Skeptic vs. believer's forums

[TheFeds]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login

Skep, that's a brilliant article; thanks.

 

[Operaider]

Sweden has no army???

I didn't realize that.

Hmmm... I wonder if they have any oil fields. Maybe we should give them freedom too.

 

[Interesting Ian]

In my experience, 'believer' forums tend to generate a genuine mob atmosphere as soon as a skeptic turns up.

WOW!! That certainly would make a change! OK, go on, gimme the links!

The only couple of times I've been on a believer forum, everyone just ignores me!

 

[Interesting Ian]

To build on what El Greco said: I find that the conversation tends to swirl around in circles, with the believers addressing only one or two points the skeptic makes, and diverting those points to other topics, often concerning how nasty we skeptoids really are. The conversation eventually becomes one of personalities.

Eventually, the believer will point out that the conversation is going in circles and blame the skeptic. In the process, the believer will call the skeptic illogical, if at all possible. If you try to restart the conversation, the same thing will happen again.

~~ Paul

Where does this happen Paul? They're completely unlike me then?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I don't really mind that mob atmosphere. I will answer their accusations, unfair assumptions and ad hominems calmly, politely and sensible, and the attackers ends up looking foolish, even in the eyes of their fellow believers. On the believer boards I have frequented, there are entirely illogical people, and often also an amount of fairly reasonable people, and all of them usually admits that I make good points and informative posts.

I've never seen any skeptics make any good points or informative posts

 

[Jeff Corey]

I've never seen any skeptics make any good points or informative posts

I think that's because you neither reason from facts nor understand science and generally only make sense to yourself.
And you call people idiots.

 

[Skep]

I've never seen any skeptics make any good points or informative posts

That's probably because skeptics can only show you the proof, they can't make you "see" it.

And do you really posit that no skeptic has ever made a good point or an informative post where you could see it? If so, it would seem your unique intellect is wasted here. But clearly your post is more flame bait than actual point. No more troll chow for you.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And do you really posit that no skeptic has ever made a good point or an informative post where you could see it? If so, it would seem your unique intellect is wasted here. But clearly your post is more flame bait than actual point. No more troll chow for you.

I cannot recall any Skeptic on here ever saying anything which has made me pause for thought, or made me question any of my beliefs. Yes they occasionally make good points, but no good points which I wasn't already aware of.

 

[Garvarn]

Re: Re: Skeptic vs. believer's forums

WOW!! That certainly would make a change! OK, go on, gimme the links!

The only couple of times I've been on a believer forum, everyone just ignores me!

Well, that could mean that even they think you are a total freak but since you're on their side they don't know what to do with you.

Just a thought...

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[plindboe]

I've never seen any skeptics make any good points or informative posts

That's because you are a close-minded fanatic(See my Bertrand Russell quote). You will never be convinced otherwise no matter what arguments you are presented with. You know the Truth, and everybody else are wrong.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That's because you are a close-minded fanatic(See my Bertrand Russell quote). You will never be convinced otherwise no matter what arguments you are presented with. You know the Truth, and everybody else are wrong.

I think that Russell quote is great. I read it many years ago and fully agree with it. However, I will not be convinced with the arguments that you clowns present, certainly. Russell made no statement to the effect that it is foolish not to be persauded by fallacious or stupid arguments, or to be persauded by arguments with which one has already taken into account in arriving at ones position.

 

[plindboe]

I think that Russell quote is great. I read it many years ago and fully agree with it. However, I will not be convinced with the arguments that you clowns present, certainly. Russell made no statement to the effect that it is foolish not to be persauded by fallacious or stupid arguments, or to be persauded by arguments with which one has already taken into account in arriving at ones position.

Indeed, you have arrived at your position and nothing we say can ever convince you otherwise. Everything we say is rubbish by default, because it challenges your beliefs. You are the fool/fanatic in Russell's quote, because you have no doubt.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Indeed, you have arrived at your position and nothing we say can ever convince you otherwise. Everything we say is rubbish by default, because it challenges your beliefs. You are the fool/fanatic in Russell's quote, because you have no doubt.

I hope you don't address other believers like that in believer forums!

Lighten up plindboe. You know my opinions. No need for us to dislike each other because of it though.

 

[plindboe]

I hope you don't address other believers like that in believer forums!

Hehe, I'm usually more diplomatic.

Lighten up plindboe. You know my opinions. No need for us to dislike each other because of it though.

I'm just telling my honest impression of you. I like your posts, and think you're a great addition to this forum, but when you call all other opinions stupid and people clowns I tend to think the words "fool" or "fanatic". I often see people behave like that, and it's mostly among uneducated simpletons who are completely unable to grasp that anyone can have a different understanding of the world than they have. If you had some more humility, I would really like you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I cannot recall any Skeptic on here ever saying anything which has made me pause for thought, or made me question any of my beliefs.

Ah, so that's what you meant! Interesting Ian, my guess is you will never, ever meet anyone who will make you pause for thought. Apparently, it's not one of the things you do. And "question any of your beliefs"? No-one expects you to do that.

But don't you think that if all the disparate people you talk to can never make you think or question, this might perhaps be a reflection on you rather than your interlocutors?

Sceptics, of course, pause for thought frequently and question their beliefs often --- but then, their beliefs stand up to questioning.

 

[epepke]

I think this is right, and I think it's quite understandable. People generally have emotions invested in their beliefs. So in a believer's forum, most of the people are going to have an emotional investment in whatever is being discussed: telepathy, spirits, God, whatever.

Skeptics qua skeptics, however, only have an emotional investment in getting an accurate view of the world and in the means of doing this. I find doing science quite enjoyable. It's very unlikely, however, that a believer, by virtue of arguing, is going to take away the fun I get from doing science. (Believers may threaten it in other ways, such as by attacking science education, but that's really a different question, and these do elicit emotional responses from skeptics. Also, individual skeptics may have emotional attachment to particular beliefs, but these tend to be idiosyncratic and are effectively random.)

It would be no skin off my nose if someone were to demonstrate to my satisfaction that telepathy, Bigfoot, gods, spirits, or whatever actually existed. If anything, it would make the world more interesting. The accurate picture of the world would simply be expanded to have more stuff in it and would be even more fun as a result. Some of my favorite works of fiction involve postulating psi or ghosts or something and then trying to work out what this would mean, how it would affect the social structure.

This is also, I think, the reason for some of the sillier accusations made by believers toward skeptics, such as accusing us of hating god or something. They do not and in some cases cannot comprehend that a skeptic has little or no emotional investment in the presence or absence of a particular phenomenon. Believers assume that skeptics think the same way they do, but they don't.

 

[flyboy217]

The fact is that a great deal of skeptics will grow haughty at their greater knowledgeability as opposed to believers.

This appears to be one of the major problems with skeptic forums. Hubris is one of the more distasteful personality traits, and there's no shortage of it here.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think this is right, and I think it's quite understandable. People generally have emotions invested in their beliefs. So in a believer's forum, most of the people are going to have an emotional investment in whatever is being discussed: telepathy, spirits, God, whatever.

Skeptics qua skeptics, however, only have an emotional investment in getting an accurate view of the world and in the means of doing this.

And how many skeptics are there on here? MikeD, dharlow, flyboy perhaps. Just a handful of people. Believers and so called "skeptics" both have preconceived ideas about the world. They are both absolutely convinced that their beliefs are the correct characterization of reality. If only the other side were more intelligent and would just listen to reason!! Convince me that there is anything of substantive difference between them. I'm sorry, but I will not be impressed with people who emphatically deny that so called "skeptics" and ardent believers have not got a great deal in common.

This is also, I think, the reason for some of the sillier accusations made by believers toward skeptics, such as accusing us of hating god or something. They do not and in some cases cannot comprehend that a skeptic has little or no emotional investment in the presence or absence of a particular phenomenon. Believers assume that skeptics think the same way they do, but they don't.

I rather think that they are correct. So called "Skeptics" are not inhuman. They tend to be as emotional as anyone else. Really, you seriously expect people to believe there is no emotional dimension to so called "skeptics" beliefs?? Come now. Please be sensible. You're an intelligent guy in my opinion. PLease use your intelligence constructively and try to be a bit more objective and impartial.

 

[Suggestologist]

I think this is right, and I think it's quite understandable. People generally have emotions invested in their beliefs. So in a believer's forum, most of the people are going to have an emotional investment in whatever is being discussed: telepathy, spirits, God, whatever.

Skeptics qua skeptics, however, only have an emotional investment in getting an accurate view of the world and in the means of doing this.

Well, you have to remember that when someone argues a position, the more they develop their argument -- the more personally invested they become -- the more a disproof would be perceived as ego-diminishing. Skeptics do become invested in their positions, have they not?

I find doing science quite enjoyable. It's very unlikely, however, that a believer, by virtue of arguing, is going to take away the fun I get from doing science. (Believers may threaten it in other ways, such as by attacking science education, but that's really a different question, and these do elicit emotional responses from skeptics. Also, individual skeptics may have emotional attachment to particular beliefs, but these tend to be idiosyncratic and are effectively random.)

It would be no skin off my nose if someone were to demonstrate to my satisfaction that telepathy, Bigfoot, gods, spirits, or whatever actually existed. If anything, it would make the world more interesting. The accurate picture of the world would simply be expanded to have more stuff in it and would be even more fun as a result. Some of my favorite works of fiction involve postulating psi or ghosts or something and then trying to work out what this would mean, how it would affect the social structure.

This is also, I think, the reason for some of the sillier accusations made by believers toward skeptics, such as accusing us of hating god or something. They do not and in some cases cannot comprehend that a skeptic has little or no emotional investment in the presence or absence of a particular phenomenon. Believers assume that skeptics think the same way they do, but they don't.

Is it also true that skeptics assume that believers (should) think the same way they do -- that if they don't think that way then they are stupid? But they are both just as stupid if they don't realize that the other person doesn't think in the same structure as their own.

I really like hypnosis -- I like being in trancy states of mind. Recently, I happened to watch a T.D. Jakes ministry event on religious TV. I'm an atheist. But I thought he was terrific -- what he was doing (and what many of them do) was producing a very trancy state of mind in the audience. And I could describe the technical things he was doing in hypnosis-terms, but I highly doubt he would recognize those terms himself.

Now, how could an atheist ever hope to convert someone who loves those trancy states of mind (perhaps someone who is even "addicted" to them) -- without providing something just as good - in the same way (trancy states of mind) to take the place of someone like T.D. Jakes?

You want to learn how to be expressive -- how to transmit an emotion to your audience? -- and along with it overarching principles about ways to live life? Then watch people like T.D. Jakes -- he's amazing.

Now, take a look at skeptic lectures -- is Randi as engaging as T.D. Jakes? Is Dennet as compelling? No -- they simply aren't. They are no replacement for a T.D. Jakes or even a (sleaze like) Robert Tilton.

And I should add that it doesn't help that Randi and Dennet disparage Trance States of Mind (hypnosis) -- though Shermer has a reasonable view of the subject.

If you're offering a mediocre feeling about yourself in exchange for giving up a juicy trancey feeling -- how many people can you reasonably expect to take you up on that?

 

[Question]

In my experience, 'believer' forums tend to generate a genuine mob atmosphere as soon as a skeptic turns up. "We are here to share experiences, not to be insulted with demands for evidence!", "If you have no experience of your own, get out!" or "Visit a medium yourself and then come back!"

When I inform them I have been to highly recommended mediums and they turned up with nothing, I am told that the mediums I visited was not serious or 'certified' (the Grand Mama of Swedish mediums nowadays issues certificates for her pupils -- ensuring that they have gone through training in accordance with 'international standards'). Please note, they have no idea of which mediums I have consulted.

Skeptic forums, on the other hand, tend to be fairly open to different opinions and criticism among skeptics seems to be allowed.

What is your experience?

/Chateaubriand

criticism is NOT ALLOwED here

you are too clothed minded