Hello, I wanted to get a discussion in the group on what stances we should take officially as a group and what methods we should use to encourage reasonable scientific perspectives. So if you have any ideas please comment below.

I would say we should hold a firm stance as a group against:
1. Psychic powers
2. ESP/ Remote Viewing
3. Ghosts
4. Homeopathy
5. Bigfoot
6. Loch Ness Monster
7. Roswell style UFOs

I would also say that the group should hold a weak stance on the existence of higher powers. Meaning that it is not officially a group position but individuals are encouraged to take this stance. The reason why I feel that the group should function in this way so as to not alienate members.

As for methods I think there are four routes the group can take.

1. Hardline rebuttals - just reply with the facts and the links to verify the facts. I feel that this can get tiring as "true believers" tend not to be open to new ideas.

2. Hardline ridicule - Sometimes ridicule can be an effective tool, think Flying Spaghetti Monster. My only concern here is that this may hurt our image.

3. Weak Suggestion - Say that a supernatural approach might be right but there is a viable natural alternative that also could fit the story - The problem here is that it allows room for true believers to spout "absolute truth" without challenge.

4. Hardline Suggestion - Show why a supernatural approach does not work while a natural one does - Again this is a slight mixture of tedious work and image hurting.

Now this list is merely a suggestion. Comment if you have any ideas. What do you think we should stand against and how?

Personally, I don't get pissed off or annoyed by people talking about supernatural stuff like UFOs and ghosts, but there are countless things in this world that are left unexplained. For example, people in the past thought lightning was the work of god (or something along the lines of that), but several hundred/thousand years later we learn it's related to electricity. Using this pattern, we can say, perhaps, that one day we will come to an understanding of some of the phenomena we're currently experiencing. The theories put forth about many of the unexplained are interesting, like how ghosts represent spirits of dead people, but they have to find concrete proof of it.

The ideas we currently have about the unexplained are interesting and I think is necessary to finding the answer - exploring different hypotheses, but they should be proven to answer our questions. To say that it's a fact that ghosts are spirits without proof is stupid; you have to prove it, and heck those people might just be right all along. Besides, I'm interested in ghosts and UFO's and I certainly would like to find out what they really are. I sometimes find entertainment in watching ghost videos on YouTube.

I'm not sure which category this would fall into. I thought if I typed my thoughts out I might be able to fit it into one of the 4 categories above but looking at it again I can't seem to.

@~Longbow

*nod* I agree with you on the issue of the burden of proof. aka If you make a claim you have the responsibility prove it. I couldn't really think on how to incorporate that in my first statement. Also if those categories are just ideas I had to generalize different ways to address issues. If you have a different ways of conveying information that more than fine.

Religion has always attacked science, reason, logic, and rational thought! 'Faith' would require you to give up most common sense and or logic in order to believe in something that cannot be factually/scientifically proven. Religion and the bible is more than just very questionable; for this reason 'faith' must be applied to these ancient outdated theories created by man in those times who were no smarter than today's typical 2nd grader in order to make what [they] preach (not believable), but unquestioned. Because 'god and the bible' are (the Unquestionable [[truth]]).

Truths are not to be questioned because they are factually proven. But has any form of religion been proven? So can it really be a truth? Umm... No? From a religious aspect, Reason and logic MUST be sacrificed in order for faith to be. That is why its called faith. You have faith in it NO matter what. (Even if it can't be proven) Sad isn't it?

I live by science and fact versus religion and 'beliefs'. I'd rather work and live by what is going get me by in life. I need to work, thus I must work to make money, this is a fact. Believing in a deity to make food fall from the sky isn't going to happen anytime soon, this too is fact. My Sources is Self-knowledge and logic.

Religion and science wad been at war for years now.

About if Religion is true...that's about what you believe in.

Like Nehie, I live by science and fact.

The problem is the foundation of "religion". Even at the very start, it was a sin for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Religion is afraid of the growing education and knowledge. It directly threatens it. Which is the reason why religion has always striven to keep the people under-educated and dumb.

@~Izzy4

I agree with you, I would go farther and say that religion wants to keep people dependent in the religion and one of the ways of doing that is to keep the people under-educated and dumb.

I have this to say, if gods or deities existed, I wouldn't be able to doubt that they did, as the evidence would be overwhelming, but since I do have doubts and that their's hardly any tangible evidence of their existence (faith is not proof), then I have more than enough reasons to be an unbeliever.

The world can do better without the destructive influence of religion and superstition.

Ohh yes, I would agree. If there was good evidence there would be no smart atheists (although there might still be some smart anti-theists left)

Yeah, I guess the way I have seen it is that there are lots of opposing religions, none of which can be proved, but there is only one science, and it can be proved, and I can reproduce that experiment to try and get the same results.

A good website if you haven't seen it is here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

It has a good argument about why God has never healed amputees even though he has "supposedly" healed all other illnesses like cancer and even cured aids, but guess what, he has NEVER healed an amputated limb. Is that because he is unwilling and thus malevolent or is it because he is unable? Why does he discriminate against amputees?