Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

[Mojo]

Homeopathic current status is well know & well discussed here & it is not the 'new subject' of today. Let us therefore wait till it is proved or till dies in itself--if fake. We may therefore avoid wasting of our time in just 'yes & no' but can utilze it in knowing something new.

To the topic subject, whether skeptics are any kind of beliver or not?

OK, Kumar, if you look at the definitions you cut and pasted into your first post in the is thread, you will see that "believer" and "skeptic" are diametrically opposed positions. However, dictionary definitions of words do not necessarily describe how the real world works. The "skeptics" on this forum are real people, and real people can't generally be pigeonholed neatly into dictionary definitions. You will find that there are people who take, for example, a skeptical approach to the observeable universe but describe themselves as Christian. Attaching a label such as "skeptic" or "believer" to someone is sometimes convenient, but is not likely to give a complete description of a real person.

 

[Kumar]

OK, Kumar, if you look at the definitions you cut and pasted into your first post in the is thread, you will see that "believer" and "skeptic" are diametrically opposed positions. However, dictionary definitions of words do not necessarily describe how the real world works. The "skeptics" on this forum are real people, and real people can't generally be pigeonholed neatly into dictionary definitions. You will find that there are people who take, for example, a skeptical approach to the observeable universe but describe themselves as Christian. Attaching a label such as "skeptic" or "believer" to someone is sometimes convenient, but is not likely to give a complete description of a real person.

Mojo, I just think that skeptic are just 'believer with evidance' whereas believers are just belivers by words, substancial saying.

Anyway I just want to check;

Whether so mentioned real skeptics, do belive in their parents & ancesstors as their true parents & ancesstors or not without scientific test & evidances as DNA test? Do they provide These evidances to their children or not?

 

[Vikram]

Whether so mentioned real skeptics, do belive in their parents & ancesstors as their true parents & ancesstors or not without scientific test & evidances as DNA test? Do they provide These evidances to their children or not?

Aha! What a wonderful trap you've woven, Kumar!

Allow me to demonstrate what you expected would happen:


[skit]
Kumar: Whether so mentioned real skeptics, do belive in their parents & ancesstors as their true parents & ancesstors or not without scientific test & evidances as DNA test?

Skeptics: Yes, skeptics believe that their parents are their true parents without undergoing testing.

Kumar: Haha! That means you're not real skeptic. You're believer! How you explain that?

Skeptics: Oh no! What have we done!!! Kumar has defeated us with his razor-sharp logic! Boo-Hoo!
[/skit]


That's not going to happen.

For most of us, the similarities in physical appearance between us and our parents strongly indicate that we come from the same DNA stock. Undergoing a DNA test would be expensive and inconvenient and the claim that we are biological offsprings of our parents is not an extraordinary enough claim to require the undergoing of a test.

Furthermore, my parents have given me all the love and affection that 'true' parents ought to give to their 'true' children. Even if it were to turn out that I'm adopted, it wouldn't matter one bit. They would still be my 'true' parents and I would still be their 'true' son.

That said, if ANYONE wants to check the biological status of his/her parentage, a DNA can quickly give the result. I don't do it because it's an issue that truly doesn't make any difference to me.

And shame on you, Kumar, for using such a silly trick to try to expose what you thought was a weakness of skepticism.

 

[Kumar]

Aha! What a wonderful trap you've woven, Kumar!

It is not a trap, but it holds some logic alike you believe in any mass existing but meant to do good aspect--whether God, spritual, religion, your guardians or any alternative system. The essence is in looking that 'whether intentions & effects are for doing goods'.

Skeptics: Yes, skeptics believe that their parents are their true parents without undergoing testing.

In skepticism(your thinking), science & court--emotions & sentiments may hold no value.

Kumar: Haha! That means you're not real skeptic. You're believer! How you explain that?

Skeptics: Oh no! What have we done!!! Kumar has defeated us with his razor-sharp logic! Boo-Hoo!
[/skit]


That's not going to happen.

There is no question of defeat as I am also a big & real skeptic, therefore trying to find logic/science behind all those concepts, still thought as paranormal, supernatural or pseudoscientific in Exact science, but with love, respect, worship, dedication etc.. I also respect mass observations & experiances on concept which 'can do only good'(i.e. with least adversities).

For most of us, the similarities in physical appearance between us and our parents strongly indicate that we come from the same DNA stock. Undergoing a DNA test would be expensive and inconvenient and the claim that we are biological offsprings of our parents is not an extraordinary enough claim to require the undergoing of a test.

Does science accept it as a perfect evidance? These are just observations, probabilities, emotions, indications..but not science. You can't accept anyone resembles with you as your brother.

Furthermore, my parents have given me all the love and affection that 'true' parents ought to give to their 'true' children. Even if it were to turn out that I'm adopted, it wouldn't matter one bit. They would still be my 'true' parents and I would still be their 'true' son.

These are emotional words but not a scientific evidance. You can love & care accordingly to some adopted ones, pets, friends etc.--but still can't validate them as your blood relatives, in science.

That said, if ANYONE wants to check the biological status of his/her parentage, a DNA can quickly give the result. I don't do it because it's an issue that truly doesn't make any difference to me.

We do & have to believe in those aspects which are only meant to do good. But still if we doubt & ask for scientific proofs---then probably God can be angry & so it can make some difference.

And shame on you, Kumar, for using such a silly trick to try to expose what you thought was a weakness of skepticism.

All can feel, WHEN doubted & asked accordingly--esp. on concepts with least adversities. Btw, when you can doubt GOD, RELIGIONS, HOLY SYSTEMS, SPRITUALITIES, GOOD SYSTEMS etc. then what?? Are these not much bigger & respectful than what I mentioned???

I can't say WHO should feel much bigger shame.

Probably, we should only prusue 'meant for only good' or with 'least adversities' type concepts & systems alike;

'GOD EXISTS, WE SHOULD RESPECT HIM AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND HIM WITH LOVE, DEDICATIONS, WORSHIPS & RESPECT alike as we do in case of our parents & ancesstors to get only benefits.

Sorry, probably YOU may find/feel it bit wrong in your ego or sense, BUT it looks TRUTH to me--because I understand "HIM" & "HIS WORK".

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, I just think that skeptic are just 'believer with evidance' whereas believers are just belivers by words, substancial saying.

No, a skeptic is not just a 'believer with evidence.' A skeptic has to be prepared to change their view if the evidence it was based on turns out to have been wrong, or if better conflicting evidence comes to light. This is something that "believers" characteristically fail to do, for example when double-blind testing reveals that homeopathy doesn't work.

 

[Vikram]

'GOD EXISTS, WE SHOULD RESPECT HIM AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND HIM WITH LOVE, DEDICATIONS, WORSHIPS & RESPECT alike as we do in case of our parents & ancesstors to get only benefits.

Sorry, probably YOU may find/feel it bit wrong in your ego or sense, BUT it looks TRUTH to me--because I understand "HIM" & "HIS WORK".

That's what the Aztecs felt as well. They respected and worshipped their god and claimed to understand his work. And they honored him with human sacrifices

Of course, in your opinion, it would be wrong to question their beliefs because questioning angers god.

So do you agree with the beliefs of the Aztecs? If no, why not?

 

[Donks]

Probably, we should only prusue 'meant for only good' or with 'least adversities' type concepts & systems alike;

'GOD EXISTS, WE SHOULD RESPECT HIM AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND HIM WITH LOVE, DEDICATIONS, WORSHIPS & RESPECT alike as we do in case of our parents & ancesstors to get only benefits.

Sorry, probably YOU may find/feel it bit wrong in your ego or sense, BUT it looks TRUTH to me--because I understand "HIM" & "HIS WORK".

And yet you only wish to pursue systems that steal money from sick people and do nothing beneficial for them.

 

[Kumar]

Mojo,Vikram,Donks,

In view of your definitions, skepticism & modern science, anything can be thought to become alike Aztecs, toxic or non-effective, in future 'till any concept is declared as an absolute'. But the essence of subject is that' with least adversities' or just do goods only. Parents, God, Spritual systems, non toxic systems.. can come under this 'good' category. Whereas 'God' & some concepts are also considered as 'absolute'.

 

[Zep]

Mojo,Vikram,Donks,

In view of your definitions, skepticism & modern science, anything can be thought to become alike Aztecs, toxic or non-effective, in future 'till any concept is declared as an absolute'. But the essence of subject is that' with least adversities' or just do goods only. Parents, God, Spritual systems, non toxic systems.. can come under this 'good' category. Whereas 'God' & some concepts are also considered as 'absolute'.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,Vikram,Donks,

In view of your definitions, skepticism & modern science, anything can be thought to become alike Aztecs, toxic or non-effective, in future 'till any concept is declared as an absolute'.

What you need to do, then, is work on developing effective and non-toxic Aztecs. Just think how this could benefit the world!

But the essence of subject is that' with least adversities' or just do goods only.

Or, in the case of homeopathy (which I assume is what you are driving at when you say "with least adversities") just do nothing.

Parents, God, Spritual systems, non toxic systems.. can come under this 'good' category. Whereas 'God' & some concepts are also considered as 'absolute'.

Or not, as the case may be. Anyway, apart from parents, what evidence is there that any of these concepts have any validity?

 

[Kumar]

What you need to do, then, is work on developing effective and non-toxic Aztecs. Just think how this could benefit the world!Or, in the case of homeopathy (which I assume is what you are driving at when you say "with least adversities") just do nothing.Or not, as the case may be. Anyway, apart from parents, what evidence is there that any of these concepts have any validity?

I think we have already thinned out most of adverse, toxic & 'thought bad' concepts(except if we introduced some new & attuned people accordingly due to vested interests or ignorances) & so whatever are left can be positive, non toxic or 'thought/found good'. Moreover, I have not checked logic behind any old thought/found as bad aspect', but 'survival of fittest', 'Might is right', Thinning out the weaks/diseased/carriers of deadly diseases, prunning etc. were thought to be some usual, regular natural balancing common practices.

Killing is just killing--of any life..irrespective of any type(botanical or zoological). If any killing is anticipated & other not, it can just be thought as 'duality'. But if is for some above reason or for some 'nature balance'--it may be a regular natural practice.

Your opinion about homeopathy is just your or your community's opinion or interest & still not absolute or still a 'miss' or 'weakness' or 'weakness' or 'pending'. Unless & untill you satisfy homeopathic community for same, it may hold no importance. Similarily it is valid for other mass...systems. Second possibilty will be that 'it/these dies in itself if fake or you found reasonable science behind it/these( a bad day for those) but till that we have to wait & watch quietly unless backed by some vested commercial interests.

Other concepts can also exist somewhat alike parents, friends, other goods..etc. There can be some otherwise posibilities but valid on ground of faith, goods, beliefs or otherwise. Anyway physical existance is there in energetic & materialistic forms--which you have 'yet to understand & translate'--because is abc, basic & basis of everything & much more indicated 'here'.

 

[Darat]

Homeopathy does not work or to paraphrase:

These are opposite. You can say that a skeptic dose believe in something. But she just want to not believe in style based on his evidences. Few skeptic can believe after getting some beliefs by himself personally OR by scientists of his evidences OR by eve-witnesses of her unaccepted authorities OR by observations & experiances of her community/disliked/unbelieved people. Some other skeptics can not believe in mass & well distributed observations & experiances but others may. Some can believe in 'alternative systems' whereas others in traditional/alternative systems. Some may believe in few concepts of non-religion/non-system but may believe in nothing whereas other may believe in everything of this religion/system--but still believe in their religion/system?

 

[Kumar]

Sorry, Double posting deleted.

 

[Kumar]

Homeopathy does not work

Yes in science, but all/their mass...community of healers+ patients+followers do not feel/finds it similarily.?? Should we believe more in those who practically tasted or in those who just tested?

or to paraphrase:

These are opposite. You can say that a skeptic dose believe in something. But she just want to not believe in style based on his evidences. Few skeptic can believe after getting some beliefs by himself personally OR by scientists of his evidences OR by eve-witnesses of her unaccepted authorities OR by observations & experiances of her community/disliked/unbelieved people. Some other skeptics can not believe in mass & well distributed observations & experiances but others may. Some can believe in 'alternative systems' whereas others in traditional/alternative systems. Some may believe in few concepts of non-religion/non-system but may believe in nothing whereas other may believe in everything of this religion/system--but still believe in their religion/system?

Thanks, but this has become quite complicated. What is the relation between skepticism & belief? Can we name skeptic as 'believer' or 'better believer than common believer' at any point?

 

[Darat]

Yes in science, but all/their mass...community of healers+ patients+followers do not feel/finds it similarily.?? Should we believe more in those who practically tasted or in those who just tested?

Believe what you will however that will not affect the fact that homeopathy has never been shown to work (as per its own premises).

...snip...


Thanks, but this has become quite complicated. What is the relation between skepticism & belief? Can we name skeptic as 'believer' or 'better believer than common believer' at any point?

I apologise for any confusion I was parodying one of your posts, not to parody your English but your incomprehensible reasoning.

 

[Mojo]

I think we have already thinned out most of adverse, toxic & 'thought bad' concepts(except if we introduced some new & attuned people accordingly due to vested interests or ignorances) & so whatever are left can be positive, non toxic or 'thought/found good'.

Disposing of "adverse, toxic and 'thought bad' concepts" does not necessarily mean that whatever is left is effective (I assume that's what you mean by "positive"). It will also leave us with stuff that has no effect whatsoever.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sure it may be a derail, but...

Kumar & simolar people (sorry, I could not resist the pun) are always referring to some sort of "natural ballance", as if nature is in some sort of steady-state (or reference point, level, whatever). As if natural systems within the universe were in perfect "equilibrium" and thus we, sentient beings, must also seek this. It is a key argument for defenders of homeopathy and for many if not most woo "disciplines".

Now, please correct me if I´m wrong, but...

There is no actual ballance or equilibrium as proposed by these people, its nothing but a misconception. All systems within the universe are dynamic, changingwith time. Quite often what one sees as "natural ballance" (specially when it comes to ecosystems) is nothing but a Dt, an instant picture of an evolving system. One is usually not around for enough time to see the changes. If there were such "ballances" and "equilibriums" in the nature , then there would be no evolution of species, stars would not form from gas clouds to later become supernovas, black holes, neutron stars or white dwarves, no expansion of the universe...

 

[Vikram]

Thanks, but this has become quite complicated.

Trust me Kumar. Darat's response was EXACTLY like your posts - for a moment I thought he was quoting you from somewhere. Your finding it complicated is quite interesting, because if you find your own style of writing complicated, imagine how difficult it is for us to read.

Kumar, I'll be frank here. Your grasp of grammar, syntax and spelling is a little weak. Take that in consideration and write short sentences like the rest of us. Your long sentences with many many ands and buts are truly exasperating to read. I'm minutes away from the point where I'm no longer interested in reading any of your posts because they are just too tangled and illogical.

What is the relation between skepticism & belief?

A skeptic is able to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary claims and demands evidence for the extraordinary ones. A believer is incapable of distinguishing between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims and thinks that the existence of ghosts is as likely as the existence of apples.

Can we name skeptic as 'believer' or 'better believer than common believer' at any point?

No.

 

[Vikram]

Your opinion about homeopathy is just your or your community's opinion or interest & still not absolute or still a 'miss' or 'weakness' or 'weakness' or 'pending'.

Unless & untill you satisfy homeopathic community for same, it may hold no importance.

I recently read in some silly magazine that the road to perfect health was by drinking "seven glasses of water AS SOON AS you get up in the morning, even before brushing your teeth". It said that this therapy could cure TB in 3 months and cancer in 6 months.

Obviously, that therapy is nothing but nonsense.


Now are you going to tell me that my opinion is "still not absolute"?

Are you going to tell me that I can't recognize the reality of this treatment because of my "vested commercial interests and ignorances"?

Are you going to tell me "Unless & untill you satisfy the 7-glass-drinking community for same, it may hold no importance."?

You have absolutely no understanding of science. I don't have to satisfy the 7-glass-drinking or the homeopathic communities. The 7-glass-drinking or homeopathic communities have to satisfy the scientific requirement of evidence. They haven't. Hence, homeopathic practitioners should be banned as peddlars of unproven remedies until such time as they can prove that their medications work.

 

[Minkster]

Apologies as I haven't read all the thread (I drifted off when everyone started debating homeopathy)....but surely the answer to the original question is Yes, of course skeptics can be believers.

I believe in penicillin because it has been scientifically proved to work. I believe in dreams as I have them. I believe in the fact that some people are double-jointed as I have witnessed some ridiculous positions in my time (ahem)....

I don't believe in ghosts though, or reflexology, or little aliens coming down in spaceships and abducting people....

The difference being that in order to believe, I have to have some sort of tangible proof and not just work on anecdotes and blind faith.

I can't see where the argument is....maybe I'm being a bit dim here, but thats the key difference between a skeptic and a woo in my eyes....they will believe things without having any form of proof or evidence and don't pursue rational thought processes. Referring to a 'believer' is meaningless without it being in context...

Hope that makes sense