A question for believers

[DionysianSmile]

Ian. My point is you use words they way YOU want to use them regardless of their meaning. Not sure what you mean by saying that materialists deny reality.... I thought that materialists actually deal with the "reality" as in the actual, real sense, not in your fictional sense. Look at the definition again. You mean the totality of things sense, but want to deny the "actuality" sense. Words have meaning that conveyed by their use. You want words to mean only the sense that you legislate.

Whatever led you to the idea that Ian could accurately be described as a philosopher?

Philosopher --- from Ian's title .... though I have little doubt that Ian is really far from being a philosopher..... plus he's seemed to throw in some of these old lines from older books like Berkeley in this passage, so I think that he thinks he is a sort of philosopher.

The term mass is one used in physics. Anyway, the point is that even in taking scientific measurements of the peach, everything that we know about it still has to be cashed out in terms of our sensory perceptions. We can never go beyond our experiences, so why suppose there is a reality lying beyond them?? Never mind supposing that this "thing in itself" reality is the only one!

Because I can measure the peach, you measure the peach, my buddy does.... I give everthing. If everyone measures it to be the same then there is now a object that is not dependent wholly on my perceptions. So you could claim this part of somekind collective experience, but now you'd have to show how this could not be classified as objective. Here are some definitions from dictionary.com to help you with the terms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective
ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
*** snip **** check the rest for yourself

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective
sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
***snip***

Just because the words are not used the way you want doesn't mean that I'd have to accept subjective = reality???

I don't disagree when you say that we should not SUPPOSE that anything is the case, but when the evidence is in, material reality seems to win except in your mind. Yet perhaps reality is subjective, but when I had a motorcycle last fall my injuries seem hard to understand as an object wholly of my mind, considering things that are independent from us are constantly affecting us. Mailman coming, raining, sunshine. Whole lots of stuff going on without me, unless as I said you're a solipsist, and it's fair to call these thing and objects that do not seem to be predicated on me as "objective". You want to deny this because you have your version of what "reality" is supposed to mean.

We know other people exist through inferring from our own case and through anomalous cognition. Our experiences whilst we are embodied exhaust what we refer to as the "physical" world, not the totality of reality

Weak. So I make an assumption that others exist through that inference? It's a pretty brave assumption considering that your world is purely subjective. Not how do you know, but how CAN you know that?? How can I tell if someone is something (a separate being, etc) if there is nothing that is external me? You've already thrown all the objects out of reality.... why does it proclude people?? If I say that there are other people out there, then there is some sort of external object to me (no matter how I want to consider how it is constituted).

Of course there is an external world. The table I am touching now is not part of me. I am just denying the external world is material or that it makes sense to talk of its existence in abstraction from any of our sensory perceptions.

But

Subjective Experience = Reality

Again read definitions.... If there is an external world, then there must be knowledge we acquire from it. This is objective... and yes it does make sense to talk of existence in abstraction from perception. We use words to describe and communicate about our experiences and the world, but you want to say that because in the end everything is "subjective" because we are subjective. A pretty limiting assumption. If you use the word objective to refer to things that seem to exist without your intervention, then you've found the use that is useful in verifiable claims. If it's not in this sense, it's hard to judge any of your claims because there is nothing that is verifiable.

Ummm . .you're imagining things if you believe I have said this. I am saying that they do not believe what we directly experience is constitutive of reality. Their scientific description of the world is.

You don't like science because it presents a cosmology that your ego cannot be intimately involved with. Reality, in the sense, of your subjective just aren't something that science can examine as verifiable. It doesn't mean that human experiences are not important and have moral truth, but if a claim can't be framed as verifiable then there is nothing science can say about it. You want to world to be something subjective to validate any arbitrary claim. The world is made of peanut butter, in my subjective reality, but when I asked my friends they could not verify it SO is it valid to claim that the world is made of peanut butter just cuz I think it is??

I said purpose. Of course there can be a purpose to our existence.

CAN not is. Speculation is so much fun!

Well I'm not going to answer that question now. Many many many reasons. Read my almost 10,000 posts.

Well that's not something I'm terribly interested in doing.... but let me know when your book comes out.

There is no evidence. Read Berkeley's
The Principles

Wow. No evidence.... I can point to hundreds around my room, but that's not evidence in the Ian sense. And I'm no longer so interested in Berkeley ... I live in different century.

None of this is relevant. If you are at the same place and time as me, then you will experience pretty much the same sensory experiences as me. You're mistaken if you think that true reality cannot vary from percipient to percipient.

Ok then I'm curious what constitutes true for you? The laws of physics seem to be universal (go back to the idea reality in the actuality sense). Our experience and attitudes about things varies between people of course! The canon of commonality in our experiences (ie. laws of physics) is what we frame as being called "objective". You want to deny this.... Interesting... not really.

Science cannot tell us what our experiences will be like. It simply deals with the patterns in such experiences.

Yes and no. Science is not going to tell me whether I'm going to get hit by a car, but it is remarkably accurate at forecasting the arrival of comets and positions in the solar system. So science can tell what certain experiences will be if it has discovered methods to make these kinds of predictions. Considering that science is able to derive theories based on mathematical and experimental evidence, science deals not only with the patterns but is able to create theories that predict how these patterns work.

Non-sequitur.

Actually I think it's quite relevant but to each there own.

Ian,

I think that by "we", Dionysian Smile *meant* materialists.

Sigh... yes.

If I come across as curt or abrupt or sarcastic, it's not because I want to be rude but I think you make a lot of assumptions that seem to be misfounded. You want to pigeonhole exactly what words mean only to you and then expect that you and when they don't use them in your sense, then they must be wrong. There are very valid sense to use the subjective or objective and they are not equivalent or your ideas of reality. Do you not see it as a battle of semantics? No one says that you can't believe whatever you choose to, but to say with import that it is true then it is subject to verification. If you can't find a way to verify it, then it can't really be judged as true. You want to to claim that subjective reality is identical to objective reality is true. So there must be a way we can verify it. However there are lots of ways I can show things that happen without my intervention. I can verify there is an objective reality; the evidence is all around you. Just ask someone else if they see the TV in your living room! Bring in another to make sure it's there too.... I'll bet you get lots of people to agree that there is a TV in the living room. Let's call the TV an object since it can't make the claim to me that it is a subjective entity. Let's examine all the properties of this entity, then we can understand it. That's the activity science is concerned with. You can choose to disagree with the evidence, but you can't claim that it is not true, because the essence of the evidence is it's verifiability. That does not work with subjective claims.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

I'm still waiting for any arguments from you. Come on Mr professional philosopher. Let's hear your wonderful compelling arguments against idealism, or for materialism LOL

Two things:

(1) I have better things to do than argue with people on whom argument has no impact.

(2) I have already told you that such things aren't one of my specialisms. I don't argue about things that aren't specialisms. I will ask, however, why on earth anybody should accept idealism. Enlighten me!

You have side-tracked the issue. You asked why philosophers didn't give arguments of merit against your position. I pointed out that they had (not that I had). You still haven't told me whether you have read all their arguments. If not, it's a bit unfair to say they have no merit.

You haven't addressed the question of whether you might simply be missing the merit of arguments, having (I have to assume) no philosophical training.

And if you want to see whether there are arguments of merit against your own position, why don't you publish your thoughts in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and see how people argue against you? This is the last time I'm going to ask this. Why don't you do it, Ian? I dare you to evade this question one last time.

 

[DionysianSmile]

Just to stick up for philosophers for a moment, the vast majority of them wouldn't agree with Ian. I don't know any philosophers who would, and believe me, I know quite a few. We're quite a sensible bunch on the whole, and try (in the analytic tradition, anyway) to avoid hazy words in favour of very precise ones.

Ian is not very precise. I consider myself in the sensible bunch.....

 

[Interesting Ian]

Two things:

(1) I have better things to do than argue with people on whom argument has no impact.

Hmmm . .how would you know this. Certainly you have provided no arguments against my position.

(2) I have already told you that such things aren't one of my specialisms. I don't argue about things that aren't specialisms. I will ask, however, why on earth anybody should accept idealism. Enlighten me!

Read Berkeley's the principles or dialogues.

You have side-tracked the issue. You asked why philosophers didn't give arguments of merit against your position. I pointed out that they had (not that I had). You still haven't told me whether you have read all their arguments. If not, it's a bit unfair to say they have no merit.

No I haven't read all their arguments. Give me one here and I'll comment on it.

Actually I'll be ordering this book.

You haven't addressed the question of whether you might simply be missing the merit of arguments, having (I have to assume) no philosophical training.

I don't know if I am or not. One can always claim there is something suble which I'm just not getting. If there is then enlighten me.

And if you want to see whether there are arguments of merit against your own position, why don't you publish your thoughts in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and see how people argue against you? This is the last time I'm going to ask this. Why don't you do it, Ian? I dare you to evade this question one last time.

I wouldn't mind doing so. They just accept anything from anyone do they?

 

[alfaniner]

Ian can argue all day on subjects he admittedly knows nothing about.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

Hmmm . .how would you know this. Certainly you have provided no arguments against my position.

Did I ever say I would?

Read Berkeley's the principles or dialogues.

I have. How is it you're allowed to tell me just to read something else, and I'm not allowed to tell you to do that, but have to produce arguments myself? Berkeley inherits a dodgy notion of sense data from Locke and Descartes, and draws his conclusions from it. But the notion was crap to start with.

No I haven't read all their arguments. Give me one here and I'll comment on it.

Read them yourself, you lazy sod.

Actually I'll be ordering this book.

Good for you. I hope you'll be very happy together.

I don't know if I am or not. One can always claim there is something suble which I'm just not getting. If there is then enlighten me.

Perhaps you don't get a lot of it because you have no philosophical training. And yet you seem to think you can comment authoritatively on the merit of arguments from the likes of Williams, Davies, Searle. I don't know, maybe you can. I'm just calling for a bit of humility--these people just might be better placed to produce arguments of merit than you are, and it might just be the case that you don't quite understand them.

I wouldn't mind doing so. They just accept anything from anyone do they? [/B]

If it's any good, yeah. You don't have to be affiliated with any university, you just have to be able to produce good arguments. Give it a go. Try Mind and Analysis for starters.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Read Berkeley's the principles or dialogues.

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



I have. How is it you're allowed to tell me just to read something else, and I'm not allowed to tell you to do that, but have to produce arguments myself? Berkeley inherits a dodgy notion of sense data from Locke and Descartes, and draws his conclusions from it. But the notion was crap to start with.

It's absolutely irrelevant what notion of sense data he had.

Dear me!

The point is that we can have no good reasons to suppose that there is anything beyond our sensory experiences.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

It's absolutely irrelevant what notion of sense data he had.

Dear me!

The point is that we can have no good reasons to suppose that there is anything beyond our sensory experiences.

You really are a buffoon. Goodbye.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You really are a buffoon. Goodbye.

LMAO! Come on Irish. You claim to be rather good at philosophy being a professional philosopher and all. Surely you should be able to defend your position here???

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Ian,

Murdoch never said that. It's just something your senses and your mind conspired to make up.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

Murdoch never said that. It's just something your senses and your mind conspired to make up.

Prove me wrong.

Murdoch never said what?

 

[Kitty Chan]

I(i.e., not in a sneering sceptical sort of way, though I am a sceptic) like to see answered by believers in magical powers, or the afterlife, or "higher planes". I'd be interested to know what you think.

Here's what I wrote on the other thread:

'I'm happy reading books, going for walks, eating crumpets in front of the fire on a cold Autumn afternoon, watching my kids grow up, and talking to my friends over a nice glass of pinot grigio. Why the need for anything more? I have to be honest (and this might just be a matter of temperament), I'm utterly baffled by why anybody would want "magical powers"'

So, my point is that there's another question to be asked of believers. "How do you know that's true?" is one question. But "Why on earth would you want it to be true?" is another.

Hmm ok Im going to try to answer this question of yours. I will state to start if you want clear answers from people you need to quit lumping things together. Most on these boards do and it makes for lousy discussion, just alot of arguing.

What I mean by this is the answer to your question is yes I believe but in what? You have suggested several catagories but lumped them together. But perhaps you do not realise that you have.

I do not believe in magic, or magical powers, higher planes, spiritual photography, UFO's, Bigfoot, Nessie (although I have a theory on that one), Lost Alantis, ESP, psychic, fortune telling, voodoo, Slyvia, John Edwards only crossed over the road on the way to the bank, the list goes on.

I used to believe in alot of that stuff and thought I was open to so much. But one spends their life hoping for someting else with this stuff. So I abandoned it. Like Ive said before Mr Randi actually was a help in this, ie the psychic healers in south america.

So, I do find wonderment in the world around me and joy. Somedays when stress is high its the pits and I struggle to remember that wonderment. I know the wonderment is there because it was pointed out to me by the scriptures. Yes to be specific Christ and the Bible.

If one looks at the basic message of what God wrote He said that the world is a amazing place. When wonderful beauty and things to find out and discover. Use the resources and find out stuff. Treat one another as good as you possibly can. And when life is the pits, comfort one another and struggle thought it, your made of better stuff than failure.

No magic because you are the magic, if someone hurts or is hungry go do something about it yourself. You generally dont let your parents handle everything you want to do it yourself so do it. Take care of one another, live develop.

Be careful and think alot of the things around you and dont let anyone lie to you, consider what they say and test it out to see if its true.

Thats the message I get. which is definetely different from what some have posted here.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan:
...snip...If one looks at the basic message of what God wrote...snip...

If you left the God reference out, the rest of your post from that point still makes good sense to me - in fact better sense without the superfluous God-thingie.

Who is this God, what did this God write and where? I'm sorry, Kitty, but I need convincing evidence of any god's existence. None exists that I'm aware of (but truckloads of evidence against).

How do you discriminate between what you believe in and what you don't believe in?

How does religious belief differ from belief in the things you listed that you do NOT believe in?

You got me all curious now...

 

[dann]

See, I knew this was too hard to explain.

I was 'taught' to accept everything that the universe threw at me - and I can see where your perception has come from. I was encouraged to think that you don't fight it, and you don't bring anger or negativity to the situation (very hard for a true celtic temperament- we like our tantrums!). So, you have somewhere else to lay blame, and remove yourself from the origin of the problem.

However, the possibility that magical things exist to help you with everyday things, or to help you get through it, exists alongside that. For example, I would regularly use aromatherapy, or treat myself and peers with it, or herbs, or reflexology, massage, 'remote healing', 'positive thoughts'.... a wide variety of unscientific things to use as everyday tools. When I thought of a friend and they called - that was a magical event, and was used as the basis for deciding that something important must be arisign from that phone call. I could know that I didn't have money to cover a bill, but was expected to 'trust to the universe' to provide me with the means, or some way of having the money appear. If it didn't, well, that was another lesson to be learned - there must be some great design behind my needing to be in the red at that particular time.

I hope this helps clarify a little - it's even harder to explain written down, than face to face - and that's been attempted a few times (I got a great personal counsellor).

I don’t think that the difficulty is that it is hard to explain. I think that the real difficulty is that we may actually agree on the explanation of the phenomenon, but you seem to be preoccupied with the way it feels to believe. I think you’re right, but the concept of believing is a little different from what it feels like to believe.

What I said was:

As I see it, your point is that the possibility of a magical world is a great thing for those whose life is difficult, and[/i] who do not want to do anything to change that situation. It is the victim's way of staying a victim by inventing a comforting view of a harsh reality instead of 'taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing ending them.'”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn’t that what you said yourself?

It accompanied the same thought processes that kept me with a violent partner for years ... I must be wrong, or confused, and it will all work out in the end as long as I trust ...the universe/my ex in what is given to me in my life.
Thankfully (and ironically) the hard times are what led me away from this path. I didn't get what I expected from 'spirit' or 'fate' or whatever I thought I believed in, and realised it was up to me to take practical action to keep myself alive, and sane.

Where I talk about “a comforting view of a harsh reality” you say that “it will all work out in the end as long as I trust”. Hard times won’t lead you away from the path of soothing illusions, however. When you don’t get what you expect from the spirits, you may also draw the inference that your faith, your trust in the universe, wasn’t strong enough to begin with. I congratulate you on your realisation, but you should take some credit for that realisation which took place in spite of what you had been taught and encouraged to believe ...

The main problem in the dialogue between believers and their critics, as I see it, is this: It is sometimes very easy to see – and correct – other people’s systematic mistakes. And the reason why it’s easy primarily has to do with your not being the one who has to face a reality that you have denied until now. It is extremely easy to tell a drug addict how get rid of his addiction: Say no to drugs! Don’t use them!
I think that you may have the same difficulty as Karla McLaren in her essay Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html where she tends to long for a ‘bridge’ that does not exist because it cannot exist. Her ideal is a skeptic who is at the same time accepting and still a skeptic, one who criticizes superstition without criticizing the superstitious. Her ideal is one of harmony where harmony cannot exist. It would be just as nonsensical for a drug addict to demand a cure that doesn’t hurt! Getting rid of a heroin addiction is a tough ride because the thrill of heroin is that it removes the pain! If you take the drug away from the addict, the pain returns – and it returns with a vengeance because you have been cheating the body. The pain that you fled from is added to the pain of withdrawal symptoms.
In your case you were not only confronted with a violent spouse, you also had to confront the silly ideas that you had invented in order to accept his abuse. That is a very tough ride, I know. Emotional pain also doesn’t simply disappear if you cheat yourself. It just makes it bearable and prolongs it.

I have witnessed a Danish doctor, Peter Ege, who is well-known in our country for treating drug addiction (his brother Ole is a well-known pornographer), talking to addicts. When they presented him with their illusions, pretending to themselves and him that they had their addiction under control, could stop any day now, but were just waiting for the right moment, the ideal circumstances (you name it), he pointed out to them that they were not only deluding but also harming themselves every day. They desperately wanted him to respect them as people who were in control (which, of course, they weren’t) and therefore hated him for pointing out the truth, (but in a peculiar way they also respected him for not buying into their own lies and delusions, thus respecting them as people who might appreciate hearing the truth).
There is no gentle way of opening people’s eyes to truths that they do not want to see! If they live in a heartless world and only want to endure its heartlessness, this illusory happiness – although it prevents them from getting really happy – still feels like happiness.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

Of course, you shouldn’t be abusive to these people, and there is also no reason to despise them – a common mistake among sceptics:

“The hardest part about this whole setup was going to the newage ("rhymes with sewage") bookstore. (...) The Bhodi Tree Bookstore makes me sad. A place filled with dazed-looking losers, and there I was buying crap just like the rest of them. It would be so nice if everyone there was doing research for a Penn & Teller bit, but I don't think so. Ugh. I had to go home and shower.”
http://www.randi.org/swift/current/psychic.html

Kari Coleman who wrote this is an idiot! She “had to go home and shower” after mingling with the “losers”!!! Come on!!!OK, they may be losers, but the very condition that turned them into losers is the thing that we also have to fight in order to fight superstition. Without that struggle all we have to offer these people would be something along these lines: We, the winners, want you, the losers, to give up your illusions and come to terms with and accept the reality that turns you into losers.
That notion is even more stupid than the worst kind of superstition. The abolition of religion is only one part of it. The abolition of the condition which needs illusions is the other one.

(BTW, Kari Coleman is not a full-time idiot! The rest of her article is a very good example of cold reading put into practice by a skeptic posing as a psychic, and I even translated it for a Danish website: http://www.skeptica.dk/pn2000/p_2000_5.htm)

 

[chillzero]

Wow! What an excellent posting - thanks.
I agree - your perception of what I wrote was clearer than I had realised. I got bogged down in the phrase about not trying to change things, and then it all got confusing. It is particularly hard to expain when it is something you have worked hard to put out of your instincts. I don't quite understand myself the same arguements I would have made when I believed these things.

I read most of that article, and felt like I was reading my own story at first. I ran out of online time before the end, and I didn't reach the quote you gave about showering, etc. How disrespectful! I'm sorry she put it that way. Personally I avoid those people in the beleif groups who actually and personally made my life harder. It's quite easy, since a lot of them don't trust me now that I have 'crossed over', and because I speak against someone thought of so highly in their 'community' (I'll not rant on here about my ex - did that in another thread).

But, when I meet new people, I never make judgements about their IQ, sense, intelligence, caring, ... anything at all, until I have reason to. After all, I am a very intelligent person, and was always well respected as far as IQ and ability goes, but there was the path I walked! I like to keep beliefs in that realm of things not to be shared, unless in rational discussion. Like sexual positions, or weird fettishes - it's not really anyone's business as it is so personal.

I guess I'm not a true 'born again' skeptic, so don't carry such extreme reactions as shown there. I think I was always a skeptic in my approach, no matter what I laid on top as my belief system, because I always question. I always have questioned everything- which often made me unpopular with my peers. That unpopularity is probably what led to my first steps to becoming who I am now - shedding a lot of the nonsense.

Thanks for a great reply, I don't feel I often get a chance to put my story across like this.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Anders, I just noticed I did not reply to your direct question since I do not like that myself I will attempt a answer, even if late...

If you left the God reference out, the rest of your post from that point still makes good sense to me - in fact better sense without the superfluous God-thingie.

Who is this God, what did this God write and where? I'm sorry, Kitty, but I need convincing evidence of any god's existence. None exists that I'm aware of (but truckloads of evidence against).

Dont be sorry its fine what you believe, thank you for being considerate. I am attempting to answer the original question by Irish, It asked from the point of view of a believer in God. How I think about the question. So I will continue in that vein as a jumping off point. I dont want to derail the thread by debating Gods existance, but if you want to we could move it to another thread?

For the sake of this thread too, when you ask who, what, where of this god I will not assume you know. Im talking of the "traditional" christian God of the bible. And state that the bible is inspired by the same God. Really there are many Gods and it is actually unaccurate to assume you know which one I am referring to.


How do you discriminate between what you believe in and what you don't believe in?

Hmm good question, hadnt thought of it that way before. First off life experience plays alot, if Ive seen it before. I will get a "take" on it what is it about what is the source of the idea and who else has heard of it. Then I would look for other opinions on it, depending on how curious I am perhaps look up a book, keep a ear open for information on the idea. Yes see if there is any reference in the bible about it, then basically toss it all around in my mind until I hopefully reach a conclusion.

How does religious belief differ from belief in the things you listed that you do NOT believe in?

You got me all curious now...

The things I have listed I have found to be not true. For instance I was always fasinated by magic. When I watched Randi years ago explain things, I could see how it was tricks. I remember when David Blaine was levitating everyone was freaking out and saying he had powers. I knew he has no powers, 2 sources Randi and the Bible (that should curl some peoples toes)

When I sought out the info I found hes a really talented guy but has no powers. No more than John Edwards. Most people dont realise what PT Barnum said. Cold readings Randi demonstrated quite well. Some people have amazing talent for observations and know how to use it.

Physic healings are a total show, voodoo is fear plain and simple. Now, lets step to the so called christian side. Like I harp on about, God said not to believe everything you see. I havent found anything that He said (not some preacher) in the bible that has messed me up. Now, I did have a benefit of a good pastor years ago that kept telling us to look it up and decide for ourselves.

Benny Hinn and his healings, my jury is still out on him. Miracles, I believe in but not in some splashy tv special, thats another thread too. Faith is not something that can be proved. Everyone wants proof, but with that then its not Faith. Like that exersise where you drop into the arms of everyone, you dont know they are there you have to believe.

Thats why Im convinced God will not write His Name in the sky and say Hi because then you will believe because of the sign.

Hope all that makes sense.

 

[flyboy217]

Irish Murdoch,

You have asked a very good question in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, I don't think you will get many responses from believers or the discussion that your question deserves. I've come to believe that this forum just doesn't promote healthy discussion between skeptics and believers.

Many of the responses on this thread demonstrate that, as they are filled with insults and patronizing theories on why people THINK believers want afterlife and the paranormal to be true. The term "woo-woo" is used everywhere (although not by you). That is a disrespectful term so how could believers be expected to participate in this thread?

I suggest if you really want to get some answers that you post the same question, in the same manner, on a couple of believer boards. If you do that, and don't attack or overly challenge the responses (seems like you're not the type that would do that), then you might get some interesting answers.

Agreed. The comments here that insinuate that believers are necessarily bad at math and science, and that "anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that this stuff is crap..." are unnecessarily condescending.

Now, I'm not exactly a believer. I considered myself a skeptic, but after reading the posts of those who call themselves skeptics here, I've decided I'm not deserving of the title. I'm a want-to-believer, who's willing to go do some investigation myself. And I would be very confident comparing my mathematical talent and intelligence against those of anyone here. I believe that people with considerable mathematical and scientific talent just aren't so interested in wasting energy trying to prove to others that such-and-such is just clearly impossible.

Also, if day-to-day reality is already exciting (which it certainly is), why wouldn't you be even MORE excited if something like psi came along? Such things can only add to the excitement of day-to-day life. After all, if they're true, I imagine they will eventually become part of day-to-day life.

Skeptics also seem to tend to be cynics. It seems even things like meditation, lucid dreaming, and hypnosis are pooh-poohed as woo-woo topics. I would certainly contend that more believers than skeptics are into those things. I daresay shunning such concepts as those makes life considerably less interesting. Life is nothing but experience, after all.

 

[Stitch]

Also, if day-to-day reality is already exciting (which it certainly is), why wouldn't you be even MORE excited if something like psi came along? Such things can only add to the excitement of day-to-day life. After all, if they're true, I imagine they will eventually become part of day-to-day life.

The term PSI came along many moons ago, we are just waiting for the scientific evidence to suggest that the hypothesis actually has any merit.

Skeptics also seem to tend to be cynics.

Whoa there!!

(From Dictionary.com)
Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Cynic: One who holds views resembling those of the Cynics; a snarler; a misanthrope; particularly, a person who believes that human conduct is directed, either consciously or unconsciously, wholly by self-interest or self-indulgence, and that appearances to the contrary are superficial and untrustworthy.

Now some skeptics MAY be cynics, and certainly at times some can come across as cynical (a subtley different thing). However, this cynical apperance is often due to the fustration of constantly asking for evidience to support a claim and it never being forthcoming.

It seems even things like meditation, lucid dreaming, and hypnosis are pooh-poohed as woo-woo topics.

I think they are areas that, so far, we have yet to see convicing evidence to support the claims. If evidence is presented that can be scientifically and repeatably tested to be shown to be true, then the skeptics will be happy to change their views.

I would certainly contend that more believers than skeptics are into those things.

Well of course, the skeptics haven't been provided with any credible evidence to support those things, so only those who are prepared to make a leap of faith and accept them without evidence will be "into them"

I daresay shunning such concepts as those makes life considerably less interesting. Life is nothing but experience, after all.

The concepts have not been "shunned" (Dictionary.com: To avoid deliberately; keep away from.), if fact they are met head on time and time again. We keep asking for the evidence to support the claims. Interesting to some may believing in things that are un-proven, interesting to others is investigating the up-proven to see if any evidence can be found to support it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Whoa there!!

(From Dictionary.com)
Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

The word no longer means that. The majority of the "skeptics" on here most certainly do not fit that description. They are dogmatists, the precise opposite to what the word skepticism originally meant. They presume the correctness of a certain conception of reality and view any reported phenomena, apparently contravening that conception, with the attitude that all is not what it seems, and that the apparent phenomenon in question must have an explanation which would render it consistent with the premises of their worldview.

I call such people Skeptics. I reserve the word "sceptics" to label those who are sceptics in the original sense of the word. It might be helpful if you were to read this by Marcello Truzzi. BTW referring to Skeptics as cynics does not seem to be inappropriate. It seems to me from my understanding of the term that you have quoted a skewed definition of the word "cynic".

Now, as to the evidence for certain paranormal phenomena, in particular "psi", there is a colossal amount of evidence for it. Of course how good all the evidence is, is another issue. If we concentrate on the scientific evidence, and from my admittedly limited study of the evidence, I tend to have the opinion that it is conceivable, albeit it unlikely, that all the evidence is due to artifacts of one nature or the other which are skewing the results in a positive direction. However, if we then bear in mind that such phenomena has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, and not infrequently either, then it seems to me to be irrational to deny the existence of this phenomena. This is not withstanding the psychological propensities of people to misinterpret, exaggerate, deceive etc.

 

[chillzero]

The word no longer means that. The majority of the "skeptics" on here most certainly do not fit that description. They are dogmatists, .....

the majority, huh?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Is it actually an opinion rather than something that can be measured and proven?

And are you saying that the universal meaning of the word has changed simply because of your perception of what occurs on one forum?