Skeptic groups trying to marginalize atheists

[Cain]

I found this interesting:

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/10/25/skeptic-groups-try-to-exorcise-their-atheists/

Those of you who read this blog on a regular basis probably have an idea about my schedule and why I'm not as active with local skeptical groups as I probably should be. But I'm still active enough to hear things coming from older skeptical organizations and their complaints about kids today. Primarily that too many of them stick to computers and social media, not enough go to meetings and events sponsored by these skeptical groups, and that there are just too many of those darn atheists showing up at meetings and wanting to talk about their atheism thanks for Hitchens and Dawkins and Myers. And for some, that last problem is so bad, they try their hardest to declare that their skeptical groups do not endorse atheists or atheism lest any would-be member have to bear the horrible, terrible social stigma of being thought an atheist. One wonders if they'll start putting how few atheists there should be at their meetings right on the flyers advertising their next big meet-up...

Here's the issue. We all know that there's been a steep rise in atheists thanks to today's trendy atheist books and campaigns urging them to come out and give theists a piece of their mind. And often times, new converts tend to be the most zealous and vocal while those who've lived with a certain worldview for a while are usually more relaxed. I've written about the pros and cons of uptick in new atheists before, and I'm aware that there are plenty of young, amped up atheists on the warpath and so focused on their newfound or newly reinvented atheism that it's all they want to talk about. These are the people old guard skeptics would like to keep farther away from their meetings because they don't want their groups turning into an atheist book club. And to some extent, that's perfectly fair. Skeptical groups are supposed to teach critical thinking and apply it to topics where very little of it is being shown, from old and repugnant frauds like psychics who claim to talk to the dead, to the modern pseudoscientific, quasi-religious UFOlogists and alien conspiracy theorists. Skeptics are under no obligation to let atheists hijack the proceedings to talk about, say, Hitchens' latest columns and we need to be aware of the fact. We're not excused from having some basic social graces because we're atheists.

More at the link.  Seems there is plenty of blame on both sides, mostly stemming from new atheists being all fired up on converting the unbeliever and not shutting up about it, and skeptic groups snubbing them in the least tactful way possible.

[eighteen buddha strike]

I've always been one of those that find militant atheists just as irritating as their theist counterparts.

[Kai]

Theres only so much I can hear about atheism before I don't need to hear any more.

"We disbelieve in any and all gods" is enough.

Anything more than that is simply redundant. Atheists who find it hard to talk about anything else are annoying.

Edit: Notice that's all PZ Myers talks about anymore? Yeah. So much for science blogging.

[Cain]

Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believve.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homoepathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

[Faust]

Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believe.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homeopathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

Isn't that kind of what we do here?
Atheism is unfortunately the new fashion and attracts a lot of people who rebel to one degree from the norm and then stop thinking. Which is a shame because some older atheists have incredibly strange and interesting views on the topic.
I consider myself agnostic only because the word 'god' doesn't have a proper definition, its not rooted to any observable effect or quality that can be tested so to debate for or against the existence of one is meaningless and goes against intellectual honesty.

[Stelpa]

I've always been one of those that find militant atheists just as irritating as their theist counterparts.

Obligatory comic: http://xkcd.com/774/

[LMNO]

Perhaps I'm only repeating what Faust just said, but I usually consider myself an Agnostic because there are far more things that I don't know than things I do know.

[Cain]

Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believe.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homeopathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

Isn't that kind of what we do here?

Kind of, but not as well as many people could, I'm sure.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If we replace Skeptic Meetings with PD.com and Atheists with Pinealists... I think we see some interesting similarities.

[Doktor Howl]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

[Elder Iptuous]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

[Doktor Howl]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I concur with Dok. Science is good at answering questions with observable data. There is nothing observable in the God Debate, therefore there is nothing science can say... other than "Uhhh, can't observe/measure it."

Skeptics, take a 'prove it' position. If you make a claim, you must provide adequate proof of that claim. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are both claims, neither of which have anything approaching proof. Therefore the skeptical position is "Come back when you've got some proof to go with your claim, we're busy skewering Sylvia Browne right now."

[Doktor Howl]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I concur with Dok. Science is good at answering questions with observable data. There is nothing observable in the God Debate, therefore there is nothing science can say... other than "Uhhh, can't observe/measure it."

Skeptics, take a 'prove it' position. If you make a claim, you must provide adequate proof of that claim. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are both claims, neither of which have anything approaching proof. Therefore the skeptical position is "Come back when you've got some proof to go with your claim, we're busy skewering Sylvia Browne right now."

THIS.  EXACTLY, PRECISELY THIS.

Debunking psuedoscience is important for society.  Attacking peoples' religious beliefs doesn't serve that end, and in fact makes it fucking impossible to get 80% of the population to listen to any other argument you may have.

[Faust]

It's nice to see some people who share my view, I always get accused of fence sitting when I try to explain my view. As dok said, it cannot be tested via the scientific method so to me it would be violating intellecual honesty to assume a position. 
It's not like either position should they be true changes anything at all.