27 replies to this topic

[Pizzly]

I can't help but feel, that whenever I encounter a "believer", they actually dislike the simple fact I disagree with them. They feel a need to try and explain to me why ghosts or bigfoot exists, but if I reply with a rational rebuttal I'm suddenly the bad guy for not respecting his "beliefs". Really, it seems that believers view skeptics who use rationality and science as rude and offensive, is it because they can't justify their beliefs in the first place? I really don't understand how I am so scoffed at for expressing reason.

[Wingbones]

I've seen/heard the same thing from both sides. I don't think it's a matter of believer or skeptic, but just the personalities and attitudes of those in a particular debate.

[LaJaDiSc]

I don't feel hated.
I try to respect the individual and not get caught up in an "us against them" frame of mind.
If it seems a believer is close minded and hypocritical, they likely won't take kindly to having that fact pointed out to them.

A belief system based on faith without evidence and The Scientific Method are like apples and oranges.

Determine how best to express your skepticism, without ruffling feathers.
An emotional argument against faith could have the opposite desired effect(Turning a person away from critical thought).

To be honest, I think it's human nature to believe, also it's important to recognize the origin of a belief often is based on perceptions of memories/experiences that have become integrated into a persons sense of self.

That's my opinion.

[SC1F1]

I'd be cautious with mixing up faith and believe. To believe does not imply faith.

You can believe in the value of spiritual development inspired by the New Testament and still remain without faith in the permantently interfering god.

[foozle]

As a skeptical believer I tend to see both sides of a story. I like to hear the debate, see any evidence and make up my own mind.

There are quite a few skeptics (not all) that tend to rip people apart for their beliefs simply because they have never had an experience of their own. In the paranormal field-while there may be alot of evidence, there is no proof. Something like a ghost, is very elusive...you can't invite him home to meet your folks, or invite him to the local television station to confirm his existence on the evening news. You can take a photo--which people will say it is faked--same with recordings. All the best evidence can be faked.

People who don't want to believe won't. They will not believe: Photos, recordings, videos or personal experiences. While that is fine most of the time, some take it to the extreme of accusing decent, intelligent people of: Lying, faking evidence, being stupid or gullible, scamming, or just wanting attention.

Knowing that something profound happened to you...is impossible to prove. Trying to share the experience and being ridiculed for it, would make anyone a little touchy!

[0Phantom0]

You finally made it to the basement! Glad to see a new member down here! Plan on being very bored.

[foozle]

I'd be cautious with mixing up faith and believe. To believe does not imply faith.

You can believe in the value of spiritual development inspired by the New Testament and still remain without faith in the permantently interfering god.

If 'god' interfered I'd be more inclined to have faith in him!

[SC1F1]

You finally made it to the basement! Glad to see a new member down here! Plan on being very bored.

Thx! I'll try to cause trouble ^^

As a skeptical believer I tend to see both sides of a story. I like to hear the debate, see any evidence and make up my own mind.

[...]

Knowing that something profound happened to you...is impossible to prove. Trying to share the experience and being ridiculed for it, would make anyone a little touchy!

In my opinion that's the reason why the only dogma is abstraction in such cases .

If 'god' interfered I'd be more inclined to have faith in him!

Perhaps you enjoy Bertrand Russell's thougt on this issue: Once asked what he as someone who denies a "personal" god would respond, if that god would ask him after his death, why he denied him. Russell told the journalist: "A lack of evidence!"

[foozle]

Perhaps you enjoy Bertrand Russell's thougt on this issue: Once asked what he as someone who denies a "personal" god would respond, if that god would ask him after his death, why he denied him. Russell told the journalist: "A lack of evidence!"

I think I would ask 'god' why he denied me?

[SC1F1]

Do you think he isn't generous enough? ; )

[LaJaDiSc]

I'd be cautious with mixing up faith and believe. To believe does not imply faith.

You can believe in the value of spiritual development inspired by the New Testament and still remain without faith in the permanently interfering god.

Is this better?: Belief without evidence and The Scientific Method are like apples and oranges.

[SC1F1]

I'd rather say "belief without abstraction", meaning: Altough not anything can be empirically proofen (yet?), there still remains the innovate power of abstraction. A constantly logical system offers a pre-stage for reasoning in conformity with the scientific method.

[foozle]

Of course belief is belief. If you know what you know, I think you have to be content with that. Without telepathy, trying to show others what you have seen is impossible. You can only hope they have similar experiences and are completely blown away by them!

[lillyjay2008]

Hi everyone, Glad to see the basement is still here,,Its a nice place to vent..
Ahhhhh Choo!!, its a little dusty down here,,
D a m n spiders.....

[SC1F1]

Of course belief is belief. If you know what you know, I think you have to be content with that. Without telepathy, trying to show others what you have seen is impossible. You can only hope they have similar experiences and are completely blown away by them!

As long as anomalies of our understanding of the mathematical physical world, cannot be formalized, there is no sustainable use to advance human knowledge. Considering the scope of delusions and self-lies I even doubt the potential truth value of telepathic communication. Therefore I preach abstraction, agreeing to your concept of "onself being completely blown away".

[foozle]

As long as anomalies of our understanding of the mathematical physical world, cannot be formalized, there is no sustainable use to advance human knowledge. Considering the scope of delusions and self-lies I even doubt the potential truth value of telepathic communication. Therefore I preach abstraction, agreeing to your concept of "onself being completely blown away".

Yes, when I think about it I would have to completely agree with your assessment of telepathy. We do have the capacity to fool ourselves too easily. My love life has been proof of that!

ATTN: lillyjay, I love the spider!

[cflat28]

I can't help but feel, that whenever I encounter a "believer", they actually dislike the simple fact I disagree with them. They feel a need to try and explain to me why ghosts or bigfoot exists, but if I reply with a rational rebuttal I'm suddenly the bad guy for not respecting his "beliefs". Really, it seems that believers view skeptics who use rationality and science as rude and offensive, is it because they can't justify their beliefs in the first place? I really don't understand how I am so scoffed at for expressing reason.

Perhaps it's the way you try to explain your views that they get offended.

[SC1F1]

Yes, when I think about it I would have to completely agree with your assessment of telepathy. We do have the capacity to fool ourselves too easily. My love life has been proof of that!

Oh! : - (

But I'm glad you can smile ^^

[b47KT35FGrxx]

I can't help but feel, that whenever I encounter a "believer", they actually dislike the simple fact I disagree with them. They feel a need to try and explain to me why ghosts or bigfoot exists, but if I reply with a rational rebuttal I'm suddenly the bad guy for not respecting his "beliefs". Really, it seems that believers view skeptics who use rationality and science as rude and offensive, is it because they can't justify their beliefs in the first place? I really don't understand how I am so scoffed at for expressing reason.

penis envy - that's all

[DDDDude]

It's because of the "I know more than the brightest minds on the planet know" attitude.I myself am a skeptic and have run across skeptics right here on the Syfy forums that are skeptical about proven laws dealing with quantum physics and the laws of nature and such.I can quote the top ten theories from the top physicists on the planet, some who are nobel prize winners in their field, and some skeptics have dismissed these theories as hogwash as if they are far above the top quantum physicists on planet earth.It's fine to be a skeptic, but a skeptic that is convinced he has all the answers is a stupid skeptic.I keep my mind open to the possibility of the existence of ghosts, although I am skeptical about it myself.People (skeptics) were sure man would never fly but man has been to the moon and back.Skeptics from past ages wouls scoff at the idea of being able to watch pictures that actually move, yet today we have television and movies.Black holes were poo pooed a couple of decades ago by skeptics, and we all know how that ended up. Skeptics have simply been proven wrong more then they've been proven right. It's only a matter of time until somebody with a great mind and insight proves them wrong about something else.I have run into a few "skeptics" that I swear still believe the world is flat.