The Making of a Skeptic.

[Citizen_Offen]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

[The_Fire]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
False.
First mistake: Assuming that Sceptics doesn't believe in anything. Not all sceptics, including myself, are atheists and as such believes in a greater power which by some are considered as unreal as Santa Clause.

Second mistake: Assuming that I, or any other member of this board, ever believed in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny etc. or were at any time forced to believe in such people.

ETA:
Third mistake: Assuming that only a belief of a life after death makes life worth living.

ETA2: Added the quote of the OP.

[Citizen_Offen]

False.
First mistake: Assuming that Sceptics doesn't believe in anything. Not all sceptics, including myself, are atheists and as such believes in a greater power which by some are considered as unreal as Santa Clause.

Second mistake: Assuming that I, or any other member of this board, ever believed in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny etc. or were at any time forced to believe in such people.

ETA:
Third mistake: Assuming that only a belief of a life after death makes life worth living.

I was referring to hardcore skeptics such a James Randi and Michael Shermer.
They fit my conclusion perfectly.

[The_Fire]

I was referring to hardcore skeptics such a James Randi and Michael Shermer.
They fit my conclusion perfectly.

Evidence?

[Citizen_Offen]

Interviews.


Third mistake: Assuming that only a belief of a life after death makes life worth living.- I never said that.

I actually said- one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it. Contemplation is different than actual beliefs.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

A bit like kissing, then...

[The_Fire]

Interviews.


Third mistake: Assuming that only a belief of a life after death makes life worth living.- I never said that.
Source/transcript links?

ETA:
Made the "devils" post;).

[The_Fire]

I actually said- one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it. Contemplation is different than actual beliefs.


Which is also saying that if life isn't a usefull thing then it isn't worth living.

ETA:
After all: If there is no reason for existance, then there is no worth in it either.

[Citizen_Offen]

Source/transcript links?

ETA:
Made the "devils" post;).


I actually have them recorded on tape, sorry I don't have the time to tranfer them to Mp3 for you.

[Citizen_Offen]

Which is also saying that if life isn't a usefull thing then it isn't worth living.


Life is definitley not useful although I didn't say it's not worth living.

[The_Fire]

Life is definitley not useful although I didn't say it's not worth living. Which was my point.
ETA as I only now saw post 9:
Then attempt to find an online transcript. You will find that the request of evidence are a typical thing on this board. Especially when one posts conclusions......

[Citizen_Offen]

Which was my point.
Now about those source links......

Sorry don't have the time, But my conclusion about skeptics was accurate. Regardless of what you ask or say, interview them yourself and ask them about there childhood. And you will come to the same conclusion. Nuff said.

[The_Fire]

Sorry don't have the time, But my conclusion about skeptics was accurate.

According to whom?
You have supplied no evidence.
You have made an assumption covering a LOT of people based on what? 1-2 interviews?
You are no making your case believably here.

[The_Fire]

Sorry don't have the time, But my conclusion about skeptics was accurate. Regardless of what you ask or say, interview them yourself and ask them about there childhood. And you will come to the same conclusion.

That doesn't fly. Other people were put through the same "santa doesn't exist" trauma without becoming sceptics.
And you are still assuming that all sceptics doesn't believe in ANYTHING.

[Ersby]

Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.I'm doubtful about life after death, but either way,I don't see how that would change the wonders of the physical universe, or the joys of a friendship, or the rollercoaster of life. In fact, I've always found this attitude of "if life isn't eternal, what's the point?" to be fairly disgusting. What people usually mean is "if I'm not eternal, what's the point?" It's a massive display of self-adoration and an unwillingness to accept the true beauty of the universe in which we live simply because you are unable to see yourself reflected in it.

[Ducky]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics

Great. When will you be publishing your findings in the APA Journal? Or is this for a doctoral dissertation? When can we read your findings with source cites?

and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc.

Oops, almost had me there. Name a kid that isn't tracked into believing magic? Isn't that why kids love watching magicians?

And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy,

Yes. This is what happens when you turn to evidence based reasoning.

it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.

No what turned me into that was evidence. More accurately the lack thereof to support belief in anything but a "bodily existence."

Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described.

Because of how smart you were? Lemme guess, your mom told you you were special alot, right?

I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way.

Nope. The evidence thus far is that you are trolling. You are a believer posing as a true skeptic(TM) here to explain to all of us simpletons what your great insight into skepticism is, and why our lack of belief in an afterlife is in error. I bet the next sentence you have will be a foot in the door for apologetics on the afterlife.

Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

Ding!

How about this, before I believe you are not a troll, you must provide evidence that your studies into us skeptics and our childhood are on the level. Cite what school you are at, what course of study this project is for or what journal you will be publishing your results in. Provide links to sources, and if this is a professional venture, please provide evidence you are in fact a professional psychologist/psychiatrist.

Anything less proves you didn't actually study anything, you just read some stuff and came to a conclusion while surfing the net one night.

[T'ai Chi]

It must hit home.

[Mojo]

Yeah, unsupported assertions do that around here.

[jon]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

What - are you saying that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist :jaw-dropp

[Ducky]

What - are you saying that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist :jaw-dropp


He used to, until the Tooth Fairy collected the money for offing him offered when Jesus put a hit out on the furry jerk for stepping on his holiday.

[Gravy]

Thanks for letting me know that my life is useless. I'll be getting back to it now, after using the very useful "ignore" feature.

[Raphael]

"the uselessness of life"

hmmmmm...Citizen, why is life useless? It's pretty useful for me. Who or what would make it useful for you? Why is a supposed "afterlife" more useful or legitimate than this life? Is utility measured by how long something lasts?

[Hindmost]

I was referring to hardcore skeptics such a James Randi and Michael Shermer.
They fit my conclusion perfectly.

What you wrote does not sum up Randi and Dr. Shermer "perfectly." There is much more substance to Randi and Shermer than what you wrote in one very short paragraph.

I also think you should try understand what a skeptic really is: We ask for evidence for extraordinary claims. We don't just passively accept dogma.

Finally, I'm sure all of us want to know what you are trying to accomplish here. I think it would help if you explain your basis for some of your beliefs with a few more details. If you are interested in skepticism, as you say, in an impartial way, providing extra information will help us sad--don't believe in anything but bodily existence--skeptics to answer your questions.

glenn

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

[jon]

He used to, until the Tooth Fairy collected the money for offing him offered when Jesus put a hit out on the furry jerk for stepping on his holiday.

Damn, now I'll have to accept that life is useless (or just enjoy my bunny stew ;) )

[skoob]

one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.What makes you believe that "hardcore skeptics" haven't considered this? AFAIK, neither Randi nor Shermer are solipsists. I think you'll find that most skeptics believe that there is something after death. The universe won't stop existing just because I die. Everything will continue just as normal, but without me.

[jond]

And here I was thinking that because there is no afterlife that it meant that this life is all the more important. Every day. Maybe I wasn't included in Citizen's study...

[T'ai Chi]

Afterlife or no afterlife, this current life is important.

[Aepervius]

I've studied the psychology of believer and I have determined that many of you, as children, despite having been fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it strangely, despite this previous eye openning experience, turned you into a person who believes in something else (God, Allah, Crystal healing) with as much evidence, as the aforementionned santa and bunny. yada yada.
So comparing what you wrote and what I wrote, which strawman and other overgeneralisation fallacy make more sense :) ?

PS: Tai Chi. I dunno to whom it must have hit home, but I think the only pain sceptic on this board are feeling after reading that post above, is the pain you feel when you laugh too much.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Sooo.....

What use is there in an afterlife, if there is no after-afterlife?

[Stellafane]

Sorry don't have the time, But my conclusion about skeptics was accurate. Regardless of what you ask or say, interview them yourself and ask them about there childhood. And you will come to the same conclusion. Nuff said.

OMG, you actually wrote "Nuff said"?? What are you, like 14 or something? What clever, witty riposte are you going to end your next post with, "Owned"? Or maybe go straight to the ultimate, "STFU"?

And oh look, now you got T'ai Chi agreeing with you. Trust me, in these parts that's not a great sign.

BTW, you're wrong. How's that for an argument closer?

[T'ai Chi]

And oh look, now you got T'ai Chi agreeing with you. Trust me, in these parts that's not a great sign.


You have some need to believe that I am agreeing with another.

My comments on this thread show I never said I agreed with anybody.

[Humphreys]

The OP is a complete mess.

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc.

Study the psychology of any group, and you're likely to come to the same conclusion.

Why?

Because that's what people are generally taught as children, stupid!

And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.

No, happily, you become a person who believes in nothing that isn't supported by good evidence.

Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

You, being a plonker, fail to see that the uselessness of life (whatever the hell that means), has no evidential bearing on whether there is life after death.

I find life very useful, anyway. Without it, I'd struggle to get ANYTHING done.

[Humphreys]

I was referring to hardcore skeptics such a James Randi and Michael Shermer.
They fit my conclusion perfectly.

All Randi has said is "show me the evidence", and "prove it". He even created a little competition thingy with a reward for anyone who can do so.

What is wrong with that, Mr. _Offen?

[Stellafane]

You have some need to believe that I am agreeing with another.

My comments on this thread show I never said I agreed with anybody.

Really? "It must hit home" doesn't endorse the OP's main point?

[T'ai Chi]

Really? "It must hit home" doesn't endorse the OP's main point?

You are welcome to your beliefs. But my agreement is just your belief.

[Pyrrho]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.

I fit that description. It's really been a matter of discarding various delusions in favor of deciding matters based on evidence. The evidence has convinced me that there is no life after death. I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary; I have always found it wanting. We are left, then, with a mystery. That is not equivalent to "believes in nothing but bodily existence". I simply do not accept, at face value, assertions that are not supported by evidence.

Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
I would say that life is not useless, no matter what comes after it, as is evidenced by the remarkable good people do with their lives. This is not negated by the evil people do.

Even so, life could be totally useless. While I'm here, I hope to be make my own life useful. If nothing else, I can serve as a bad example to others.

Why question the usefulness of life? Just live. Life is its own purpose.

[Citizen_Offen]

I fit that description. It's really been a matter of discarding various delusions in favor of deciding matters based on evidence. The evidence has convinced me that there is no life after death. I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary; I have always found it wanting. We are left, then, with a mystery. That is not equivalent to "believes in nothing but bodily existence". I simply do not accept, at face value, assertions that are not supported by evidence.

I would say that life is not useless, no matter what comes after it, as is evidenced by the remarkable good people do with their lives. This is not negated by the evil people do.

Even so, life could be totally useless. While I'm here, I hope to be make my own life useful. If nothing else, I can serve as a bad example to others.

Why question the usefulness of life? Just live. Life is its own purpose.


Finally, a skeptic with enough guts to admit my conclusion has merit. Thank you.

BTW. Saying that life is useless was just a thought and nothing more. Don't get hung up on it. Many of you skeptics are reacting the way religious fanatics do when their beliefs are challenged. I saw a previous post say "they're going to put me on ignore" this is odd. It seems that hardcore skeptics develop a strong belief the same way a religious person does. Skeptics get annoyed when their beliefs are challenged.

[Ersby]

Finally, a skeptic with enough guts to admit my conclusion has merit. Thank you.So anyone who disagrees with you has no guts? No, thankyou. :D

[Citizen_Offen]

"the uselessness of life"

hmmmmm...Citizen, why is life useless? It's pretty useful for me. Who or what would make it useful for you? Why is a supposed "afterlife" more useful or legitimate than this life? Is utility measured by how long something lasts?

When I say the uselessness of life, I'm talking about people who have lived through the deaths of their relatives, diseases, murders, where life just became a extended torture session. Not recieving anything after going through this life just seems alittle useless. That's all I was saying. As you can see the sentence struck a nerve with you skeptics.

[Citizen_Offen]

So anyone who disagrees with you has no guts? No, thankyou. :D


I didn't say that.

[Ersby]

When I say the uselessness of life, I'm talking about people who have lived through the deaths of their relatives, diseases, murders, where life just became a extended torture session. Not recieving anything after going through this life just seems alittle useless. That's all I was saying. As you can see the sentence struck a nerve with you skeptics.
You didn't make yourself clear. Read your opening post again and even you must admit that you seem to be talking about life in general.

[Citizen_Offen]

You didn't make yourself clear. Read your opening post again and even you must admit that you seem to be talking about life in general.


I was. In those terms I just explained.

[Ersby]

I was. In those terms I just explained.
Life in general=Life of torture and misery.

Okay.

[Citizen_Offen]

Life in general=Life of torture and misery.

Okay.

Not for everyone, but for many.

[Ersby]

And we should work to improve their lives in the here and now, and not palm them off with jam tommorow, ***** today.

ETA: it actually looks a lot ruder with those asterisks

[The_Fire]

Not for everyone, but for many.

Why?

[Citizen_Offen]

Great. When will you be publishing your findings in the APA Journal? Or is this for a doctoral dissertation? When can we read your findings with source cites?



Oops, almost had me there. Name a kid that isn't tracked into believing magic? Isn't that why kids love watching magicians?



Yes. This is what happens when you turn to evidence based reasoning.



No what turned me into that was evidence. More accurately the lack thereof to support belief in anything but a "bodily existence."



Because of how smart you were? Lemme guess, your mom told you you were special alot, right?



Nope. The evidence thus far is that you are trolling. You are a believer posing as a true skeptic(TM) here to explain to all of us simpletons what your great insight into skepticism is, and why our lack of belief in an afterlife is in error. I bet the next sentence you have will be a foot in the door for apologetics on the afterlife.



Ding!

How about this, before I believe you are not a troll, you must provide evidence that your studies into us skeptics and our childhood are on the level. Cite what school you are at, what course of study this project is for or what journal you will be publishing your results in. Provide links to sources, and if this is a professional venture, please provide evidence you are in fact a professional psychologist/psychiatrist.

Anything less proves you didn't actually study anything, you just read some stuff and came to a conclusion while surfing the net one night.


As you can see the post stuck a nerve or else it would be ignored.

[Citizen_Offen]

Why?

Ask the victims family. Ask the people with horrific diseases.

[Pyrrho]

Finally, a skeptic with enough guts to admit my conclusion has merit. Thank you.

BTW. Saying that life is useless was just a thought and nothing more. Don't get hung up on it. Many of you skeptics are reacting the way religious fanatics do when their beliefs are challenged. I saw a previous post say "they're going to put me on ignore" this is odd. It seems that hardcore skeptics develop a strong belief the same way a religious person does. Skeptics get annoyed when their beliefs are challenged.
If I may suggest: applying labels is not helpful. At best, a label is a convenient way to lump entire groups of people into easily-handled categories. People are not corrugated boxes that require labeling.

Also, we've seen the same argument all to often: that skeptics have beliefs and are roughly equivalent to religious people, or that skepticism is religion, or that skepticism is a cult. None of that is necessarily true. Skepticism is a process, not a belief.

This brings me to another point: you have not challenged any of my beliefs, therefore you cannot conclude that I have reacted as a fanatic might. What you are advancing is a strawman argument--you have claimed that skeptics hold a certain set of beliefs based on certain childhood experiences that you contend must have happened to skeptics, and are now arguing against the beliefs that you claim are held by skeptics.

Do skeptics have beliefs? Certainly. Do some skeptics react poorly to being challenged? Certainly. But that does not apply to us all.

[Pyrrho]

As you can see the post stuck a nerve or else it would be ignored.
Striking a nerve does not validate an argument.

[The_Fire]

Ask the victims family. Ask the people with horrific diseases.

So in other words: if you don't believe in the supernatural/a God, then you will get diseases or become a victim of a crime?

I'm sure that that will comfort a lot of superstitious people in the continent with the worlds highest rate of HIV-infected people, Africa.

[The_Fire]

As you can see the post stuck a nerve or else it would be ignored.

No. It was answered to because it was faulty.

[Blondin]

I don't understand how you could construe Pyrrho's post as supporting your conclusion.

As pointed out by several people most North Americans go through the Santa, Easter bunny, tooth fairy stage as youngsters. How do you explain the large number of people who lose their belief in them yet do not become materialists? Or are you suggesting that most people who believe in astrology, psychics, ufos, alien abduction, etc also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy or that they never learned/believed in them in the first place?

[Ryokan]

Striking a nerve does not validate an argument.

A : You're gay.

B : No, I'm not. I'm heterosexual.

A : Aha! I see I struck a nerve!

[Citizen_Offen]

If I may suggest: applying labels is not helpful. At best, a label is a convenient way to lump entire groups of people into easily-handled categories. People are not corrugated boxes that require labeling.

Also, we've seen the same argument all to often: that skeptics have beliefs and are roughly equivalent to religious people, or that skepticism is religion, or that skepticism is a cult. None of that is necessarily true. Skepticism is a process, not a belief.

This brings me to another point: you have not challenged any of my beliefs, therefore you cannot conclude that I have reacted as a fanatic might. What you are advancing is a strawman argument--you have claimed that skeptics hold a certain set of beliefs based on certain childhood experiences that you contend must have happened to skeptics, and are now arguing against the beliefs that you claim are held by skeptics.

Do skeptics have beliefs? Certainly. Do some skeptics react poorly to being challenged? Certainly. But that does not apply to us all.

I think you got it right ,pretty much. Although, I don't see how Skepticism is a process. Anyhow I can see by the attitude of your posts that you are a true, good skeptic even though there aren't many, rational as you.

[Aepervius]

As you can see the post stuck a nerve or else it would be ignored.

No. It is more simple than that. You are a troll. We like to argue with troll. he argued with you. You struck no nerve, except in your fantasy. judging by your response and your handling of logic, I guess anyway this goes way above your comprehension.

[Citizen_Offen]

So in other words: if you don't believe in the supernatural/a God, then you will get diseases or become a victim of a crime?

I'm sure that that will comfort a lot of superstitious people in the continent with the worlds highest rate of HIV-infected people, Africa.

I'm beginning to see how much people like to put words in your mouth.
The_Fire, when did I ever mention god. I was speaking about peoples suffering being sad and useless. That's it.

[bob_kark]

Very interesting, you've been able to gain such insight on the behavior of all skeptics from an MP3 of 2 skeptics. I was unaware that psychology had become so advanced. What university did you study psychology at? I feel I need to attend some of these classes.

[Citizen_Offen]

No. It is more simple than that. You are a troll. We like to argue with troll. he argued with you. You struck no nerve, except in your fantasy. judging by your response and your handling of logic, I guess anyway this goes way above your comprehension.


I have no time to waste with namecalling, Sorry.

[The_Fire]

I'm beginning to see how much people like to put words in your mouth.
The_Fire, when did I ever mention god. I was speaking about peoples suffering being sad and useless. That's it.

So that's why you connected believing in something supernatural/A God with being happy?

[The_Fire]

I have no time to waste with namecalling, Sorry.

oh, I see the post struck a nerve!.

[Citizen_Offen]

So that's why you connected believing in something supernatural/A God with being happy?

Show me the evidence of that. I feel bad for people suffering and it being useless. That's it.

[Citizen_Offen]

oh, I see the post struck a nerve!.


Do you have a hard time being serious.

[Ersby]

Show me the evidence of that. I feel bad for people suffering and it being useless. That's it.I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but are you sure that "useless" is the right word? Do you mean "unnecessary"?

[Citizen_Offen]

Very interesting, you've been able to gain such insight on the behavior of all skeptics from an MP3 of 2 skeptics. I was unaware that psychology had become so advanced. What university did you study psychology at? I feel I need to attend some of these classes.


Whether you know this or not there is a psychological aspect to the making of a skeptic.

[Pyrrho]

I think you got it right ,pretty much. Although, I don't see how Skepticism is a process. Anyhow I can see by the attitude of your posts that you are a true, good skeptic even though there aren't many, rational as you.
I do not believe there is any such thing as a "true, good skeptic". I think skepticism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs and attitudes.

To me, skepticism is a process of critical thinking, i.e. a combination of rational analysis of the evidence and imaginative thought. By rational, I mean a logical, reasoned approach to a problem (scientific experimentation and controlled testing, for example), and by imaginative, I mean creativity, such as turning a page upside down to better discern the layout, or imagining different ways to slice a banana. Magicians are quite adept at the latter--a good magician can slice a banana without removing the peel. That's creative.

Skepticism is the way I think, not what I believe. I've exchanged the "Gosh, wow!" reactive approach of childhood for a "Things aren't always what they seem to be, so let's think about the possibilities and look at what we can actually measure," approach.

[Citizen_Offen]

I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but are you sure that "useless" is the right word? Do you mean "unnecessary"?


Good question. I'd say alittle of both may be fitting.

[The_Fire]

Show me the evidence of that. I feel bad for people suffering and it being useless. That's it.

Let's take a look at your opening post, shall we?

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And
as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.


I would say that most people here had very happy childhoods. This means that your post implies that belief in something supernatural/ A God= Happiness.
The second part of the sentence is started with the word "sadly" which implies that believing in nothing but "bodily existance" is a bad thing.


I would also like to know if a life, by your definition useless if wrought in pain, is allowed to be terminated by either the one living it or by society due to its uselessness?

[The_Fire]

Do you have a hard time being serious.

I'm not going to deign that with an answer.

[Pyrrho]

I'm beginning to see how much people like to put words in your mouth.
The_Fire, when did I ever mention god. I was speaking about peoples suffering being sad and useless. That's it.
We know that pain is useful because it is a way our bodies react to damage, thus helping us to learn to avoid damage. Unfortunately, chronic pain is that pain which has outlived its usefulness.

We must accept that being physical human beings in a physical world means that people will suffer pain and death. That does not make life itself sad and useless. Not all life is a tragedy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whether you know this or not there is a psychological aspect to the making of a skeptic.

Perhaps a skeptic describing skepticism is in order here,

Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*

Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.




Bolding mine.

[bob_kark]

Whether you know this or not there is a psychological aspect to the making of a skeptic.

I'm absolutely certain that you are correct in this statement. However, my question to you would be, what makes you qualified to psychoanalyze the two subjects you have mentioned on an MP3 recording and give such a prognosis? Have your findings been peer reviewed?

[Blondin]

I would like a response to my question: How do you explain all the devout church-goers who were taught about the Easter bunny, Santa, et al, learned they were all fallacies at some age, yet don't question their faith in God?

[Citizen_Offen]

I'm absolutely certain that you are correct in this statement. However, my question to you would be, what makes you qualified to psychoanalyze the two subjects you have mentioned on an MP3 recording and give such a prognosis? Have your findings been peer reviewed?

Absolutely. It was much more than just taped recordings.

[Citizen_Offen]

I would like a response to my question: How do you explain all the devout church-goers who were taught about the Easter bunny, Santa, et al, learned they were all fallacies at some age, yet don't question their faith in God?


These are people who lost all sense of reality whereas the skeptics are smart enough to question they're religion.

[Blondin]

Absolutely. It was much more than just taped recordings.
Absolutely what? Your findings have been peer reviewed?

[bob_kark]

Absolutely. It was much more than just taped recordings.

Fantastic! What other media have you used to study these subjects? Also, what qualifications do you have to psychoanalyze these subjects and develop your prognosis? Did your statement of "Aboslutely," mean that your findings have been peer reviewed? If so, in what journal could I view your manuscript?

[Citizen_Offen]

OK I'll let the cat out of the bag. Maybe, just maybe the responses to my first post are going to be part of the findings.

[Blondin]

Let the cat out of the bag? Sounds more like backpeddling to me.

[Citizen_Offen]

Now that it is known. I will not be posting here anymore.

[Ersby]

Bye. And don't forget to post the same thing on other boards frequented by other types of people. Keep the "life is useless" in though, to see how well that goes down with theists. I'm guessing they'll be as offended as we were.

[bob_kark]

OK I'll let the cat out of the bag. Maybe, just maybe the responses to my first post are going to be part of the findings.

What a trickster you are! Well played! And other such credulous statements!

[Hindmost]

OK I'll let the cat out of the bag. Maybe, just maybe the responses to my first post are going to be part of the findings.

And I am betting that the posts you select/edit will support only your views and not provide a valid crossection of the people and responses on this forum. You did "touch a nerve" with skeptics by being cryptic and vague and then indicating you did not have the time to provide scientifically valid answers. Like pigasus, that type of exchange isn't going to fly around here. If you would provide more detailed information, you might have learned something.

glenn:)

[Pyrrho]

Well, once upon a time, there was an individual who crafted a detailed article about the failings of skeptics and their arguments. This person claimed to have extensively debated skeptics over an extended period of time, and called himself a "researcher". The fact is that his "research" and "debates" took place almost exclusively on the sci.skeptic Usenet newsgroup and a couple of private email discussion lists. He brought extreme bias to the table in every discussion, which he usually initiated with a retelling of anecdotes and a demand that skeptics debunk what he considered to be irrefutable evidence.

GIGO, as we used to say.

[westphalia]

I wish I was grading his paper.

[The_Fire]

Fowlsound, I'm glad that bet weren't made......

[JPK]

Now that it is known. I will not be posting here anymore.

I'm sure the knowledge Citizen_Offen gained from this thread, that he started, will be exactly what he was looking for and can only help to make his "True Skeptic Theory" even more robust.
JPK

[Stellafane]

Now that it is known. I will not be posting here anymore.

Goodbye, Citizen_Offen. Good luck with your "paper."

Oh, and by the way...OWNED!!

[The_Fire]

I'm sure the knowledge Citizen_Offen gained from this thread, that he started, will be exactly what he was looking for and can only help to make his "True Skeptic Theory" even more robust.
JPK

At least in his own mind.

[Ersby]

At least in his own mind.
That's all that matters. The rest of us are useless.

[Hindmost]

one more thing Citizen, you need to look at this link...you used a bunch of them.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

glenn

[Yahzi]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.
So are we to conclude the obverse: namely, that believers are people who never came to the realization that Santa isn't real?

Myself, being a precocious child,
I really can't comment on this. Not that I need to - it stands on its own.

I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way.
Translation: I've never studied any of this to any level whatsoever - in fact, I am so uncontaminated by facts as to be without opinion on the matter - but that won't stop me from telling you how wrong you are.

Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
Then doesn't one have to contemplate the uselessness of the after-life if there is nothing that comes after that?

[Yahzi]

Now that it is known. I will not be posting here anymore.
Promises, promises...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE Citizen_Offen:

Trolling, strawman fallacies, confirmation bias, sweeping generalities and arrogance. Truly, you have a shining example of counterpoints to skepticism.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Ducky]

Fowlsound, I'm glad that bet weren't made......


I win.

(I love that he thinks he's taken seriously...)

I love that he thinks he struck a nerve. Anyone more well read in my posting would know that my post wasn't anything more than playing with a (now self-confessed) troll.

Interesting that none of the points were addressed though. If this is the study, why not validate it now by stating what school, what course of study or what journal this is for?

It's a small little person making themselves feel better by poking at this forum.

[T'ai Chi]

Are you done?

[Ersby]

Are you done?
Says the man participating in a 44+ page thread about fighting.

[T'ai Chi]

Says the man participating in a 44+ page thread about fighting.

I'm sure you believe spill over means something.

[Ersby]

I'm sure you believe spill over means something.Your beliefs about me are of no consequence.

[Ducky]

Your beliefs about me are of no consequence.


In review of his posting on this forum, I would say Tai Chi's beliefs are of no consequence anyway.

[T'ai Chi]

In review of his posting on this forum, I would say Tai Chi's beliefs are of no consequence anyway.

So you're saying I should remove you from my Buddy list?

:D

(p.s. learn how to quote properly, noob)

[Ersby]

(p.s. learn how to quote properly, noob)Huh?

(p.s. it's spelt n00b. lolzorz!!1)

[T'ai Chi]

Since you're dancing for me, it is only polite I ask you what your favorite music is. I'm thinkin' John Tesh or Laurence Welk.

[JamesM]

Ah, the old "actually, I was just conducting an internet experiment!" sign-off - I haven't seen that one in a while.

[Ersby]

Since you're dancing for me, it is only polite I ask you what your favorite music is. I'm thinkin' John Tesh or Laurence Welk.I like Pink Floyd. Tell me, T'ai Chi, what's your favourite prog rock band?

[Ersby]

"Yes"? Why, that's very interesting, you cowardly editing wretch.

PWNED!

[T'ai Chi]

"Yes"? Why, that's very interesting, you cowardly editing wretch.

PWNED!

So you're agitated that people use the forum software in ways it is designed to be used.

I'm sure you'll get over it.

[Ersby]

So you're agitated that people use the forum software in ways it is designed to be used.

I'm sure you'll get over it.:D

Are you done yet?

[T'ai Chi]

No, you're still dancing.

[bob_kark]

Wow, I see you have a well deserved reputation.

[Ersby]

No, you're still dancing.
What you believe is of no consequence.

But seriously, I must pull you up on your cowardly hypocracy. You do understand that this is a discussion forum, right? And that people are going to discuss things that you're not necessarily interested in, right? Well, it's the height of bad manners (or, if you prefer, it's not bushido) to stick your oar in to other thread and ask them to stop. Especially not after you've been trying for 44 pages to impress people with your technical knowledge of how to slap people.

Of course, your snobbish insistance that you "don't follow orders", when someone asks you a question is the acme of intellectual cowardice. You understand that, don't you?

Well, even if you don't want to admit it, I'm sure there's a part of you that will listen to what I say. It may take a while for it to sink in, but I'm a patient man.

I give you permission to leave the thread. You miserable wretch.

[T'ai Chi]

Wow, I see you have a well deserved reputation.

Hey, how dare you talk to Ersby like that.

[T'ai Chi]

(holier than thou attitude snipped)


Not much to reply to.


I give you permission to leave the thread. You miserable wretch.

Are you taking your ball too?

[Ersby]

Well, I'm holier than you, certainly.

And I don't know if you've ever stopped to look at yourself and the way you interact with others, but everything I said made perfect sense.

So, in short, I'm taking your balls.

[Ersby]

... even if you don't want to admit it, I'm sure there's a part of you that will listen to what I say. It may take a while for it to sink in, but I'm a patient man.This really hit home.
:D

[T'ai Chi]

Well, I'm holier than you, certainly.

And I don't know if you've ever stopped to look at yourself and the way you interact with others, but everything I said made perfect sense.

So, in short, I'm taking your balls.

Aww, don't cry about it.

[Gr8wight]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

Argument from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)

[Nucular]

Oh, shame. This thread could have been a quite interesting discussion around the psychological processes which lead to self-identification as a 'sceptic'.

Instead, Citizen_Offen proffered only a supremely simplistic argument, a superiority complex, and vague hints as to some conclusive evidence which he would not present. Then went home.

How frustrating.

Citizen_Offen, if you're still following this thread (and obviously you are), there is interest here in your topic. It's just always more likely on this board that you'll get awkward questions than a round of applause, especially when you present yourself as one studying lesser beings. But we can all get past that, if you come back and talk?

Or not, it's still an interesting topic. I just doubt very strongly that being told Santa Claus was real could be shown to be a generalisable causal agent - or even predictor - of scepticism, for all the reasons people have mentioned. But, come back and show us the error of our ways! We're sceptics, we love that.

[TobiasTheViking]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
K, i realize this thread has now gone on pretty long, and everything i say have been said before.

Still, you couldn't be more wrong.

I was never fooled or forced to believe in Gunderscored, Magic, the easter bunny, santa or anything else supernatural.

And life isn't useless even if there is nothing after it.

[TobiasTheViking]

And now that i have read through this thread.. damn, that was a troll if i ever saw one.

If people ignored him, that was proof that he was right.
If people answered him critically, then he hit a mark.

No way he could loose.

Oh well.

[Dredred]

Oh, shame. This thread could have been a quite interesting discussion around the psychological processes which lead to self-identification as a 'sceptic'.
I agree, the topic is very interesting. It just started the wrong way, with the topic starter making bogus claims of a study to justify his dubious opinion, subsequently evading good counterarguments by responding with cheap remarks.

From the OP:Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.
Obviously it's more pleasant to believe there is life after death but that's no reason to believe in it, unless you don't understand the value of critical thinking. I don't know of any reason (i.e. compelling evidence) to believe in life after death but I'd love to hear one. I think it's strange to qualify life without an afterlife as useless, and I certainly wouldn't consider that qualification to be evidence for life after death.

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence.I don't agree with the defenition of a skeptic as "a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence". To me a skeptic is someone who tries not to believe or disbelieve anything, but who judges concepts, ideas, or opinions as more or less likely to be correct interpretations of reality, based on critical thinking; Someone who tries to defy the urge to believe in something because it feels good to believe in it, or because authority figures say it is so, because of peer pressure, or because of laziness of thought.

I don't think my existence is only bodily; I feel I am in essence existence itself, as everything is, on a level that transcends indivual thoughts, feelings, and bodies. I feel like on that level I will never die, because existence won't stop existing.

My affinity with skepticism didn't develop suddenly, but quite suddenly. It was a chain reaction. Once I found out certain assumptions of mine were based on lies and misperceptions, I started to wonder if I had been mislead in other areas too. I found out I had. That convinced me of the need to embrace critical thinking.

The process of liberating yourself from nonsense, debunking the untruths in your own head, is at the same time painful and liberating. Painful because some beliefs function as anaesthetics, helping to avoid confrontation with the reality about yourself. For example, believing in an afterlife can be a coping mechanism, helping you to live with the fact that you're not able to enjoy the moment. Liberating because once you free yourself from wrongly held beliefs, you'll be more able to function as a real honest person in the real world. You'll be less compelled to distort reality to protect your beliefs. You'll start to experience a purer, less deluded version of reality. You'll even start to feel more real yourself.

BTW, can anyone tell me, does "OP" mean original post or original poster?

Edited to correct my chronic e.g./i.e. mix-up.

[Ersby]

BTW, can anyone tell me, does "OP" mean original post or original poster?I always understood it as "opening post".

[Lamuella]

As you can see the sentence struck a nerve with you skeptics.

direct and ignorant insults often strike a nerve. It doesn't make them true.

If, for example, someone were to make a crude sexual reference to someone else's mother, the chances are that offense would be taken. It wouldn't in any way suggest that it had any truth to it.

[blutoski]

I've studied the psychology of skeptics and I have determined that many of you, as children, were fooled or forced into believing such things as Magic, The Easter Bunny, Religions, Santa etc. And as you grew older and came to the realization that these things were a fallacy, it sadly, turned you into a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence. Myself, being a precocious child, was never forced into believing anything I described. I have no particular beliefs in anything although I'm interesed in skepticism and the paranormal in a impartial way. Now I don't know if there is life after death however, one must contemplate the uselessness of life if there's nothing that comes after it.

There are other studies of skeptics that look different than this, but I guess it depends on what you call a 'skeptic'. I think you mean 'aggressive skeptic', and I think you're right: there may be a relationship between perceived mistreatment and extremism.

However, the examples of Randi and Shermer don't really fit, because firstly, I don't consider them extremists, and secondly, Randi was not raised in any different environment than most secular Canadians, and Shermer had a very mild religious upbrgining - certainly typical for an American.

A more meaningful question is: why do some people raised in these ordinary environments become skeptics, others not?

There is another thread about this, where some members of the jref forum provided anecdotes. However, the sample is too small to draw conclusions.

My personal opinion is that people are born with characteristics, and one of them seems to be a skeptical attitude. I am unconvinced that we can make people skeptical, although we can foster it in individuals predisposed.

[Kochanski]

Finally, a skeptic with enough guts to admit my conclusion has merit. Thank you.

BTW. Saying that life is useless was just a thought and nothing more. Don't get hung up on it. Many of you skeptics are reacting the way religious fanatics do when their beliefs are challenged. I saw a previous post say "they're going to put me on ignore" this is odd. It seems that hardcore skeptics develop a strong belief the same way a religious person does. Skeptics get annoyed when their beliefs are challenged.

Wrong. Hardcore skeptics expect evidence. You have provided NONE. You gave a generalization with no supporting evidence. There is NO dogma in skepticism. We question everything but expect evidence to be provided when someone makes a claim. We give provisional support to things that appear to have supporting evidence. That is skepticism.

Saying something provocative and then crowing because you have provoked a response is childish.

If people choose to ignore you it is because you appear to be trolling and most people prefer not to feed trolls.

[Dogdoctor]

The idea that no skeptics have beliefs is mistaken. Everyone has beleifs.... well that is unless you're a vegetable.

[Ducky]

The idea that no skeptics have beliefs is mistaken. Everyone has beleifs.... well that is unless you're a vegetable.

I have a few things to say about this.

I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier, let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be.

You know, everyone's searching for a hero - people need someone to look up to. I never found anyone to fulfill my need, and that's a lonely place to be so I learned to depend on me.

I decided long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, if I succeed at least I'll live as I believe. No matter what they take from me, they can't take away my dignity. Because the greatest love of all is happening to me. I found the greatest love of all inside of me.

The greatest love of all is easy to achieve:

Learning to wank yourself, is the greatest love of all.

I'd continue, but REO Speedwagon f***ing ripped me off, so I'll get to the point:

Play with yourself. Jesus likes watching it.

[Yahzi]

II don't agree with the defenition of a skeptic as "a person who believes in nothing but bodily existence".
That is the definition a metaphysical naturalist. It seems really common for the terms atheism, skepticism, and naturalism to be confused.

BTW, can anyone tell me, does "OP" mean original post or original poster?
I use it to mean both.

[Yahzi]

The idea that no skeptics have beliefs is mistaken. Everyone has beleifs.... well that is unless you're a vegetable.
I don't. When asked what I believe, I answer, if it requires belief, I don't.

Now it is true I have many suppositions, prejudices, expectations, and confidences; but none of these are quite what the believers mean when they say "belief." They generally use that term to mean "faith" - knowledge of things unseen, assurances of things hoped for.

[ImaginalDisc]

This Op is bizzare, and ridiculous.

Please, explain the psychology of a certain skeptic who never believed in any of those things you mentioned, me.

I was raised entirely without religion. The subject simply never came up at home. No one played any magic tricks on me as a child, or filled my head with any nonsense. I always knew it was my parents and extended family who bought my Christmas presents, for which I thanked them. Christmas by the way, being a holiday about buying a dead pine tree, and then hosting a party for our extended family. When other kids at school told me about a magical fat man who climbs down their chimneys (which, being Florida, they didn't even have) to give them presents, I laughed just as hard as when they told me about an invisible man who lives in the sky. I read ever fantasy and science-fiction novel I could get my hands on, but I never once believed in magic. When my teachers taught about any scientific subject, I'd go run off to read a book, or get information from the infant internet about it, and I sometimes learned that my text books were wrong, or out of date. That was really interesting, but hardly a shock.

At what point here was I traumatically disillusioned about a magical world?

[Dogdoctor]

I don't. When asked what I believe, I answer, if it requires belief, I don't.

Now it is true I have many suppositions, prejudices, expectations, and confidences; but none of these are quite what the believers mean when they say "belief." They generally use that term to mean "faith" - knowledge of things unseen, assurances of things hoped for.
Well I look at belief and faith as two separate concepts. Basically by what you said it sounds like you believe you have no beliefs.
edited to add: Belief by itself is necessary to get on with ones life. The real problem is how you arrive at your belief. You can arrive at a belief by studying all available information on the subject in which case you can feel that at least you have done what you can to determine the truth or you can arrive at it by faith which leaves you hoping you are right.

[T'ai Chi]

The real problem is how you arrive at your belief. You can arrive at a belief by studying all available information on the subject in which case you can feel that at least you have done what you can to determine the truth or you can arrive at it by faith which leaves you hoping you are right.

Anybody else see that "all available information" and "hoping you are right" are NOT incompatible?

[Dredred]

Belief by itself is necessary to get on with ones life. The real problem is how you arrive at your belief. You can arrive at a belief by studying all available information on the subject in which case you can feel that at least you have done what you can to determine the truth or you can arrive at it by faith which leaves you hoping you are right.

Assuming the street is solid, when you set foot on it (to use Randi's example), is an example of a belief that is necessary to get on with ones life. You don't need to study all available information about it; one look will suffice.

About not so every-day subjects such as the existence of God, heaven and hell, telepathy, etc., you don't need any belief to get on with your life. It's very possible to believe nothing about those matters, to just be satisfied with the fact that you don't know. Of course, based on available information and critical thinking, you can assign different levels of 'likely to be real' to every possible theory. I regard that as something different from believing.

My affinity with skepticism didn't develop suddenly, but quite suddenly.Of course I meant 'not slowly but suddenly.

Someone mentioned there's already a thread about how people become skeptics. Can anyone point me to it?

[Dredred]

Someone mentioned there's already a thread about how people become skeptics. Can anyone point me to it?
Never mind, I found it already:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=525

..I keep quoting myself...feels weird somehow...

[blutoski]

Never mind, I found it already:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=525

..I keep quoting myself...feels weird somehow...

Stop quoting yourself (poke).
Stop quoting yourself (poke).
Stop quoting yourself (poke).

Ah, memories of recess...

[Dogdoctor]

Assuming the street is solid, when you set foot on it (to use Randi's example), is an example of a belief that is necessary to get on with ones life. You don't need to study all available information about it; one look will suffice.

About not so every-day subjects such as the existence of God, heaven and hell, telepathy, etc., you don't need any belief to get on with your life. It's very possible to believe nothing about those matters, to just be satisfied with the fact that you don't know. Of course, based on available information and critical thinking, you can assign different levels of 'likely to be real' to every possible theory. I regard that as something different from believing.

Of course I meant 'not slowly but suddenly.

Someone mentioned there's already a thread about how people become skeptics. Can anyone point me to it?
Well I would say you believe you don't need to believe in god/heaven/hell/telepathy and that there are different levels of belief. I am sure /think likely/probably/etc. Lots of people believe in God yet aren't sure of it. There are a few who beleive there is no god but aren't sure of it. I have heard some don't care but never met a person like that. A thread about early skeptical memories http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55479
learning skeptical skills http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55912
how did you convert to atheism http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28196

[Dredred]

Well I would say you believe you don't need to believe in god/heaven/hell/telepathySo would I. My point is you don't need to believe (=accept as true) anything when it comes to the subjects I mentioned. Just stating the obvious, I guess.. I'll shut up now.

Thanks for the links.