strrrng

Except that your assumption of my defensiveness was flawed, as was the consequent inference.

Also, do not think that I missed the fact that you conveniently omitted about 90% of my post in your response.

__________________
I listen for the whisper
of your sweet insanity
while I formulate denials
of your effect on me

Waddlesworth

I don't remember what you said and couldn't care less what you said.

strrrng

Nice excuse. You cared enough to cherry-pick one phrase and use it as a last-resort defense, given that you had nothing else to your argument. Either way, I'm done conversing with you.

__________________
I listen for the whisper
of your sweet insanity
while I formulate denials
of your effect on me

Waddlesworth

Yeah, as though I care.

Jarno

awesome article.

I've always wondered why people kept believing in all kinds of stuff despite all the contrary evidence.

__________________
ILI -Te

Jarno

I think there is no sceptic to be found who claims to know the truth.

You can never know the truth, but you can use probabilities. Skeptics are therefor just closest to the truth because they accept critisism. It are the believers who don't like critisism, cause they are afraid of letting go of their belief.

__________________
ILI -Te

Waddlesworth

Probability can be the skeptic's best friend because he can ALWAYS say he is "closer to the truth" when he infects the miraculous with his 'probabilities'. Also, skeptics only attack things that are "probably" not true, so your statement guarantees a skeptics opinion is automatically more valuable than, say, someone who ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED something miraculous. see how your statement that skeptics are "therefore closest to the truth" is really an empty one?

Question:"Is it possible for a person to become a mutant immortal? I have met someone that claims to be a mutant immortal and he has shown me convincing evidence."

Skeptic's Answer: "Probably not...unlikely...according to science it is impossible. Cases of this occuring are likely fraud. In terms of probability there are zero confirmed cases of mutant immortals so therefore, in probability, this is impossible. My conclusion is closer to the truth and therefore my conclusion is more valuable and reliable."


See, skepticism is a matter of EGO. And what trauma's cause a person to IDENTIFY as a SKEPTIC?

Who lives their life trying to prove false the miraculous things that other people claim to have experienced? Think of what they have shut themselves away from!

The skeptic FEARS that which is new and does not want to accept that which may subtract from his own ego's perception of what 'probably is' and 'probably isn't'.

Skepticism subtracts from faith and when you don't have faith guiding you, what is there? What's the point? It just becomes EGO EGO EGO and you become a cynical, insecure skeptic.

Anyone can exercise clear judgment of the facts. You don't have to call yourself a skeptic to do that.

strrrng

Equating skepticism with fear is laughable. Fear is what drives people to blindly adhere to faulty religions, because doing so makes them feel more 'human' and 'courageous' for taking the noble leap of faith and surmounting the apparently limited and egotistical attitude displayed by so many skeptical heathens. Real skeptics – not idiots who parade around neuroscience forums in materialistic glory – acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge, and pursue understanding with acceptance of the unknown as just that, instead of something to be compensated for through fervent spiritualism or whatever.

__________________
I listen for the whisper
of your sweet insanity
while I formulate denials
of your effect on me

Waddlesworth

Equating skepticism with fear is psychological. I have concluded through my observation of myself and others that many who describe themselves as skeptics have fear based motives. To put it simply, they fear/anticipate 'looking stupid' so always base their bets on the odds and doubt anything miraculous. They can rarely even come close to proving anything so simply infect discussion of miraculous things with doubt and pretend somehow they are being 'scientific' which is simply a delusion.

As for your poke at religion: Believing anything to be true without experiencing or being able to confirm it is dangerous. Many (maybe most)skeptical people walk a very false path which is no less dangerous or fear based than the path that religious fanatics walk.

Your division of so-called real skeptics versus phony/idiotic 'fake' skeptics is just a difference of how cleverly a skeptic is able to mask his cynical negativity. They seem to be the same thing, one is just better at it than the other.

In the definition of skepticism I see negativity, pessimism, and just general doubt of all things worth living for.

A person can discern between fact or fiction without calling themselves a skeptic. Anyone I meet that proudly calls themselves a skeptic(in the most typical sense of the word), from all of my experiences, is just masking their overwhelming ignorance instead of accepting it.

Thinking you will save the world by denying what you perceive as 'faulty religion' in the name of skepticism is just a waste of your time and the time of anyone that chooses to take you seriously. The world's leading religions are filled with many great teachings and help to release us from suffering. The problem is that many people do not really study the books they claim to stand behind.

strrrng

Why does it always have to tie back to a "fear of being stupid"? Surprising as this may be, many "skeptics" developed such a mindset naturally; through observation and experience, they came to see the value of logic and doubt in the pursuit of knowledge, contrasted to the potentially dire consequences of prioritizing belief over all else.

At least they don't presume their path to be more pious than any others.

Real vs. fake skeptic refers to a genuine pursuit of understanding through the lens of reason and experience, with a latent doubt toward initial belief; as opposed to pessimistically rejecting everything outside of one's narrow-minded world under the pretense of skepticism. Seems like you're harping on the second.

So, because they aren't happy enough for you, they must be bad? The main thing I saw in the definitions, was an implicit hesitance to believe something without verification. How cynical.

They don't alleviate suffering; give me a break. They create illusions of suffering in peoples' minds in order to absolve themselves of real intellectual responsibility and chalk up all their shit to god or whatever, so that through shameful confession, monotonous prayer and whatever else they do, this horrid suffering will be ended, they will be the chosen ones, saved from the world's misery -- come join them! lol.

__________________
I listen for the whisper
of your sweet insanity
while I formulate denials
of your effect on me

Waddlesworth

My conclusions are based on my own observations. when I refer to skeptics i refer to people who identify and pride themselves on being skeptics.

everything else here seems to be difference in opinion between us and we cannot resolve that now/here.

edit: it is not so much all coming down to a 'fear of looking stupid' but instead is more related to a fear of having a belief or curiosity of the miraculous being rejected by others. It is a 'super-ego' based response to new and unexplainable, sometimes 'taboo' things.

The 'fear of looking stupid' is a good way to describe the emotional state which leads to the development of a full-blown skeptical attitude.