Summary: Let us examine the world of the skeptic. This is a person who has dedicated himself to exposing the flawed belief systems of others. I myself am a recovering skeptic, so I understand the philosophy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us examine the world of the skeptic. This is a person who has dedicated himself to exposing the flawed belief systems of others. I myself am a recovering skeptic, so I understand the philosophy: Humans would be capable of great things if only they were freed of their ridiculous religions, silly paranormal beliefs, and self-destructive fallacies. The skeptic takes it upon himself to debunk UFOs, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, popular entertainment, national politics and television evangelists. Most of his debunking takes place in front of the television, where his derisive comments are heard (and bravely tolerated) only by the people in the room, but if he has more time and initiative, he will write articles for The Skeptical Enquirer describing his investigation of the Face on Mars and how it is, in fact, little more than a random formation of rocks construed by idiots to be some sort of alien temple.

The skeptic usually has a scientific background, and science is his standard for how one should live ones life. To come to a decision in any circumstance, you make observations, assemble theories, test those theories by a logically sound methodology, and draw conclusions only when the data is statistically undeniable. The scientific method is obstructed, says the skeptic, when people choose to believe things without sound evidence. When most of the population obeys their emotions instead their intellect, science has little chance of repairing the problems of the world.

The skeptic wants to improve humanity in a two-step process: First, he will clear out all the false beliefs and self-destructive impulses currently afflicting mankind, and then science will step in to provide rational solutions to the world's problems. In reality, the skeptic never gets beyond the first step, the cutting down phase. Humanity's irrational belief systems are so massive, so pervasive and so intimately tied to the human psyche that they are largely immune to any amount of rational attack. You can write all the articles you want about the Face on Mars and never dissuade the hard-core believer. Although the believer cites evidence -- or something resembling evidence -- to justify his belief to others, the evidence itself is not the real reason for his beliefs. He believes because he needs to, because it serves some purpose in his personality. Perhaps, believing in aliens or astrology or a presidential candidate gives him a sense of control and purpose that he would not have otherwise.

The skeptic believes that by debunking an irrational belief or social hypocrisy, he will provide an opportunity for clarity and enlightenment. He thinks that if his arguments are sound, the believer will read his article and say, "You know, you are right. Thank you for helping me see the flaws in my reasoning. I will try to be more rational and scientific from now on." In reality, when you expose the flawed belief systems of others, two things will probably occur: First, the believer is going to start hating you. He will withdraw from you and look for flaws in your own behavior that he can use to dismiss you. In effect, you have lost a friend and lost the ability to have any influence over him in the future. The second thing that will probably happen, if you have been truly effective in trashing someone's belief system, is that they will simply change beliefs. Whatever psychological needs were served by one system can probably also be fulfilled by another. Catholics, when disillusioned with their church, can become Mormons. The new religion isn't necessarily better or worse than the first one, just more protected from criticism.

The skeptics assume that if you peel away the irrational beliefs of humanity, you will left with a solid and rational core. In truth, irrational beliefs are an intimate part of human identity. It is like peeling away the layers of an onion and having nothing left: For better or worse, the layers are the onion. A person's beliefs, wherever they may come from, provide structure and morality. For example, you may or may not believe that Jesus was the son of God, but you cannot say that Christianity is worthless. It provides a value system (like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule) and a theory of enforcement (Heaven and Hell) that allow some people to live in harmony. If you effectively debunk that belief system, it not clear that the ex-Christians would become better people. They could simple say, "There is no God watching me now, so I can do whatever I want."

The skeptic inevitably becomes bogged down in Phase One -- alienating a lot of people, perhaps demolishing a few limited fallacies but not making much overall progress in preparing the way for science. He doesn't give much thought to what happens next. What, exactly, is science supposed to do once it gains control of the world? Has science ever helped humanity in the long run? Think of modern medicine: Isn't it a good thing that science has vanquished many diseases and extended the human lifespan? The answer isn't clear. The dark side of medicine is overpopulation, perhaps the single most devastating problem to face mankind. Before effective medicine, the world population was stable. People lived in tribes, making human sacrifices and worshiping their own irrational gods, but if you measure happiness by social stability and the unresolvable stress on the average individual, it is not clear that the world is a better place today.

The trouble with science is that it can focus on only one problem at a time, and by solving that problem in isolation it tends to create others. Science is not holistic. It cannot analyse factors that lie outside the experiment or beyond the current theory. Science can make better laundry detergent and build bigger bombs, but it cannot determine the value of a human life or set priorities for the use of human resources. Science gave us Hitler's eugenics experiments -- seemingly rational attempts to improve the human genome that are totally abhorrent to us now. Other scientific theories of a certain era would predict that we can live in Walden Two, raised in antiseptic communes according to the rules of operant conditioning. Such utopian schemes have never worked, because humans are much more complex than any one theory can predict.

Scientists, by necessity, live in a one-dimensional world that is determined by their specialty. They can provide useful tools to society but cannot always be relied upon to make balanced social decisions. People driven by irrational beliefs also cannot be relied upon to make balanced decisions, but you probably won't make these people more competent by shooting down their beliefs. One should not tear down someone's home unless you are prepared to replace it with another. Skepticism, as a philosophy, only destroys beliefs; it does not build new ones.

Instead of sitting in front of his TV making acerbic remarks, the skeptic could go out and try to accomplish something. Rather than shooting down falsehoods and alienating people, he could be working with others toward some common goal, like improving the conditions in his neighborhood or controlling the world population. If you are going to work with people in any capacity, then you have to quietly accept their flaws. When you hear them express some emotionally-based belief that does not match your science, you ought to hold your tongue, unless the topic is directly related to the task at hand. Even then, you have to be pragmatic: You can't expect to rearrange another person's belief system, only modify the behavior that is getting in the way of your mutual goals.

It is much easier to shoot things down than to build things up, and most hardcore skeptics will never make the transition from one to the other. The skeptic sees himself as totally rational, which of course is an irrational fallacy like all the others. There is a hidden personal reason why he chooses to spend his time and psychic energy attacking the beliefs of others. Perhaps, like a conspiracy theorist, he feels insignificant and is trying to gain mastery over the world by exposing its hidden flaws. Whatever the motivation, a world run by skeptics would be a sad one indeed. Once the world's religions and ideologies were neutralized, leaving the people without direction, the skeptics would turn on each other, exposing each other's weaknesses and never finding grounds for getting along. Unfortunately, tolerant diplomacy is not part of the skeptic's philosophy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las Vegas, NV 89103



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

from...


Skeptics and Their Arguments

"Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?" Bernhard Haisch, Ph.D., "Be Skeptical of the Skeptics" "Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.) Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist, computer scientist and world renowned researcher and author on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. He worked closely with Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Commenting on the need for science "to search beyond the superficial appearances of reality"


articles & documents

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/skepticsanalysis.htm

I do not agree with everything you said about skeptics or on beliefs.
Skepticism, can be had on many levels.
I can for example say "I firmly believe in UFOs, but not aliens."

or "I believe all UFOs are extraterrestrial.
Or " I flatly do not believe in UFOs.

Obviously there can be other variations and this could be applied to other subjects as well.
What I want to point out, is that some skepticism is very beneficial. It keeps us thinking logically.

Not all beliefs are irrational or unreasonable, least of which is the UFO Phenomena.
There is a lot of rational evidence for alien visitation as there is for the many other subjects on this forum.

Did you write that? Sorry Im a little confused....

That is very well written, but you seem very very bias in your writings. There really is no balance, you don't mention any of the flaws of a non-skeptic, or anything good that skeptics bring. Imagine the world w/o skeptics? IMO, they bring balance, honestly, some people need a skeptic to use a little rationale to explain some things.

These threads are starting to tick me off. Almost everyone thinks that one side is better than the other. This is like, the 6th thread like this in 5 days. Jst drop it. UM was made for debate with both sides equally the same. If you can't stand another person's opinions, leave UM.

---Oh, and by the way, I'm not a skeptic.

I'm sorry, but I sense a little bit of hypocritism here...

This is a debate, it doesn't matter if this is the 100th thread like this in 2 days!! This is actually a pretty well written post, I'm sure it will get a lot more attention then some of the others that were made... so if you can't stand another persons's opinion, then YOU leave

No it's from the skeptic site

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/skepticsanalysis.htm

..It's quite good...

. ...and the other article also from the site was written by Glenn Campbell...


http://www.aliensonearth.com/


..He seems an interesting fellow!!!!

I'm staying. Thanks.

Its people like you that give the believers a bad name. But if you cant use the "search" function on UM, then theres a problem. And besides, this thread is targeted towards all skeptics, while only listing the characteristics of some. And it would matter if it was the 100th post in 2 days. I believe its called spamming. The only thing I can't argue with you is the fact that the post is well written. And, I think that I can stand opinions better than you.

Speaking about hypocritism, I made an opossing opinion, and you got pissed. Typical believer.

**Skeptical Believer, but slowly edging into skeptic thanks to people like this**

Thanks.

EDIT: Sorry sage, that post was directed at nope, it has nothing pointing at you.

As with so many of the opinions on UM, this article is concerned only with the black and white, clear deliniating lines which we use to define and then downgrade one group or another. The irony, which so many miss, that by posting that article which wears the guise of openmindedness just performed the very act which it was denoucning... Namely the complete blanket attack of an opposing viewpoint without any gain other than self serving satisfaction.

The failure to see any other options is a crime which many commit on both sides of the isle. This dogmatic and fundamentalist worldview is equally caustic.

I am a skeptic, this is true. But I am also a strong believer in the divine, with christian persuasions. I exhibit psychic abilities, but question them constantly. I am highly developed empathically, along with uncultivated healing abilities, but constantly search for other reasons behind these seeming talents. This does not forbid me from being a harsh skeptic. However, this harshness is mitigated by an deep belief in being openminded. Everything is possible, it just depends on how probable it is.

In addition, contrary to the article, I am not a scientist. In fact I have a BA in history and a BA in theology (double major). I have two minors, one in philosophy the other in middle eastern studies. I have an EMT-P certification (paramedic) and I am attending law school in the fall. None of this suggests that I would be a 'hard science' kindof guy.

My reasons for being skeptical lie in the very basic concept that most things which appear paranormal are in fact caused by 'normal' reasons. I am not out to prove that someone is lying or a bad person, but only to push a second point of view to the table. It is purely about balance.

The two extremes both take the same facts and put their specific twists on them. There is nothing wrong with this. However, most of the time, the truth will be found somewhere in the middle, not on the fringe.

We are all searching for the truth, there is no need to attack one another over how we find that said truth. The only thing I ask as a skeptic is an openess to another point of view. If you say that there was an alien spacecraft above your head, I say that it could be XY or Z. I am not rejecting your statement, you may very well be correct and in fact, statistically, we are most likely *not* alone in the universe. However, your complete rejection of my reasoning (which is just as probable) is just as insulting and fundamentalist as the actions which this article attack.

The mass lumping of a group of people is perhaps the largest flaw in humanity. This is where racisim, bigotry, supremacy, and irrational fear have their roots.

I do not judge all believers as a whole. At least do the same kindness in return and not spout this garbage which only increases our division, rather than bringing us closer together in our joint search for truth.

Look I'm sorry...

I did see a UFO 30 years ago...along with many others... it made all the paper...
also my spouse was one of the 200 children who saw the space ship 40 years ago at Westall High School..it's well documented on UFO files..on the internet if you wish to look it up...( He was also with me 30 years ago at the drive in...when we both saw the UFO..!!!)



I have yet to see an alien... I think... But I have seen people morph... You know when you look at people.. talk to people...and it's like there is a kink in time ..in reality..you feel this funny thunk in the stomache... your senses are alert...and the face infront of you looks demonic... kind of waxy red... weird...your eyes meet..some unconscious message seem to pass ..like we are here... we can get you... but another part inside... tells you it's OK...your safe..it can't get you!!! then fear ..puts you back ..jumps you back into this reality..and they look normal again...

This has happened not once...but 3 times..!!! The first time was overseas...after I stayed in this 3OO ?? year hold bed and breakfast on the edges of the Black Forrest... when I woke up feeling this heavy presence sitting on my chest..I could breathe...couldn't move... it looked like a reverse negative ..but it was red and black... the symptoms were similar to sleep paralyses...except for this ghost/Demon?? is saw

I was given a rosary after that and it seem to help... ( LOL..I'm Catholic..)

then a week later ..at a German drinking festival... A person who offered me a drink ..suddenly morphed into the same thing I saw at the in... I stepped back... the rest of the evening was hazy...OK..I had one too many...but..that memory stayed with me...

then Year later...when I was house hunting.. saw this House I had admired for years...it looked like a cottage out of Grimms Fairy tales... the owner..was playing with new born puppies ..he looked up...and his face morphed to exactly as I saw twice before !!!!... same feelings... like being psychically pinned to the spot... same energy.....then like a snap of a finger...every thing was normall again...I did a tour of the house... but of course didn't buy the place....


Could those incidents have been similar to those reptillian incidents others have experienced????? Don't know... were the reptillians..reddish black ... or green????

Glenn Campbell uses his own definition that has little bearing on real life. But if calling apples oranges makes it easier to write several pages on the faults of apples then that's cool, I guess. Anyone with a firm belief that apples are orange and have a thick peel can then read it and like it.

Not sure how this is related to the topic sage...

Which part???


What I trying to say is that I believe there is something out there.... It is extreme arrogance to assume that 'we' are all that is... and ET's don't exist... the skeptics who say it's ET's..UFO's are nothing but fairy tales... make me a little annoyed as they are calling all those who've experiences paranormal experiences.. seen UFO's etc.. either liars...or crazy...

I'm OK with the skeptics who want to look further into things...for thier own piece of mind.. as there have been many hoaxes..that have insulted all those who've seen ...experienced these events....

I suppose it can be looked on as a sort of betrayal to their fellow man....not just harmless..silly pranks...

the whole post. It wasn't concerned with the debate about skepticism at all... just seemed to be a ramble about what you think you may have seen... not sure what the connection is.

Well, seeing how she mentioned she was a recovering skeptic, I think it fits quite well...
But that's just my opinion, of course.

Yes, well, as you can see, she ammended her post. On the original, there was nothing to tie in.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/SKEPT.HTM

I thought the articles had some excellent points. All the way through I was inwardly thinking "Yes! Exactly!" . I have never understood the need of some people to tear down the beliefs of others.


IMO, there are sceptics and there are UBERSCEPTICS. A normal amount of scepticism is a healthy thing. It's good to question things, think about them.

But then there are those who call themselves sceptics who are really nothing more than thinly disguised trolls. Trolls being those who enjoy trolling about ridiculing people for their beliefs and being downright rude about it.

It is possible to be a sceptic and still be respectful of the beliefs of others if they differ from yours. Being a sceptic doesn't have to go hand it hand with being rude and arrogant. There are a few on every forum, anywhere you go who just never get that.

Can we say that we 100% trust the Governments and the Churches.. .as they have always told the Whole Truth...

That the Media isn't controlled....

That censorship only stops lies from spreading...and spares our blushes...


That we know all..


Therefore we can judge others.. based on the above...

Or by our own discerning ...wise..inner knowing....

Or is skepticism a shelf we sit on...until a better idea...knowing...evidence comes along???


Or is it our filter...our armour...to not be fooled....while we search for the truth...

How many obvious answers...truths will our amour repell????


As Skinner...http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Skinner.htm( .. just as I'm studying him at the moment)said... you really only need to be right sometimes... to know you are on the right track..??..the rest of the time you are learning????( not finished yet )

sorry!!!..Just trying to get my ideas accross...

Is it really so hard to use the word "Cynic"?

What is this continued insistance on "Close-Minded skeptics", "Uberskeptics", "Fanatical Skeptics", etc? A skeptic in terms of information analysis is a very specific thing, and a skeptic who dismisses all information without reason, who refuses to consider the possibility of something is not a skeptic, no matter what they call themselves. If they have already come to a decision on the matter, and that decision involves considering all arguments to the contrary to be self-defeating and based on a alck of knowledge, then that is not being a skeptic, that is being a cynic.

It is almost like people avoid using the word "cynic" because it would rob them of something to complain about skeptics with.

ok, first of all, dont give me that "its people like you stuff" .... you dont know me man, I'm not a believer, what makes you jump to conclusion? Anyways, I'm not going to scuffle w/ you w/in this post, that is just rude, but I will say a few things to close this.... 1) I did not get pissed, actually, you were the one that sounded irritated about people posting these threads and I simply said that this thread actually sticks out from the rest since it is well written. 2) Its not called spamming when it isn't the same person making the same thread over and over and over..... 3) You were still a hypocrite in your original post, don't call me one just because I called you out first..

Good day.

Well.......on a personal basis......I wasn't avoiding the word......just hadn't thought of it. Good word actually, and I agree with you......that's why I said in my previous post .....



They actually go way beyond scepticism. "Cynic" fits quite well. Thank you.

Right then, now let's see The Trouble with Believers.

aquatus, you're funny as hell...

Listen, a skeptic can be defined as one who constantly doubts or questions. A skeptic can be defined as one who isn't convinced of something, and requires more evidence to be swayed. A skeptic can be defined as ________________.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I do agree with you. But continuing to preach about the difference between 'skeptics' and 'cynics' is not going to change a lot of these people's mindsets. It won't do much. You just have to be ok with it. Just accept it, people will use 'skeptic' in whatever way they choose whether politically correct or not. It may be frusterating to those who don't kn.... I mean 'believe' (), but it's the same as people getting labelled 'believers',when they really mean 'gullables'.


It's a two-way street, my friend.
People take a perfectly harmless word, and turn it into a negative term. That's just the way it is in this field.

The hopelessness is what makes makes it an honorable quest

I see... I hope the irony is not wasted...



OK, Earthchick, even though your whole post was full of insults and arrogance... but I guess that's OK as long as the person is on the 'right' side.

Maybe you should put a little more awareness into your post. And perhaps you should back up your arrogance with more knowledge. The word skeptic can be spelled either way. With a 'c' or a 'k'.

Don't battle if you don't have the weapons.

EDIT- I'll change the word to 'knowledge', not intelligence.

Something that I have wondered for a long time is whether or not the "cynical skeptic" that people always complain about is actually the cause of the problem. By this, I mean that perhaps the problem is with the perception that a perfectly normal, rational skeptic is instead, close-minded and cynical, and by doing so causes the negative label to be affixed beforehand. In other words, perhaps the skeptic isn't being close-minded, but is being perceived as being close-minded simply because they do not share the same opinion.

Sceptic is, according to Merriam and Webster, a rarely used British variant of the word skeptic. In fact, the dictionary will not define the word unless it is spelled as skeptic.

Pardon me for not checking the complete english dictionary first for archaic variants.

I withdraw my comment on technical grounds only. It has been removed from the original post.

However, my intent of said post remains the same and will continue to for as long as people such as myself and others are attacked openly after spending huge amounts of time and energy forming polite and respectful responses. People such as earthchick calling us trolls and declaring our arrogance is as distasteful and disrespectful as one can imagine. Especially when one considers my original post on this thread, as with many others.

I will never apologize for responding vigorously to any attack so flagrantly rude. Nor will I be told that I am the arrogant one for responding in such a manner.

Marty, I agree with you on the topic. But earthchick never called all skeptics trolls, she was referring to a few:

It's true there are some people who call themselves skeptics, but really just want to make fun of believers. You're not one of those trolls she was referring to, though.

As mentioned by Marty, the referenced article is a one-sided extreme view of a skeptic of believers' views. There are a couple pertinent points I want to add to this discussion...

As by definition skepticism is an act of doubt/questioning of an opposing view it is not exclusive to doubters of strange phenomena it is equally as valid to doubters of other plausible explanations - yep, believers of strange phenomena ARE skeptics.

The differentiating factor which is rarely noticed is that skeptics of strange phenomena are usually doubtful of ONE view with regards to a particular case - and that is the extraordinary claim. These skeptics can and often do hold as probable/plausible a myriad of explanations and are free to change perspectives among these as more information comes along (much like scientific method). Since the information to support their view is dynamic (ie. new ordinary information comes to light often as science observes new natural phenomena or forms new theories) by nature they constantly re-evaluate their view.

However, skeptics of other plausible explanations are doubtful of a multitude (whatever is dished out) of views with regards to a particular case - and these are non-extraordinary claims. These skeptics IMO are not as free to change perspectives (because for them there is only one) as more information comes along (mostly supporting ordinary claims) - more often than not all/most information to support their view is already there. With the information to support their view being mostly static, IMO, they often see no need to re-evaluate their view.

I don't know if the above comes accross as I've intended it to. I apologise in advance if it doesn't, I'm not feeling the best today.

Cheers

Another "trouble with <insert word here> threads.

These threads walk a very, very fine line...

*points to rules*


No flaming or flame baiting - Members who are hostile, insulting and rude on a regular basis will be removed from the forum. Being offensive towards other members, making personal attacks or 'baiting' others into arguments are similarly unacceptable ways to behave

Remember folks I have an itchy trigger finger should this thread degenerate into a name calling, insulting mess.

Skeptics are "party poopers". You get someone post an article about them seeing a ghost which is then followed by five or six posts of "Wow, man, were you scared?", and "Yeah, that happened to me. It was spookey as hell", and "You really creeped me out. I'll not sleep tonight"....

...and then you get the post that says "Hang on. You said you saw the man vanish into a shed with no exits but then you say it was a long room and you didn't see any exits but that you didn't look very close becuase you were running and..."

Party pooper! And no one likes a party pooper. I can understand that and it's why I don't often do it with my friends anymore. I sit quiet amid the 'oohs' and 'aahs' and I keep the inconsistancies and leaps of faith in my head. I still have friends because of this.

But anyone submitting a sighting is offering that evidence up for scrutiny and should be prepared for some pretty heavy scrutiny. If they can't take that disection of their evidence, the pendantry, the fine tooth combing of every word they choose to use, the relation of every post they make back to each other, the serches on the internet finding photographs of the site, what other people have said, medical opinion, anthropological opinion, etc. etc. etc....then just ignore it.

There are a minute (really, really minute) percentage of "skeptics" on these boards who attack a persons beliefs. The vast (really really vast) majority question the evidence. The seperation of the two is hard for many to see - attack my evidence and you attack me. As most of these accounts are purely testimony then when a skeptic argues against the facts of that testimony, people see it as calling the person a liar or deluded (when mostly the actual word used is "mistaken").

Many people realise that thier stories sound far-fetched even to them selves. It's why so many start with "you might not believe this but...", or "I was a skeptic but...". The person is then in defensive mode.

When the little boy pointed out that the Emperor was, in fact, naked...the story goes that everyone realised it was true and started to laugh. I think the real story was that everyone continued to admire the Emperor's new clothes and turned on the little boy calling him "closed-minded".

Who likes the person who sits down to watch Braveheart and points out all the historical inaccuracies? Not many which is why I reserve that for forums like this and choose to keep my friends.

In an argument that can have no definitive conclusion, those who are attempting to convert (from "belief" or to it) have nothing left but to attack the belief itself. It happens both ways.

The problem is not those questioning evidence to get closer to the truth. It is people trying to convert others to their way of thinking. It happens both ways and rarely results in anything but animosity. That's why I don't try to convert. I talk about the incident at hand and only that. I want to get to the truth (from the "test to destruction" method) and don't give a flying wahoo what you believe. I don't care if you believe you saw an alien or a ghost or god. I just want to know if it's possible you are mistaken so that MY beliefs are either confirmed, require further adjustment, or simply remain where they are due to lack of evidence.

I am a party pooper. Sorry.

Here's a bit of balance.......http://skepdic.com/skepticism.html

Thanks Donfie. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

P.S. I knew you would post here.

Now tell me, arent you kinda fed up with these kinds of threads? I got nope here claiming this one is different. You being as good with words as you are,maybe It'll do good to post a "Problem with believers" thread.

But, dont take my word for it.

Party pooper? Nah, sounds to me like you're most likely an empiricist.

Frankly, people can and will believe whatever they choose, this isn't likely to change regardless. I only draw the line when people start saying things like: "it's been proven", "this is a scientific fact", "it's the absolute truth". It's like my Dad used to say, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

There has to be a point where belief in something and knowledge of something is made clear. Why does it matter? Well, on a specifically personal level it probably doesn't, but on a societal level it certainly can matter. For example, let's all hope that the FDA doesn't endose medications based on faith alone, let's hope they've employed scientific testing. Sure our knowledge is far from perfect, but as far as I can see it's preferable to belief alone.

I don't make fun of the people telling these stories i mostly keep it to myself except when it comes to government cover-ups then i'm all over those like a cheap Italian suit. I personally think what people think they may have experienced may not have had this actually happened. I think that science has pretty well debunked the abduction stories with reproducable experiments.

That just may be the case... But do you dismiss everything as 'probably not true', or is there a few things that you find intriguing - that is "unexplainable"?
I find that most skeptics hold similar views, but what keeps them interested in the subject varies... So what does it for you?

Just for curiousity's sake.

But at the end of the day skeptics exist because after all that is written,all that is said, all that is pasted on web sites, all the flakey descriptions, all the blurred & dodgy photos.....there still is no unquestionable hard evidence.....none....nil....nothing.
Previously on this forum i asked the question , 'can someone shown me where i can go to view some real irrefutable physical evidence of ufo visitation?' & the answer came....silence......

You can't... such evidences (touch and sense) don't exist (unless government hides ones:).

If there were no skeptics gekos would be terrible dragons.


If there were no non skeptics A giant alien monster destroying cities would be.....swamp gas or a trick of the light. Both need each other.

Quite honestly this is the final straw for me. This is my last post or reply to any "skeptics are..." post.

Let me just say this though:

Let us examine the world of the skeptic-hater. This is a person who has dedicated himself to avoiding the actual issues and is only concerned with the destruction of skepticism. I myself am a recovering skeptic-hater, so I understand the philosophy: Humans would be capable of great things if only they were freed of their ridiculous science, silly logical beliefs, and self-destructive questioning. The skeptic-hater takes it upon himself to not talk about UFOs, alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, popular entertainment, national politics and television evangelists. Most of his time is spent in Microsoft Word, where he has special short cut keys assigned for the phrases"closed-minded", "say that people are delusional", "think they're always right" annoying extremely his younger brother who wants to use the computer to look at naked ladies and steal computer cars, but if he has more time and initiative, he will join a forum where he can feel important as the self elected champion of the believer as he feels the pain they feel and knows they cannot defend themselves. He concerns himself not with finding out whether the face on mars is actually a rock formation. He simply sees it as a means to vent his frustration at those who have slighted him in the past and an excuse for not dating.

The skeptic-hater usually has a imaginary skeptical background, and feels this somehow gives him more credibility in his denunciation. The lost sheep who came back into the fold with all the inner most secrets of the evil skeptic cult. To come to a decision in any circumstance, he sees others make observations, assemble theories, test those theories by a logically sound methodology, and draw conclusions as to the credibility of the evidence at hand then he ignores everything that was said (by believers and skeptics) and wades into the fray sounding his horn of skeptic-hatred waiting for the huddling masses of believers to rally to his banner after all their years of torment only to find there is himself and two other skeptic-haters while all the believers sit thinking "I was enjoying that till this eejut stuck his beak in and ruined everything". The skeptic is closed minded, says the skeptic-hater, when people choose to believe things based on sound evidence. When most of the population obeys their emotions instead of their intellect, skepticism has little chance of "converting" anyone yet the skeptic-hater requires more than the seperation by belief. He requires animosity and is prepared to create it where there is none.

The skeptic-hater wants to improve humanity in a two-step process: First, he will create a false image of the skeptic and will re-use the inevitable stereotypes of the skeptic as a friendless loner standing outside of humanity raining on everyone's parade. In reality, the skeptic-hater never gets beyond the first step, the cutting down phase (and, when talking of two phase processes, doesn't actually mention a second phase). Humanity's irrational belief systems are so massive, so pervasive and so intimately tied to the human psyche that they are largely in no need of help from the skeptic-hater saying "You just ignore the nasty man. You believe what you like, poppette". You can write all the posts you want about how simply horrific and maladjusted skeptics are, but you will always feel the need to write more...and more...and more. Although the believer cites evidence -- or something resembling evidence -- to justify his belief to others, the skeptic-hater does not see the skeptic's questioning of the evidence and sees only the "attack" on the beliefs and personage of the "victim" (or believer as they sometimes call them). The words used by the skeptic are not the reason for the hate. He hates because he has no opinions of his own but despises the disspassionate approach of the skeptic as it highlights his own lack of direction. He feels the believer as someone meek to be protected though he doesn't share their beliefs either. He feels he has to choose a "side" and has decided that attacking skeptics is the best option as he feels they are less likely to let their emotions rule their intellect and he feels safe form scorching posts and bad language.

The skeptic-hater believes that by attacking the skeptic he will give himself a purpose in these forums as the champion of the down-trodden believer who cannot defend themselves. He thinks that if his attacks are general, the skeptic will respond to his article to which he can then say "I didn't mean all skeptics. I thought that was obvious when I said 'all skeptics are closed minded'" In reality, when you never actually say anything and just regurgitate the usual sound bites against skeptics, two things will probably occur: First, people will start ignoring you. They will realise that you actually have nothing to say of any interest and are simply acting as a barrier to informed debate. In effect, you have lost your voice and must either say something relevant or keep droning on about things that have been said to death. The second thing that will probably happen, if you have been truly effective in re-writing all the other myriad anti-skeptic posts, is that you will simply get believers showing you that you don't represent all of them and that the majority of them are completely fine with skeptics. Whatever psychological needs that were served in just trashing people all the time will have to be satisified by becoming a racist, homophobic, sexist or other (although these also require that you actually have beliefs of your own so are also probably out). Skpetics and believers, when overwhelmed by the constant threads on anti-skeptics can post alternative topics about their beliefs, the skeptic hater has no such option.

The skeptic-hater assumes that if you continually make false accusations against skeptics, people will stop talking about their beliefs and the evidence of it and will start joining in the fight. In truth, beliefs are an intimate part of these forums and people are likely to resent being unable to discuss them due to the proliferation of these kinds of posts. It is like smashing all the onions with a sledge hammer when people want to test different recipes for onion soup: For better or worse, people want to make onion soup. A person's onions, wherever they may come from, provide the basis for onion soup whether they are left soft or more aldente. For example, a skeptic may or may not say that they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, but the skeptic-hater can say that the skeptic said that Christianity is worthless. It provides a means by which you can get your hatred of skeptics out whilst attempting to be clear and balanced and not "closed minded". If you effectively change what skeptics have actually said then everyone will see the people they really are rather than the calm, well-spoken, polite people they come across as in their posts.

The skeptic-hater only really has Phase One -- banging on about something that isn't happening and that the vast majority don't even care about. He doesn't give much thought to what happens next. What, exactly, is the skeptic-hater going to do when he has chased away all the skeptics as they have become bored of defending THEIR BELIEFS against people who accuse them of attacking the beliefs of others? Has bitching and moaning ever really helped anything in the short or long run? Think of modern medicine: what if doctors spent a full three-quarters of their time defending their choice to become doctors? The answer is very clear. They would think "sod it" and would form bands or do stand-up. Before the skeptic-hater, the forums were stable. People had their beliefs, putting forth evidence for questioning, accepting and answering the questions of others, but if you measure happiness by the complete removal of skeptics from these forums it is not clear that they would be more interesting.

The trouble with the skeptic-hater is that they can create only one problem ever, and by repeatedly going on and on about that problem in every thread they enter they hope that it will become the only topic of conversation allowing them to participate where their lack of any beliefs dissallows this as things stand. Science is not the enemy. It cannot be blamed for it's quotation both for and against certain evidence by people who think it can be defined. Science can make better laundry detergent and build bigger bombs, and it can also save lives and remove people from cycles of poverty. Science gave us fireworks and internet forums -- seemingly rational attempts to facilitate open and honest discussion that seems so abhorrent to the skeptic-hater. Other skeptic-hater theories of a certain forum would predict that we can live in a world where only some have the freedom to speak while others should only say that they are sorry and agree that they are bad people who only want to sow greyness and pain in a world of the beautiful community and agreement of believing (like the people of the world who all believe in a Christian god and never dissagree with each other or say bad things about each other). Such utopian schemes have never worked, because humans are naturally inquisative and not so weak as to run away when someone calls them cruel (no matter how many times it is said and no matter how much the truth is stretched to fit the image).

Skeptic-haters, by necessity, live in a one-dimensional world that is determined by their lack of any beliefs of their own. They can provide irrelevant spite and animosity to society but cannot always be relied upon to remain true to the situation at hand. People driven by irrational beliefs also cannot be relied upon to make balanced decisions, but you probably won't make these people more competent by shooting down their beliefs but obviously and quite "open-mindedly" and fairly it is just fine and dandy to do this to skeptics over and over and over again. One should not tear down someone's home unless it is the house of a skeptic in which case you should follow them around tearing down every house they build or tent they put up then burning it whilst saying that the house was clearly in the wrong. Skepticism-hating, as a philosophy, only destroys beliefs; it does not build new ones.

Instead of sitting in front of his brothers desktop making acerbic remarks, the skeptic-hater could go out and try to accomplish something. Rather than creating falsehoods and trying to get people to hate others, he could be working with others toward some common goal, like discussing the things that people want to discuss. If you are going to work with people in any capacity, then you have to quietly accept that trying to stir up hatred all the time is just plain boring after a while. When you hear them express some logically-based belief that does not match your picture of hate, you ought to try not to distort what was said or use words that were never spoken, and especially when it was all going quite nicely until you charged in and spoilt everything: You can't expect to rearrange another person's belief system, and to decide to try and do that to only skeptics whilst attacking them for allegedly doing the exact same thing to believers is just outright hypocrasy.

It is much easier to shoot things down than to build things up, and most hardcore skeptic-haters can not see that they are actually more guilty of this than the skeptics they attack. The skeptic-hater sees himself as totally rational, which of course is an irrational fallacy like all the others. The skeptic-hater also hates to see others look like they are trying to be rational too. There is a open personal reason why he chooses to spend his time and psychic energy attacking the beliefs of skeptics. Perhaps, like a boy without any particular liking for a specifc football team over another, he feels insignificant and is trying to gain mastery over the world by being overly against the followers of one specific team. Whatever the motivation, a world run by skeptics-haters would be a sad one indeed. Once the skeptics were gotten rid of, the skeptic-haters need to stir up trouble where there is none, to feel morally superior to both those he attacks and those he defends, to fill the void within himself from his own lack of beliefs, and to satisfy his need for revenge from all those years he was bullied at school by the science club will only be satisified by turning his hate-mongering and bigotry to other groups.

Well done Donfire.

I myself has to keep reminding my self to stay objective and not to let personal feelings get in the way of my objectivity.

I suggest we all try to do the same.

UFOs exist, no need to doubt that, what UFOs are on the other hand, that is the real question.

Regarding whether loads and loads of people all can be wrong, sure they can, just look at christianity for example, here we have more than a billion people who believe a son of a carpenter 2000 years ago could walk on liquid water.

DELETE (didn't think it got sent)

Hergovich, A. (2004). The effect of pseudo-psychic demonstrations as dependent on belief in paranormal phenomena and suggestibility. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 365-380. This paper describes two experiments which investigate the effects of pseudo-psychic demonstrations (i.e., conjuring tricks which could be misinterpreted as genuine paranormal phenomena). In the first study, a demonstration of a supposed medium was presented to 91 subjects individually, in which the playing card selected by a subject was identified telepathically. It was found that hypnotic suggestibility and belief in paranormal phenomena had a large effect on how the demonstrations were assessed. Suggestible persons or believers in paranormal phenomena were more impressed by a phenomenon and were more likely to rule out the possibility of fraud than were persons who were less suggestible or believed less in paranormal phenomena. In the second study, two trick demonstrations were shown. In each case, half the subjects (n - 68) were given the information that this was a magic trick, and the other half were told that this was a paranormal demonstration by a medium. The results with respect to belief in paranormal phenomena confirm the results of Study 1. Believers in paranormal phenomena, as compared with sceptics, tended to view the demonstrations as examples of paranormal phenomena, regardless of the information they had received, they tended to rule out the possibility..........

Five Truths About The Paranormal

1. Many of the most fervent believers in the paranormal are suffering from some form of mental illness.
This is apparent just by reading message boards and newsgroups dedicated to the discussion of paranormal topics. Often, paranormal believers are so sure of their causes they'll outright admit to schizophrenia, manic depression and mild brain damage. It's harsh, but true.
2. No valid scientific evidence has ever been presented that proves the existence of any paranormal phenomenon.
Fervent believers say otherwise, but the simple fact is there is no evidence of any paranormal phenomenon. Believers in the paranormal can only cite a handful of "studies" that melt into absurdity once the cold hard light of science is shown on them.
3. The marketplace of paranormal superstitions is rife with outright frauds and con artists.
Just for fun, attend a local "holistic" fair. Be sure to leave your wallet at home! You'll see a convention hall packed with every scam and con ever thought up by new age frauds. Amazingly, these scam artists will rake in serious cash, despite the fact that what they're selling is fraudulent. Listen to the Art Bell or Jeff Rense radio programs some time and think critically about their guests. Don't you find it odd that they are invariably pushing some magic pill or videotape? These are the same nonsense products you find at new age shows.
4. Believing in the paranormal has never improved one's lot in life.
There is just one exception to this rule. See Truth Number 3.
5. Believers in the paranormal are very gullible.
Many of them will believe any story, no matter how outlandish, as long as you use lots of pretentious language. Believers tend to be lonely, confused people. They want an easy, instant answer to their problems, whether those problems are love, money or health. If you want to profit off these believers, you can easily do so. Just pretend to be an educated scientist and you'll gain instant credibility. You don't actually need a degree in science, just say that you have one, or buy a degree from a diploma mill. Mail order degrees are cheap - you too can be a PhD for less than $100.
Here are some more sure-fire ways to Profit From The Paranormal!

* Create an herbal pill/scent/aroma/chant/ritual and claim it solves a particular problem.
* Purchase a camera, set it up in a dark field or dark room, open the shutter, then run around with a flashlight. Ghost photography is still big business!
* Call yourself a "witch" and write a book full of gibberish. Dress all goth and act pretentious. Sooner or later some Wiccan will notice you and want to buy what you've written.
* Stick a bb under your skin and claim it's an alien implant. Write a Web page about it and you could be on national radio.
* Throw a pie plate in the air. Take a photo. Instant UFO.
* Ear candling is big business in paranormal circles. New agers value hydrocolonic therapy. Be the first to combine the two and you could get rich!

I myself has to keep reminding my self to stay objective and not to let personal feelings get in the way of my objectivity.

I suggest we all try to do the same.

UFOs exist, no need to doubt that, what UFOs are on the other hand, that is the real question. Some think they are alien spaceships. Im not one of them.

Regarding whether loads and loads of people all can be wrong, sure they can, just look at Christianity for example, here we have more than a billion people who believe a son of a carpenter 2000 years ago could walk on liquid water.

The bottom line is that the evidence for extraterrestrial visitors has not convinced many scientists. Very few academics are writing papers for refereed journals about alien craft or their occupants.

If there are investigators who are convinced that craft from other worlds are buzzing ours, then they should present the absolute best evidence they have, and not resort to explanations that appeal to conspiratorial cover-ups or the failure of others to be open to the idea. The UFO advocates are not asking us to believe something either trivial or peripheral, for after all, there could hardly be any discovery more dramatic or important than visitors from other worlds.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

Exactly.


And donfie, did you write that? Very impressive...

When I use the word skeptics when I am discussing this topic, I am referring to the people who still have skepticism in regards to it. I don't know how that ever got turned into being a bad thing.... Like I said before, people take a perfectly harmless word, and change it into something negative to 'suit' their beliefs...

Wow Rob... and I thought I was being an @shole. lol.

You are, however, mildly correct in your statements...