Comment from an Anti-Skeptic

[pervert]

"As for skeptics, I will not waste my time on them. If they were logical and systematic in their skepticism, they would apply it to every aspect of this universe, not only to a small selection of their own choice. For most people calling themselves skeptics, "skeptisism" is a religion of denial. I have no interest in religious discussions"


Denial of excessive imagination???:rolleyes:

[Biscuit]

Who said that? Where is it from? A little context would be nice.

[pervert]

Who said that? Where is it from? A little context would be nice.

A woo who does things like Clarvoyance,Feng Shui etc. Nobody you know of..

[Klimax]

A woo who does things like Clarvoyance,Feng Shui etc. Nobody you know of..

Well,we would like to know him now. ;)

[pervert]

Well,we would like to know him now. ;)

It`s a female from Finnland,why do you want to know'?

[Dragonrock]

Because we're skeptical about the accuracy of the quote and would like to confirm its source.

[Klimax]

It`s a female from Finnland,why do you want to know'?
Because we're skeptical about the accuracy of the quote and would like to confirm its source.

Exactly.

[desertgal]

It`s a female from Finnland...

Uh oh...

why do you want to know'?

When you quote someone, you should include a source, so the quote can be checked for accuracy and context. Otherwise, what's the point?

[pervert]

Uh oh...



When you quote someone, you should include a source, so the quote can be checked for accuracy and context. Otherwise, what's the point?

it was a private message to a comment I made
. It`s not from any article. I was just curious about what you would say about "religion of denial of skeptics"?

[Biscuit]

It`s a female from Finnland,why do you want to know'?

GREAT! More anti-finnish bashing on this forum.:rolleyes:

Are the moderators of this forum going to truly allow Pervert and Moon to turn the JREF into a loudspeaker for the anti-Finnish propaganda groups?


Seriously Pervert, could you please try and provide us with the quote and its origins for all of the reasons others have listed? Otherwise I think this thread will be hijacked and whatever point you are trying to make will be lost.

[desertgal]

it was a private message to a comment I made
. It`s not from any article.

Fair enough, but you provide no context for the statement.

I was just curious about what you would say about "religion of denial of skeptics"?

If the quote is accurate, I would have to say that "religion of denial" is exhibited by woos, not skeptics. The logical, systematic deconstruction of woo claims is the foundation of skepticism.

However, without knowing the full discussion, it is almost impossible to debate the quote.

[Giggywig]

"As for skeptics, I will not waste my time on them. If they were logical and systematic in their skepticism, they would apply it to every aspect of this universe, not only to a small selection of their own choice. For most people calling themselves skeptics, "skeptisism" is a religion of denial. I have no interest in religious discussions"


Denial of excessive imagination???:rolleyes:

If this is from some random Finnish woman on the net, my first question would be: is she hot?
Once that is cleared up I would ask what she would like skeptics to apply their skepticism to.

[Ashles]

"Pervert invents quotes solely for his own amusement and to elicit reaction."

Any thoughts on that comment anyone?

[Biscuit]

it was a private message to a comment I made
. It`s not from any article. I was just curious about what you would say about "religion of denial of skeptics"?

I would say that the unnamed Finnish person has got it all wrong. Its not a religion of any sort as being skeptical does not require a leap of faith. Nor are skeptics only interested in the denial of all claims. Skeptics are interested in the proof of any claim. If you claim you can contact ghosts than please prove it. If you claim you can contact aliens than please prove it. If you claim you can turn lead into gold than please prove it. If you need help well than there are lots and lots of people who would be interested in helping you to prove your claim but you are going to have follow rules in order to eliminate other explanations.

I would level the accusation that skepticism is a religion of denial right back at the accuser. People who believe in woo make a giant leap by proclaiming their nonsense and deny any attempt to use science to investigate their claims. Despite the fact that Loch ness does not have the food supply to feed a breeding population of very large mammals they still insist that nessie is real. Despite the evidence, including moon rocks, they still claim we never went to the moon. "Religion of denial" describes the un-skeptical approach not the skeptical one.

I would also suggest that this person does not use critical thinking when evaluating claims that would seem to defy science. With no context or even a name I hate to jump to conclusions but I am willing to bet she would be prone towards Vortexes, orbs, EVPs, and other such unsubstantiated claims.

Care to provide us with some context of the discussion that lead to this statement?

[pervert]

Fair enough, but you provide no context for the statement.



If the quote is accurate, I would have to say that "religion of denial" is exhibited by woos, not skeptics. The logical, systematic deconstruction of woo claims is the foundation of skepticism.

However, without knowing the full discussion, it is almost impossible to debate the quote.

i copied and pasted, so, it`s accurate.
I showed her a Youtube video from the authour of "Science of God" and comments by skeptics and that was her reply

[LarianLeQuella]

"Pervert invents quotes solely for his own amusement and to elicit reaction."

Any thoughts on that comment anyone?

I am skeptical of that on the basis that I can't tell the difference between skepticism and cynicism. :p

[paximperium]

i copied and pasted, so, it`s accurate.
I showed her a Youtube video from the authour of "Science of God" and comments by skeptics and that was her reply
And what comments did you "select" and under what criteria do you use to call these commenters "skeptics"?

[Foster Zygote]

"As for skeptics, I will not waste my time on them. If they were logical and systematic in their skepticism, they would apply it to every aspect of this universe, not only to a small selection of their own choice. For most people calling themselves skeptics, "skeptisism" is a religion of denial. I have no interest in religious discussions"

Whatever its source, the above comment is representative of a fairly commonly held opinion and deserves a response.

The person making the comment is obviously confusing skepticism with cynicism. They are two completely different things. Skepticism is simply a requirement for a high standard of evidence to be met before accepting something as accurate. The irony of the above statement is that skepticism is a requirement for proper implementation of the scientific method, and in this way skepticism has in fact been applied to every discernible aspect of the universe, showing us wonders that leave the "wonders" proclaimed by magical thinkers looking empty in comparison.

The last two sentences seem to come from someone who is rather bitter that people have carefully scrutinized his/her magical claims and found them lacking in evidence. Skeptics have discovered the amazing past of our world, decoded the building blocks of life, witnessed jets of plasma light-years long... But they haven't seen anything in the magical claims of the deluded. Well then the fault must lie with skepticism, yes?

[Klimax]

GREAT! More anti-finnish bashing on this forum.:rolleyes:

Are the moderators of this forum going to truly allow Pervert and Moon to turn the JREF into a loudspeaker for the anti-Finnish propaganda groups?


Seriously Pervert, could you please try and provide us with the quote and its origins for all of the reasons others have listed? Otherwise I think this thread will be hijacked and whatever point you are trying to make will be lost.

Evidence for this claim? (I never noticed...)

[pervert]

Evidence for this claim? (I never noticed...)

what anti finnish propaganda?:eek:

[Alareth]

GREAT! More anti-finnish bashing on this forum.:rolleyes:

Are the moderators of this forum going to truly allow Pervert and Moon to turn the JREF into a loudspeaker for the anti-Finnish propaganda groups?


No no no, moon is definitely Pro-Finn (Well, 1939 Finn).

[pervert]

I would say that the unnamed Finnish person has got it all wrong. Its not a religion of any sort as being skeptical does not require a leap of faith. Nor are skeptics only interested in the denial of all claims. Skeptics are interested in the proof of any claim. If you claim you can contact ghosts than please prove it. If you claim you can contact aliens than please prove it. If you claim you can turn lead into gold than please prove it. If you need help well than there are lots and lots of people who would be interested in helping you to prove your claim but you are going to have follow rules in order to eliminate other explanations.

I would level the accusation that skepticism is a religion of denial right back at the accuser. People who believe in woo make a giant leap by proclaiming their nonsense and deny any attempt to use science to investigate their claims. Despite the fact that Loch ness does not have the food supply to feed a breeding population of very large mammals they still insist that nessie is real. Despite the evidence, including moon rocks, they still claim we never went to the moon. "Religion of denial" describes the un-skeptical approach not the skeptical one.

I would also suggest that this person does not use critical thinking when evaluating claims that would seem to defy science. With no context or even a name I hate to jump to conclusions but I am willing to bet she would be prone towards Vortexes, orbs, EVPs, and other such unsubstantiated claims.

Care to provide us with some context of the discussion that lead to this statement?

How true!:D

[paximperium]

what anti finnish propaganda?:eek:
You need to read some of moon1969's threads. He has some weird hang up with the Russian invasion of Finland during WW2...it is really weird.

We like to make fun of Finland in those threads.

[KingMerv00]

"...If they were logical and systematic in their skepticism, they would apply it to every aspect of this universe, not only to a small selection of their own choice."

Woo hoo! I'm logical and systematic!

[Biscuit]

Evidence for this claim? (I never noticed...)

Seeing as how this thread was going no where fast I decided to interject some previous fun via moon1969 from this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135580

Specifically the second post in which he speaks of the vast american conspiracy to slander the Finnish people, of which the jews are the finest in the world.

[Biscuit]

How true!:D

Does that mean I have resolved whatever questions were raised? neat.

[JohnG]

Despite the fact that Loch ness does not have the food supply to feed a breeding population of very large mammals they still insist that nessie is real.


<shameless derail>
Who (other than Peter Costello) ever claimed that the Loch Ness Monster is a mammal?
</shameless derail>

[Damien Evans]

<shameless derail>
Who (other than Peter Costello) ever claimed that the Loch Ness Monster is a mammal?
</shameless derail>

Are yo referring to this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello

[Tapio]

I can tell you guys, Moons' stuff is relatively mild compared to some older geezers around here, the land of a thousand lakes...

[chillzero]

If they were logical and systematic in their skepticism, they would apply it to every aspect of this universe, not only to a small selection of their own choice.


Why does this person think skeptics do not apply skepticism universally? What small selections is she referring to?

The criticism I usually face is the opposite of her comments. It's usually commented on that I - and other skeptics - apply skepticism so much to everything that people don't understand how we can enjoy life, with no areas left to faith, or free from questioning.

[Soapy Sam]

Why does this person think skeptics do not apply skepticism universally? What small selections is she referring to?

The criticism I usually face is the opposite of her comments. It's usually commented on that I - and other skeptics - apply skepticism so much to everything that people don't understand how we can enjoy life, with no areas left to faith, or free from questioning.

1.I doubt the veracity of the above claim.

2.I also doubt the accuracy of the above doubt
3. Goto 1.

[Biscuit]

<shameless derail>
Who (other than Peter Costello) ever claimed that the Loch Ness Monster is a mammal?
</shameless derail>

Derail engaged!

I don't know why I said mammal... I suppose if it was real it is more likely to an amphibian or a reptile...

[JohnG]

Are yo referring to this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello


Nope, not that one.

The Peter Costello I was referring to was the author of a 1974 book called In Search of Lake Monsters. In it he made the bizarre case that The Loch Ness Monster was some sort of species of long necked seal.

The book was given to me when I was eight and I still love it despite the fact that I no longer believe a word of it and even when I did the idea that Nessie was a mutant seal did little to excite my plesiosaur loving younger self.

I hereby derail the derail.