One can publish on the fact that water can stay on locally organized structure even after a molecules has been removed, that is fine. As long as one also realize how long those structure stay organized (microseconds about), that is also fine. On the physical point of view we are all peach.

One may *NOT* however get a free pass and pretend this prove homeopathy. For 1) there is no evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy for 2) the live time of such organized structure make it nigh impossible to have any impact on a biological body and 3) most homeopathy is sugar and alcohol anyway , so one water organized structure live time is irrelevant. And there are more objection but those should be enough.

 

[Kil]

But theist beliefs are indefensible except through outside-the-critical-thought-box means. I really think it is this internal dissonance that makes theist skeptics see atheist skeptics discussions of the lack of evidence for god beliefs as threatening. And that comes out as being offended, feeling the need to declare the discussions excessive or whatever means they deal with the cognitive dissonance.

I agree and have said many times, we all have blind spots. Our brains are designed to fool us (guess we are happier that way). And I don't care that theists have their blind spots. But I do care that I should self censor my discussions of god myths. I don't self censor my discussions of economic theories or global warming science. And no one sees discussions where we disagree as inherently lacking in critical thinking. You can conclude the person who disagrees with you isn't being objective or is cherry picking, whatever. But when it comes to god beliefs, there's a qualitative difference in the disagreement. You are challenging the process the theist is using to form their beliefs. That's much different than challenging the facts or conclusions. And when one cannot defend one's beliefs, it is not uncommon to react emotionally, (another means the brain uses to avoid uncomfortable thoughts).

Even if agreed with this, and the rest of your reply to me, it still doesn't address my concern about Skepticon creating an event that could lead some people to think (and it apparently has, given the news footage) that skepticism and atheism are one and the same thing. That's the concern. All of the other arguments will go on until this thing is resolved, and really, it's not as though I haven't heard it before. The beat goes on...

My focus is very narrow here. I'm pretty much saying that Jeff made the correct call if we are talking about the danger of conflating skepticism (a method) with atheism (a conclusion) in calling what is essentially an atheist convention a skeptic convention, even if religion is an area that is of concern to skeptics, which I don't deny.

 

[godofpie]

Considering how religion influences politics, education, the number of people who believe it (alongside some fairly unscientific claims...) etc, religion should not escape the critical eye of the skeptics. Skepticism may not necessarily turn one into an atheist, but it does make one realise that various religions across the world make extraordinary claims about afterlives, reincarnation, spirit beings, ghosts etc.


"I still consider atheism and agnosticism religious beliefs"
They're not, the belief in a god is not in itself a religious belief. Is your belief in Jupiter existing a religious belief? How about blackholes? Being an atheist because you find the evidence for gods lacking, or agnostic (addresses KNOWLEDGE, atheism addresses non-belief) are not necessarily religious. I think you're misusing the terms, whether it's an intentional dishonesty on your part or not, I cannot determine. I get sick and tired when people misuse the terms racism, religion etc, they use these words in such a nebulous manner as to render them meaningless.

Now excuse me whilst I indulge my religious belief in chocolate being preferable to sex in my religion of foodism.

This.
And may you be touched by his noodly appendage.