Skeptics are mean spirited?

[Richard]

Here is what an Australian 'Psychic' thinks about us.

http://www.scottrussellhill.com.au/

And what does Scott think of sceptics?

“They are amongst the most nastiest, venomous, mean spirited, narrow minded people on the planet. I wonder when they’ll figure out that they’re just as guilty as needing something to believe in as those they are critical of. For years here and overseas they’ve put out a challenge for a psychic to prove their skills and be rewarded with anything up to a million dollars if the psychic can. Well not only is the sceptics test flawed, but if anyone did pass their stupid test do you think the sceptics would acknowledge that fact? No, they wouldn’t. The sceptics aren’t going to change their minds. They don’t want to. I could hear them responding to the hapless psychic with something like – ‘you couldn’t have known that. There must be a leak in the organization. We’ll keep our million dollars’.”

[Meffy]

1) The Australian "psychic" isn't much of a mind reader. So far off in so many ways.

2) The "psychic" seems to think there's one test for all applicants. Hasn't a clue, in other words, or would rather misrepresent the case than deal with it honestly.

3) The "psychic" sounds like a petulant fouth-grader in this bit: "[...] if anyone did pass their stupid test do you think the sceptics would acknowledge that fact? No, they wouldn’t."

4) The "psychic" betrays utter ignorance of how legal agreements work by claiming that the JREF would back out of the contract in case of a successful test.

5) None of which surprises me much. So-called psychics can't deliver, they can't explain why they can't deliver, so they lie and level false accusations to divert attention from their failures. What a woild.

[Gravy]

Here is what an Australian 'Psychic' thinks about us.
http://www.scottrussellhill.com.au/

From that site:
Scott was seven years old when he fell backwards off a pier and hit his head against the bow of a boat. He fell into the water unconscious but beneath the surface he was "awake", and watched his physical body sink in the murky brown-colored water. His father (who was fishing nearby) jumped in the water fully clothed and saved Scott, but not before Scott had a near death experience.
Guys are such slobs. If his father had disrobed and folded his clothes like a gentleman, we wouldn't be having this problem with Scott.

[Wowbagger]

Part of the problem is that, historically, a lot of (but not most) skeptics have been mean, nasty, venomous, etc. Obviously, most of us really are nice folks (at least the vast majority of the skeptics I've ever known). But, our PR is not helped by those few amongst us who are still relentlessly vicious.

Of course, I'm not defending this psychic's attitudes: If anything, he is rushing to very biased conclusions, not the least bit derived from scientific survey.

But, should we all take this as a reminder to be a tad more gentle in communicating our harsh evidence against anyone's cherished beliefs? Or am I just being naïve?

[thaiboxerken]

Skeptics are called mean when they:

1. Ask for evidence.
2. Don't accept anecdotes as evidence
3. Show the fallacies of a believers logic
4. a combination of any of these.


That, and when insults are thrown. However, it's usually one of the reason up above. I say, if they already think we're mean for simply not believing, screw em.

[Tricky]

I'm sure it appears that we are mean spirited. My wife accuses me of that all the time because I won't buy into her pagan religion.

There is a kind of unspoken rule among woos that no matter how silly someones beliefs are, you will not challenge them. If you wish to disbelieve them, you must do so in silence. The only exception is if they believe something that contradicts your God. Then you have free reign to insult and belittle your beliefs.

But usually it doesn't come to this. Most people believe in politely ignoring the bizarre beliefs of others, at least publicly. They may laugh uproariously at them in private. In truth, I do this too most of the time. There are only a few occasions where I feel comfortable enough with someone to tell them that I don't agree with their beliefs. Even then, it is usually a bad idea. I already have a reputation in my family and everybody is terrified to mention religion around me. (Even though I am the most polite of debaters, the discussion usually winds up in an argument anyway.)

People don't like having their beliefs challenged, so if anyone does so, it is going to be regarded as "mean". This is not limited to skeptics, but since skeptics are more likely to have strong negative opinions on religion, it occurs more often with them. If it bothers you, don't tell anyone you are a skeptic. Just smile and nod.

[Mercutio]

Blame me--I am mean-spirited.




No, really. I mean it.




They couldn't be lying--not nice people like that.




It's me.




It's ok. I don't mind. Just blame me.





I know Tricky does.

[SirPhilip]

Here is what an Australian 'Psychic' thinks about us.Someone should point out to him that there are many here who are spiritual; but we all feel strongly about public deception and abuses of the human spirit, some more militantly than others. It was a stage I went through as well, before I learned not to see any conflict. It is not however, only a secular concern. The more western society sinks deeper into consumerism and decadence the more deeply people will want real, unconditional happiness - and the more pervasive charlatanism will become, as well as the ludicrousness of what passes for right faith and conduct.

[Wowbagger]

Skeptics are called mean when they:

1. Ask for evidence.
2. Don't accept anecdotes as evidence
3. Show the fallacies of a believers logic
4. a combination of any of these.


That, and when insults are thrown. However, it's usually one of the reason up above. I say, if they already think we're mean for simply not believing, screw em.

We can treat them nicely and patiently, when we do any of those four steps. Insults shouldn't have to be thrown at all*. Like a good psychiatrist, or something.

Maybe we can win a few more hearts, and a better rep., even if we'll never win over all of them.

*Wowbagger is an exception to this otherwise infallible rule. It's his job to insult everyone in alphabetic order. ;)

[Ducky]

Wow. Skeptics are the mean spirited ones? What about that entire rant of vitriol? That wasn't mean spirited?

[JollyRoger]

Mean spirited ........... I donno just because someone does not subscribe to your belief system and ask questions?? Someone who wants proof, If someone chooses not to believe in something because their is no proof, or ask you to prove your claim?? I could see how they might see them as mean spirited, but they do keep your toes. Some one who enjoys a good debate on unusual subjects is not mean spirited, but if I ran out of come-backs I might think otherwise.

Perhaps Septics are here to keep the honest man honest and the dishonest man think twice

[a_unique_person]

Skeptics are called mean when they:

1. Ask for evidence.
2. Don't accept anecdotes as evidence
3. Show the fallacies of a believers logic
4. a combination of any of these.


Too true. It upsets people if you don't go along with their ideas. A friend of my wifes is thinking of doing a homeopathy course. I was advised to not say anything to her about it.

[thaiboxerken]

If my wife wanted to do homeopathy, I'd educate her about what homeopathy really is. However, that being said, I'm glad my wife is a skeptic.

[clarsct]

Yes, I am a true @$$hole. I admit it. I eat babies for breakfast and take candy from little girls. I torture kittens because the thought of any form of happiness makes me cringe inside. I am so empty and hollow that I must consume the joy of others, but it is never enough. I once kicked a puppy to death in front of its mother then made her eat the corpse. All people are mere playthings for me, as I am a complete sociopath. I must go now, as the women in the pit are getting noisy, and it is time for their regular beatings.


:rolleyes:

It is amazing, though, isn't it? The recoil the human psyche has to the objects it holds sacred? That anger is good. The last 'Fig Leaf' of denial, the last refuge being stripped away. I imagine he's on the verge of discovering what a crock of ***** this whole psychic business is. The poor soul is trapped. I feel sorry for him, for if he admits it, even a little bit, then he's trapped being a fraud, or worse yet, a dupe. He's bit a wooden leg, and now his teeth are sore. Maybe one day he'll be able to use that anger to free himself of this nonsense. I hope so.

[Pae]

Mean spirited towards what? Ignorance? Baseless assertions? People thinking that their own subjective experiences should be believed by everyone?

[SirPhilip]

Perhaps Septics are here to keep the honest man honest and the dishonest man think twiceIndeed.

Septics? :)

[RSLancastr]

Yes, many skeptics - including some who are "the face of skepticism" to the general public, can be very mean-spirited.

There just aren't many Carl Sagans around.

Of course, in all of the cosmos, there may be billions and billions of him. :)

[CFLarsen]

“They are amongst the most nastiest, venomous, mean spirited, narrow minded people on the planet. I wonder when they’ll figure out that they’re just as guilty as needing something to believe in as those they are critical of. For years here and overseas they’ve put out a challenge for a psychic to prove their skills and be rewarded with anything up to a million dollars if the psychic can. Well not only is the sceptics test flawed, but if anyone did pass their stupid test do you think the sceptics would acknowledge that fact? No, they wouldn’t. The sceptics aren’t going to change their minds. They don’t want to. I could hear them responding to the hapless psychic with something like – ‘you couldn’t have known that. There must be a leak in the organization. We’ll keep our million dollars’.”

All claims countered here:

Top Excuses for not taking the Randi Challenge (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

[Operaider]

“They are amongst the most nastiest, venomous, mean spirited, narrow minded people on the planet.”Could describe allot of believers I know of.

[Curnir]

Yes, many skeptics - including some who are "the face of skepticism" to the general public, can be very mean-spirited.

There just aren't many Carl Sagans around.

Of course, in all of the cosmos, there may be billions and billions of him. :)

Too true.

If a skeptic goes at the woo's with great gusto and the same intensity as the woo.

He/she is confrontatinal, hateful and intolerant.

Where-as if the skeptic goes at the woo in a calm, structured, logical and polite way...

He/she is being patronizing and condecending.

We just can't win, can we.

[Euromutt]

We can treat them nicely and patiently, when we do any of those four steps.May I suggest you read the "Loose Change" thread and the Natasha Demkina ("the girl with 'X-ray eyes'") thread. In their entirety. Count how many times the woos keep trotting out the same claims ("molten steel!" "only 1 in 50 chance!"), over and over, despite these claims having been overwhelmingly refuted within the first five or ten pages of the thread. Having done so, do you honestly want to tell us that it's unreasonable for a skeptic's patience to run out at some point?

Now consider that these threads have only been running for a few months. Randi has been confronting this sort of thinking (or rather, lack thereof) for over thirty years. Can anyone blame him for being a mite crotchety?

[Ducky]

Mean spirited ........... I donno just because someone does not subscribe to your belief system and ask questions?? Someone who wants proof, If someone chooses not to believe in something because their is no proof, or ask you to prove your claim?? I could see how they might see them as mean spirited, but they do keep your toes. Some one who enjoys a good debate on unusual subjects is not mean spirited, but if I ran out of come-backs I might think otherwise.

Perhaps Septics are here to keep the honest man honest and the dishonest man think twice


Very well put, JollyRoger.

[Zep]

Seems Scott doesn't like discussion from the public - nowhere to respond to his claims or accusations on that site!

So it's just one big advertorial for a liar.

[SezMe]

Could describe allot of believers I know of.
That's a cheap shot, Operaider. First, do you really know of allot [sic] of believers that support Fundy Fred? If so, please describe your experience of them.

Second, your implication that the Phelps crowd represents "believers" is just crap. Would you like to back up that sense?

[arthwollipot]

I think Operaider meant that it could describe Phelps and his lot - not necessarily the general run-of-the-mill bleevers.

[Operaider]

I think Operaider meant that it could describe Phelps and his lot - not necessarily the general run-of-the-mill bleevers.exactly, as for my run in with believers that support him. I live close enough to his church to have seen him and his followers more than I'd like.

[arthwollipot]

I'm not sure if I could stand that.

[Operaider]

I'm not sure if I could stand that.On the plus side, he generates enough of a backlash against himself that his views don’t stand unopposed. Local groups, newspapers, and radio stations have gone after him. Laws have even been passed to keep people like him from protesting near cemeteries. So there is a silver lining.

sorry for getting us off topic

[Richard]

sorry for getting us off topic

OK, to get back on topic for a tic, what say some of us email Scott Russell Rill and request he backs up with evidence his attack on the JREF prize?

Any ideas?

[Mojo]

OK, to get back on topic for a tic, what say some of us email Scott Russell Rill and request he backs up with evidence his attack on the JREF prize?

Any ideas?None that he wouldn't consider nasty, venomous, mean spirited and narrow minded.

[arthwollipot]

...which suggests that he would do no more than delete them, or add us to his junk mail filter.

[Stellafane]

When he calls skeptics mean spirited, perhaps he means "mean" in its classic sense, "miserly" or "cheap," because we won't give him our money like we're supposed to.

[arthwollipot]

The term "mean spirited" means that you are cheap or miserly with your spirit, ie your generosity and compassion. But since we skeptics don't believe in spirits (except the ones that come in bottles) I guess that description is inevitable.

[CFLarsen]

OK, to get back on topic for a tic, what say some of us email Scott Russell Rill and request he backs up with evidence his attack on the JREF prize?

Any ideas?
I'm game. As always. ;)

I'll be meek as a lamb.

[Gr8wight]

His insults simply slide off. Who really cares that he doesn't like us. However, his claim that, "the sceptics test [is] flawed," requires backing up. I would ask him in what way it(they) is(are) flawed. What are the holes in the test(s)? Not that I would expect an answer.

[UrsulaV]

I cry when I hit a squirrel with the car. And at sad movies. And when the crows get into the robin nests in the hedge and pull the baby robin out and eat it on the lawn.

Truly, I am a vile and mean-spirited person. Fortunately, I am a vile and mean-spirited person who keeps a lot of Kleenex on hand...

[pounce]

yeah, but since i don't "pray" for things, and i poo poo the woo woo it comes off as insensitive i suppose. it's an untrue and unfair characterization of sceptics, but it makes it easy to paint sceptics with broad strokes if all are presumed to be callous and mean.

[JollyRoger]

Indeed.

Septics? :)

Looks like I got busted by the spelling police

[John Jackson]

OK, to get back on topic for a tic, what say some of us email Scott Russell Rill and request he backs up with evidence his attack on the JREF prize?

Any ideas?

It might be worth asking how he came to the conclusion that the 'test' is flawed.

The 'test' does not actually exist: it's a challenge.

I've seen countless articles and claims debunking Randi's 'test'. They're only revealing that they haven't got a clue what they're talking about when they publish this rubbish though. ;)

Argue that point and he'll never be able to defend it. :D

[gfunkusarelius]

i get the mean spirited bit a lot because people want to believe in something and when i refute it, they often feel like they have been robbed of their "happy place." for example, if someone was spending the night at a "haunted house" as another poster described in another thread, and i they heard a knock on a lamp, if they want to believe in ghosts, they will most likely accept that this sound was a "communication." if i do research and quickly find it was the guy next to me flicking a dime, they will be annoyed that i ruined it for them.
hence, i am seen as a party pooper for always being so annoyingly grounded in reality. i understand this concept becuase when i was younger, i was prone to sticking my head in the clouds and i was annoyed by people who didnt want to believe in astral projection, SHC, etc...

[JollyRoger]

Oh common people's what would we do without skeptics, somebody has to keep us paranormal clowns grounded.

and a BIG thanks to ya

Ya Mean oll skeptics

[blutoski]

OK, to get back on topic for a tic, what say some of us email Scott Russell Rill and request he backs up with evidence his attack on the JREF prize?

Any ideas?


I think we need to know more about the screed before making assumptions. For example, he could be talking about the Australian Skeptics' $10,000 paranormal challenge.

Like the JREF challenge, it's 90% dowsers.