The Wisdom of Woo WU

[Dancing David]

We have recentlt been visited by one Winston Wu , who gave us a good drive by spamming but left little evidence for us evil scpetics in our Super Secret Sceptic Society to tear from mind numbing empty shull to phantom grasping finger tips.

So I went to his Sceptics Debunked Website in hope of finding enetertainment.

Enter at Your own Peril!

a generalization about the worn kind of sceptic

Skeptics who use these arguments include honest doubters, cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won't admit it), scientific materialists, haters of religion, etc.

on the meaness of sceptics

One of the tell-tale signs of cynics and closed-minded skeptics is in the words they use when describing believers, such as: "delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking", etc. Watch out if you see someone or an author frequently using words like that to describe what they don’t understand. These kind of skeptics also tend to belong to organized Skeptics groups fighting to suppress paranormal evidence, such as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), Australian Skeptics, ISUNY (Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York), and many others.

On the Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument

Fourth, the significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I found this part of one the quotes very interesting (bolding mine)

These kind of skeptics also tend to belong to organized Skeptics groups fighting to suppress paranormal evidence, such as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), Australian Skeptics, ISUNY (Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York), and many others

Supress is kind of a weasle word because it implies that we have the evidence but are making an active effort to make sure that no one else sees it. To supress evidence one would have to see it, have any of you seen any evidence to supress? I sure haven't.

the sheer dishonesty of that phrasingmakes me very suspicious about the whole thing and about Mr. Wu's integrity as a whole.

 

[Ed]

One piece of clear evidence and this can all stop.

Tells me something.

 

[Yahweh]

Its kinda hard for me to imagine a person so anti-Critical Thought, how does this guy expect of to examine paranormal claims of others.

It seems the motivation behind the rant is "they dont believe what I believe". He's an idiot if you ask me...

 

[Dancing David]

It seems that I have summoned him with my spell.

MUWAHAHAHA

PS My spell caused him to be summoned in the past here, in this thread

The Wu Himself

 

[waitew]

I found this part of one the quotes very interesting (bolding mine)



Supress is kind of a weasle word because it implies that we have the evidence but are making an active effort to make sure that no one else sees it. To supress evidence one would have to see it, have any of you seen any evidence to supress? I sure haven't.

the sheer dishonesty of that phrasingmakes me very suspicious about the whole thing and about Mr. Wu's integrity as a whole.

What!!?? The sceptics of upper New York make the list But JREF doesn't?!!How insulting!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What!!?? The sceptics of upper New York make the list But JREF doesn't?!!How insulting!

I guess we just aren't in the loop. The JREF must not be an official arm of the Evil Skeptic Conspiracy (which itself is heavily infiltrated by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy).

 

[El Greco]

Its kinda hard for me to imagine a person so anti-Critical Thought, how does this guy expect of to examine paranormal claims of others.

He doesn't. Haven't you noticed in this very forum that most credophiles believe and support what each of them says, no matter how absurd ? And even when they don't, they usually don't express their disagreement and remain silent.

 

[CFLarsen]

He doesn't. Haven't you noticed in this very forum that most credophiles believe and support what each of them says, no matter how absurd ? And even when they don't, they usually don't express their disagreement and remain silent.

Yeps. Now, there's a "conspiracy" for you: One of silence, not suppression.

It is obvious, though, why they don't speak out: By doing so, they also make it possible to question their own beliefs. So, they keep silent. They ignore it. It might go away. Shhhhh........

Problem is, it does not go away. By staying silent, they actually help these absurd - and quite often dangerous and even lethal - beliefs, that hurt people. Sometimes, even kill.

Do they care? Perhaps. But they prefer to stay silent, because nothing - and I mean nothing - must come between them and their beliefs.

They are cowards.

 

[Dancing David]

Well #14 covers it pretty well. That is the part of the Creduloid Creed where they state that it is wrong to say thier thinking is infantile. Baby goo-goo=credivle woo woo.

We have to remember that basically, it is simply our a-priori beliefs that affect our acceptance of the data for paranormal phenomena. Closed minded skeptics and debunkers know going into an investigation that there is a natural explanation, and are firmly committed to finding it. The problem is that it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions. It also doesn't do much for skepticism’s reputation when a researcher goes in (falsely, and obviously so) proclaiming neutrality when the reality is otherwise. Why not just be honest and say "I don't believe it. It is possible to convince me, but I don't think that is going to happen because in my experience, the world doesn't work that way.'"?

In other words in you don't believe in the paranormal then you aren't going to find the paranormal.

So if you don't believe then you wont see.

We as sceptics are uninformed because we are close minded.

 

[iain]

One of the tell-tale signs of cynics and closed-minded skeptics is in the words they use when describing believers, such as: "delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking", etc.

Many sceptics certainly throw around these sorts of terms far too freely. For example, as far as I know there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that people who believe in homeopathy are less intelligent or less well educated than those who do not (if there is any, I'd be very interested to see it). I also know of no evidence that atheists, as a group, are of higher intelligence that religious people.

These kind of skeptics also tend to belong to organized Skeptics groups fighting to suppress paranormal evidence

And how, pray tell, do sceptics suppress this evidence? Do they destroy the evidence? Maybe go to court to prevent it being published? Or are their Men in Black style teams of sceptics going around erasing people's memories after they've had a paranormal experience? The mind boggles.

 

[thaiboxerken]

. For example, as far as I know there is not a shred of evidence to support the idea that people who believe in homeopathy are less intelligent or less well educated than those who do not (if there is any, I'd be very interested to see it). I also know of no evidence that atheists, as a group, are of higher intelligence that religious people.

True, but skeptics and atheist tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives. While believers can be very intelligent, they tend to suppress their intelligence when it comes to certain beliefs.

 

[iain]

True, but skeptics and atheist tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives. While believers can be very intelligent, they tend to suppress their intelligence when it comes to certain beliefs.

Again, it's a reasonable hypothesis but I'd be interested to know where the evidence is to support it. A counter hypothesis might be that sceptics become sceptics because people in authority tell them it's right; or that "sceptics" and "believers" are just as sceptical and gullible as each other, but about different things.

I haven't seen any good evidence to support one of these over any other, beyond people's personal opinions that something really ought to be true.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When a believer can come up with a logical, valid and intelligent reason for their beliefs, then I'll change my opinion. One must supress critical thinking in order to believe the nonsense that believers do.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

....skeptics and atheist tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives....

tbk,

What makes you think that just because someone is an atheist he's necessarily a critical thinker?

Or that because someone is an atheist that they would "tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives?

 

[hammegk]

One must supress critical thinking in order to believe the nonsense that believers do.

As an example, some believers have faith that science cannot operate successfully with the axiom "objective reality", but must require "objective physical reality".

Is that suppression of critical thinking the kind of nonsense you had in mind?

 

[Tricky]

What makes you think that just because someone is an atheist he's necessarily a critical thinker?

Not addressed to me, but I hope you won't mind if I answer.

Not all atheists are critical thinkers, and certainly they are not all critical thinkers in every aspect of life. But I would agree that they tend to be more commonly critical thinkers than in the general populace. The reason I think this is because atheists grow up in a culture surrounded by religion and superstitious thinking. Just as most people tend to be of the same religious nature as their parents, it is difficult to escape this societal pressure which is shouted at us by everyone from our teachers to our president. It is very easy just to "go along" with the common thinking or make only small variations. There must be powerful reasons for rejecting cultural indoctrination. I agree that some "atheists" are merely rebelling, but I have as little respect for an atheist who can't explain why he is an atheist as I would for a religious person who can't explain why they believe what they believe. In fact, most of the atheists can give you specific reasons why they reject religious dogma. (The theodicy problem is a very common reason, and it is still a conundrum that no Christian as ever successfully resolved, IMO).

Or that because someone is an atheist that they would "tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives?

I would say that critical thinking would indeed "tend" to influence the way you regard other things in your lives besides religion. A technique that works at solving one riddle would likely be applied to other questions. Not always. There are still skeptics who play the lottery and almost all have some superstitious rituals or beliefs. But I'd say that they tend to have fewer and are less likely defend them when pressed. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Tricky

Not all atheists are critical thinkers, and certainly they are not all critical thinkers in every aspect of life. But I would agree that they tend to be more commonly critical thinkers than in the general populace.

Hi Tricky,

Well, personally I think that may or may not be true. But TBK just states it a little too confidently, imo. For example, looking at the world population of atheists (many who replace other superstitious beliefs for belief in God), I don't think he has any factual back up for that viewpoint.

The reason I think this is because atheists grow up in a culture surrounded by religion and superstitious thinking.

Well, he didn't say "atheists in America". He said it in generally. And I disagree that, generally speaking, looking at atheism throughout the world, we can assume its true.

There must be powerful reasons for rejecting cultural indoctrination. I agree that some "atheists" are merely rebelling, but I have as little respect for an atheist who can't explain why he is an atheist as I would for a religious person who can't explain why they believe what they believe. In fact, most of the atheists can give you specific reasons why they reject religious dogma.

Yes, I agree with you, Tricky, about the difficulty of change, especially after intense indoctrination to something. But I was thinking about atheism in general. There are many parts of the world where being an atheist -is- a way of conforming (some African religions, for example....parts of China where Taoism promotes what we would call superstitions instead of God....communist countries where atheism is the dominant ideology taught in schools....sects of Buddhism where no god figure exists...some Native American religions...these people could all be considered atheistic yet we really have no idea if that leads to critical thinking at all (or why it should be assumed, as TBK did, that "atheism = critical thinking")...

In terms of America, I don't have information re: whether or not atheists -are- able to apply critical thinking better in other areas of their lives. It seems as if you would be right, but do we really know it's true?

After all, if we're just going by observation...I've seen a lot of atheists argue in what seemed to me irrational or poorly supported views on "emotionally charged things" like.... politics...society....prejudice.... So, even generally speaking re: U.S. atheists....maybe so, but I'm just not sure we can say with the confidence TBK did, that "skeptics and atheists tend to apply critical thinking to all aspects of their lives". Emotions may still be more powerful for a lot of people than reasoned arguments, even if they've actively gone through the process of examining and rejecting religious arguments, for whatever reasons.

(And the word "all" bothers me, too...now that I look at it again. I guess, the truth of the matter is that I just think he's made a sweeping overgeneralization here and--unless he's got more than personal opinion to back it up--I just felt like calling him on it, lol. ).

 

[Kerberos]

Again, it's a reasonable hypothesis but I'd be interested to know where the evidence is to support it. A counter hypothesis might be that sceptics become sceptics because people in authority tell them it's right; or that "sceptics" and "believers" are just as sceptical and gullible as each other, but about different things.

I haven't seen any good evidence to support one of these over any other, beyond people's personal opinions that something really ought to be true.

I can't vouch for the reliability of these studies of course, but I found this list of studies after a short search on google: http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

 

[iain]

I can't vouch for the reliability of these studies of course, but I found this list of studies after a short search on google: http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

Interesting (and impressive) list of studies. Of course, there's a huge difference between saying something like "the mean IQ of atheists is 5 points higher that the mean IQ of religious believers" and "she believes in God so she must be stupid.", but it's certainly more evidence than I've seen in the past.