At what point does Skepticism become cruel? [Archive]

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:03 AM

Sherman Bay

5th July 2006, 06:06 AM

Darat

5th July 2006, 06:07 AM

Compassion can go hand in hand with the truth so there is no need for the two to be divorced.

MRC_Hans

5th July 2006, 06:11 AM

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:12 AM

So you think deluding someone by giving them false hope that it is actually possible to talk to the dead is a good thing?

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

There are people who will not understand a logical argument, either by hard-headedness or simple lack of intelligence, and these are the people I am referring to.

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:14 AM

I just had a similar discussion in an audiophile forum. Somebody said something to the lines of "what does it matter if it doesn't work, as long as people feel their 300$ cables sound better?"

I answered: "So you think it is OK to cheat people, as long as they don't find out?"

Needless to say, there was no answer :rolleyes:.

Hans

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

Axe

T'ai Chi

5th July 2006, 06:17 AM

IMO it becomes somewhat cruel when

- members of skeptical movements try to become watchdogs of what people can and cannot think and do

- "witchhunts" and calling-outs (think Randi's Sylvia Browne clock and weekly tirade/commentary)

- a very, very distorted picture is painted of the opposition, such as using a picture of a terroist in an article that just talks about Muslims

and

-when movements categorize others not in the movement as lesser and stupid, such as what some think the Brights movement does just going by terminology they use

For the most part, I don't think it is cruel, but these are some things that might be close to being cruel.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 06:18 AM

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

Axe

But it is OK to lie to people, as long as they don't find out? Even if no money is involved?

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 06:19 AM

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

There are people who will not understand a logical argument, either by hard-headedness or simple lack of intelligence, and these are the people I am referring to.

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe
The person fooling them is behaving unethically. Scepticism is only "cruel" if we target the wrong person. Ideally, though we encourage the development of critical thinking skills, we generaly don't blame the victims of scams and frauds. The blame lies squarely with the decievers.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 06:22 AM

The person fooling them is behaving unethically. Scpeticism is only "cruel" if we target the wrong person. Ideally, though we encourage the development of critical thinking skills, we generaly don't blame the victims of scams and frauds. The blame lies squarely with the decievers.
But we do blame victims if they know they are being fooled, yet still continue to promote the scammers.

The only reason why these frauds can continue is because they are protected by their victims.

pgwenthold

5th July 2006, 06:24 AM

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

If that's what you think, then the biggest difference between you and me is that I tend to think that people aren't that stupid.

I am often called arrogant, but I try not to be so condescending to pretend that people are too stupid to "know better."

Maybe it's the teacher in me.

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:24 AM

But it is OK to lie to people, as long as they don't find out? Even if no money is involved?

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

Perhaps I should have made my original post clearer.

Sometimes people go out of their way to point out that something is "fake". If someone is not going to understand that, perhaps it would be better to "let sleeping dogs lie", as opposed to actively pursuing the chance to debunk something.

Axe

tkingdoll

5th July 2006, 06:24 AM

So you think deluding someone by giving them false hope that it is actually possible to talk to the dead is a good thing?
It depends on the implications. For some people, that can be the only thing that gets them through the day - a tiny glimmer of hope that their loved one is not really gone may be the only thing between them and insanity. Should we take that away for a principle? Probably not, even if we could. And if we did, it would just be replaced with something else. Many people need emotional crutches that to skeptics do not appear rational. Their emotions are not rational though, and their circumstances may prohibit rational thought (extreme grief, for example).

However, what is a problem is when people are willing to exploit that desperation for hope, for financial gain, or attention, or whatever.

The hypothesis that Axenos puts forward, about a simpleton being reassured by lies because he knows no better, is a dilemma that does not just apply to woo issues. It could apply to, say, propoganda material by a political party. Or many other scenarios.

I guess a few questions arise from this:

1) Is society as a whole disadvantaged by allowing misinformation to be commonplace? (i.e. to paraphrase the Vulcan saying, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?)

2) Does an individual have the right to tell another person the facts?

3) Does an individual have the right to ignore the facts?

4) Are facts more important than individual happiness?

You cannot tell people what to think, or believe, or feel. And neither should you. Equally, you cannot force adults to be educated or to educate themselves.

The problem for me, which is what I think Axenos is touching on, is that as a skeptic, I would prefer to know the facts even if it means sacrificing the comfort I might get from a particular belief. And it would be very easy for me to assume that everyone else feels that way. I think, however, that many, many people do not feel that way. Further, I would suggest that they feel the exact opposite, and would take the comfort of ignorance over the harshness of the facts. Which is why more people are not skeptics.

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:29 AM

tkingdoll has hit on it, somewhat clearer than I could.

Thanks tkingdoll,

Axe

T'ai Chi

5th July 2006, 06:38 AM

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

tkingdoll

5th July 2006, 06:38 AM

No worries.

I should clarify, that I believe that the needs of society do outweigh the needs of the individual, and that where possible all individuals should strive to apply some critical thinking to their lives.

However, that is an idealistic viewpoint, as plenty of people simply aren't interested in applying any critical thinking whatsoever and you can't and shouldn't force them to. There will always be woo because some people love it.

Critical thinking should be taught in schools, that way we would have less widespread acceptance of dodgy claims.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 06:38 AM

Don't people want "facts" though? It's uncertainty that's scary.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 06:41 AM

It's definately not OK to lie to people.

Perhaps I should have made my original post clearer.

Sometimes people go out of their way to point out that something is "fake". If someone is not going to understand that, perhaps it would be better to "let sleeping dogs lie", as opposed to actively pursuing the chance to debunk something.

Axe

Perhaps. But it always comes down to this: Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie. The "psychic" may or may not be aware that he is just cold-reading the poor mark, but nevertheless: Spirit communication doesn't happen.

Do I think it's OK to tell a child who has just lost his mother that the mother is in Heaven (a nice place, by all accounts)? Yeah, probably. The child is not an adult, and we can't expect children to understand the implications of death. If that helps the child overcoming his grief, fine by me. When he grows up, he will hopefully recognize the lie for what it was: A help.

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 06:45 AM

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?
Maybe your parents have lied to you, but mine never did. I thank them for it often, because it helped me to trust them.

As for actors and magicians, you are simply wrong. No one goes to Braveheart thinking that Mel Gibson is William Wallace. It's a performance. Mr. Randi always used to caution his audeince that his performance is merely elaborate and clever tricks, not mystical forces.

Stellafane

5th July 2006, 06:47 AM

I have been a long-time lurker of these forums and just recently registered.

Numerous times I have read of people delighting in informing people that have been "woo" influenced of their various skeptic beliefs.

I advocate that, but only to a point.

If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature.

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

At what point does compassion for someone become overshadowed by the need to... shall we say illuminate and inform?

Regards All,

Axe

Hi Axenos. If I understand your point correctly, it's a modified form of the "what's the harm?" argument: Why not let the "poor simpletons" believe that psychics are real, if it makes them feel better and doesn't cost them any money? If so, it's an argument for which I have very little sympathy. To see why, I suggest you read the "Psychics and missing people" thread in this forum, if you haven't already. As you'll see, in many cases these self-proclaimed psychics (Carla Baron, for instance) offer free assistance to find missing people. But the fact that they don't charge money in no way mitigates or excuses the damage they cause to the families of the missing: emotional trauma, time wasted by police following false leads, divisiveness between friends and family members, casting guilt on the innocent, and so on. Sure, they sometimes make the victims' families feel better (at least temporarily). But it's a false, and untimately cruel hope.

And how do you determine whether or not someone is a "poor simpleton" and thus should not be told the truth? Are you prepared to sit in judgement of another person's intellectual capacity, and decide they aren't worth bothering about? What if said "poor simpleton" still manages to acquire a position of authority and influence over others? Do you want them making decisions based upon a psychic's advice? Bear in mind, not too long ago a "poor simpleton" managed to became arguably the most powerful person on earth, capable of launching a nuclear attack that would have affected the lives of every living person -- and his decisions were at least partially influenced and advised by an astrologer. Can you even imagine the potential harm that situation might have caused?

Finally, tolerating a belief in psychic ability makes it easier for those psychic frauds who do bilk people out of money to operate. Is a "poor simpleton" going to accept that psychics are only effective if they don't charge for their services? Even a "simpleton" will understand that doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, but I have a very difficult time condoning any form of a "what's the harm?" argument. Because in the end, it always contributes to some type of harm eventually. And I can't believe that ultimately, we're all not better served by the truth.

ETA to fix last line, with was 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:47 AM

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

I see your point, and I simply do not have a good answer. I am truthful to a fault generally, even to the point of cruelty.

Even I have to admit however, that there are times that it is a necessary evil.

But this is missing the point. If someone will never understand the difference, is it up to us to destroy "peace of mind"?

You have focused upon the issue of untruthfulness, when I am focusing on something somewhat broader in scope.

BTW, everyone, "poor simpleton" was a poor choice of words.

Axe

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 06:47 AM

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

Man: "Would you like to go on a date with me?"
Truthful Woman: "No. The idea of spending time with you is repulsive."
Lying Woman: "Oh no! Sorry I can't - I've already got a boyfriend."

Perhaps there's more to communication than just truth or lies?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 06:51 AM

I'm reminded of something I saw one day coming out of a supermarket.

A small child had just let go of her helium balloon by mistake and it was shooting up into the sky. She was obviously upset.

To calm her down, her mother and father said the following:

"Grandma needed to borrow your balloon for a bit, she'll bring it back later".

Obviously, the child's grandmother had died and they had told her she was in heaven. WHat disturbed me about the explanation, though was:

* they were knowingly and deliberately lying to the child. They knew that the balloon going off into the sky was nothing to do with a dead grandmother in heaven
* they knew the balloon would not be coming back, and they were counting on the child to forget about it.

That said, it would have been absolutely and completely inappropriate for me to make a correction to what they were telling the child. In fact, to do so would have been cruel because the lie gave the child consolation for the loss of her balloon.

Nonetheless, this made me think less of the parents (who I had not met before now and never saw again) who would deliberately tell an outlandish lie to the child when a more straightforward truth would probably have done. However, if I were going to say anything, it would be to the parent, not the child.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 06:52 AM

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

Do you think it is OK for a psychic to lie to people?

You can answer it - you don't have me on ignore.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 06:54 AM

Maybe your parents have lied to you, but mine never did. I thank them for it often, because it helped me to trust them.

As for actors and magicians, you are simply wrong. No one goes to Braveheart thinking that Mel Gibson is William Wallace. It's a performance. Mr. Randi always used to caution his audeince that his performance is merely elaborate and clever tricks, not mystical forces.

Spot on. It's not a lie, when you know it's a lie. And you can't blame the liar, if he tells you that it is a lie.

Overman

5th July 2006, 07:03 AM

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

At what point does compassion for someone become overshadowed by the need to... shall we say illuminate and inform?

I see this on a bigger scale. It is my opinion that what skepticism is and what it stands for will ultimately be the thing that unites, and possibly saves, humanity.

If you read Stephen Hawking's recent speeches or some or Carl Sagan's more dreamful ones they both talk about the importance of humans becoming a space faring civilation. They talk about how humanity is constantly on the edge of destroying itself before we could even hope to accomplish feats like this.

I do not think that humanity will ever be able to unite under a religious doctrine, It needs science and skepticism to unite it. I also do not believe that if all did untie under a religious doctrine that technoligical advancements and the spreading of human civilization into space would be a priority.

Every time I dish out a bit of science, critical thinking, or skepticism I feel like I am doing my part to help humanity become intelligent, strong, and hopefully, immortal.

I know this probably sounds fairly fanatical, but I see it as very logical.

If I have to hurt someone's feelings by telling them what reality actually is, so be it. I will admit that there are many times when I keep my mouth shut or let comments fall by the wayside, I am not a *********. I am not going to sit there and attack each religious person I know beliefs (mabye just the mormans I know...).

I do feel it is important to spread skepticism, and to spread it as wide as possible. If someone's feelings get hurt in the process, then I say that sometimes reality bites.

Ladewig

5th July 2006, 07:11 AM

IMO it becomes somewhat cruel when

- "witchhunts" and calling-outs (think Randi's Sylvia Browne clock and weekly tirade/commentary)

Given that Sylvia charges hundreds of dollars an hour for private readings, given that she gets free publicity from uncritical TV hosts such as Larry King and Montel, and given that she agreed to the test, why is Randi's Sylvia-Brown clock somewhat cruel?

Luke T.

5th July 2006, 07:11 AM

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

The "simpletons" are the predators market. If you can't get to the predator directly, then take away his/her source of gratification.

I do think one of the weak spots of skepticism is that the reality that is offered as a replacement for magic is often a poor substitute.

When you take away something a person is deeply attached to, you need to replace it with something equal to or exceeding in value. They will not accept a vacuum or "life's a bitch and then you die and then nothing."

Axenos

5th July 2006, 07:12 AM

To Stellafane:

I see your points, and no, I do not condone or believe in psychics.

The "What's the harm?" argument I actually never noticed before, so shame on me if I have introduced a variant.

As to the "poor simpleton" line which a few have latched upon, shame on me again for a poor choice of words. I am a lower-middle class working guy, and I am no raving genius to be sure.

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

Regards,

Axe

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 07:20 AM

Every time I dish out a bit of science, critical thinking, or skepticism I feel like I am doing my part to help humanity become intelligent, strong, and hopefully, immortal.

What lofty ideals. Most people I know do it just to look smart:D

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 07:22 AM

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

Don't beat yourself up. I for one am glad you broached the subject, because it's something we, as a movement, need to kepe in mind. The questions of who and how we go about debunking are perennial and perimount.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 07:26 AM

brettDbass

5th July 2006, 07:27 AM

Towards the end of my previous dabblings with The World Of Woo, I used to have similar feelings to those expressed in the OP.

Spending more time on this forum was all it took to have my mind changed.

chillzero

5th July 2006, 07:27 AM

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

Regards,

Axe

Particularly with regard to psychics who contact distressed families, but also in general, how do you separate these?
What is the difference between providing false hope, and providing fake reassurances?

Stellafane

5th July 2006, 07:30 AM

...I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

I believe I do get your meaning, and it's an interesting philosophical argument. But I think it's very difficult to sort out exactly when you're laudably putting someone "at ease," as opposed to not-so-laudably giving them "false hope."

Here's a for-instance that might seem off-topic, but please bear with me: Yesterday at the store I ran into a young woman who very obviously had Down's Syndrome. She was exceedingly outgoing and friendly, referring to everyone as "shorty" (she herself was probably under five feet in height, so she was using the term ironically). As I walked out, I realized she was undoubtedly the happiest person in the whole store. So, suppose there were some pill that could turn that woman "normal," providing her with an average intellect and all the social responsibilities, fears, and anxieties that go along with it. Do you give her that pill? Or do you allow her to continue within her limited but extremely happy world, living a life more full of joy than most of us will ever know?

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 07:39 AM

I believe I do get your meaning, and it's an interesting philosophical argument. But I think it's very difficult to sort out exactly when you're laudably putting someone "at ease," as opposed to not-so-laudably giving them "false hope."

Here's a for-instance that might seem off-topic, but please bear with me: Yesterday at the store I ran into a young woman who very obviously had Down's Syndrome. She was exceedingly outgoing and friendly, referring to everyone as "shorty" (she herself was probably under five feet in height, so she was using the term ironically). As I walked out, I realized she was undoubtedly the happiest person in the whole store. So, suppose there were some pill that could turn that woman "normal," providing her with an average intellect and all the social responsibilities, fears, and anxieties that go along with it. Do you give her that pill? Or do you allow her to continue within her limited but extremely happy world, living a life more full of joy than most of us will ever know?

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

There's an employee at the Burger King near my work who I strongly suspect is mentally handicapped. He too is happy as clam. He's probably their best employee. He reads orders before each step in collecting and distributing them, always chats amiably with the coustomers, and I've never seen him standing still. When he's not putting together orders, he's mopping the floor, or tending the soda machines. Frankly, he works harder at his job than me and most people I've ever met. I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

Beady

5th July 2006, 07:46 AM

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 07:48 AM

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

...I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

My thoughts exactly!

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 07:52 AM

Stellafane

5th July 2006, 07:53 AM

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

There's an employee at the Burger King near my work who I strongly suspect is mentally handicapped. He too is happy as clam. He's probably their best employee. He reads orders before each step in collecting and distributing them, always chats amiably with the coustomers, and I've never seen him standing still. When he's not putting together orders, he's mopping the floor, or tending the soda machines. Frankly, he works harder at his job than me and most people I've ever met. I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

Well, every time she called someone "shorty" she got a huge kick out of it, laughing and smiling. She called my wife "shorty" several times, and each time exhibited a tremendous amount of obvious pleasure, much more than anyone else I know would have under those circumstances. Granted, I don't personally know this person, so I'm merely guessing. But I suspect if she were endowed with what we'd refer to as "normal" intelligence, she wouldn't have been nearly so delighted repeating such a simple joke over and over.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps her joy derived from a source other than her condition. I submit that neither of us knows for certain. However, does it really have much effect on my overall point: Would you prefer someone lives in a limited but happy world, or be as fully informed as possible and deal with reality as it comes?

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 07:55 AM

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.
I woulnd't do anything. Now, if there was a guy hanging around the cemetary offering to channel the souls of the loved ones that people are speaking to, I'd debunk that charlatan before you can say "Bob's your uncle."

Axenos

5th July 2006, 08:00 AM

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

After some thought, I believe I do condone "comforting lies", but only in the case that the person would not really comprehend what one may consider the truth.

I am somewhat grey in this area, meaning that the cases in which I might condone it are narrowly specific, using my own personal criteria. Others I am sure will feel differently.

I am a realist, make no mistake, but I am tempered by a compassion for those who are not able to perhaps fully understand an intelligent argument.
That is not to say, as some have surmised, that I feel people are stupid, it's just that I am aware of the limitations of my fellow man... myself included.

It's a somewhat grey, foggy area...

Regards,

Axe

brettDbass

5th July 2006, 08:04 AM

Or, Stella, perhaps Downs affects some people by making their expressions of emotion much stronger?

Have you ever seen an angry sufferer of Downs Syndrome? It can be quite scary.

Stellafane

5th July 2006, 08:04 AM

My thoughts exactly!

Well, bully for you...

Stellafane

5th July 2006, 08:07 AM

Or, Stella, perhaps Downs affects some people by making their expressions of emotion much stronger?

Have you ever seen an angry sufferer of Downs Syndrome? It can be quite scary.

Perhaps. All I can say is that I've never been as obviously happy and joyful as this woman appeared to me. Nor can I recall seeing that level of delight in other people I know.

I'm wishing now I never used this example. What a way to inadvertantly derail an interesting thread...

brettDbass

5th July 2006, 08:12 AM

It's still an interesting topic of discussion though.

c0rbin

5th July 2006, 08:20 AM

If I may, "cruel" is not the right word, I don't think, for what you are trying to say.

Many here do cross a line into ad hom, maybe not enough restraint or patience even for those "believers" or "woos" who are themselves woefully stupid or poor at articulating or arguing their point.

I think there is an eagerness to "do battle" with the "opposition" that pulls some of us skeptics across that line.

Skepticism itself cannot be cruel for it seeks the truth. In the great scheme of things, it is far more mature of us as a species to face the truth.

I do not have the same anti-religion and anti-spiritualism that some here have. I think people, in the long run, get what they pay for and it is their right to do so in this country.

Edit to add: I believe the word you are looking for is "buzz-kill."

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 08:37 AM

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one?

Nothing.

Most of all, what I wouldn't do would be assuming that that person would think whoever was burried there could still hear them. there is a difference between "talking to the dead" and "talking next to a tombstone".

I have no way of knowing this, but my guess is that most people are aware of the difference, even the majority of the people that do occasionally talk next to a tombstone.

Be that as it may, I reject the notion that being a sceptic means one should also be a tactless #*$%#*&. In most situation, however, the woos volunteer their opinions, and i think it's fair game to answer truthfully if directly approached.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 08:52 AM

So are some people here actually saying they never let any woo statements go? Don't get me wrong - if someone starts insisting that there's life after death or water can cure cancer, I'd be asking them to explain their position and confronting them with evidence to the contrary.

Most people haven't got financial or political motives when they express what they believe. These things just help them along day to day. Most of the woo people buy into does something for them, or else they wouldn't believe it.

Everyone has some distorted and incorrect ideas because sometimes you just have to wing it - you can't know everything you need to know all the time.

I think the arguments some people here get into are more likely motivated by their need to right rather than helping the deluded people see reality. Dilbert says it best:

“It’s not how much you know, it’s who knows less than you that counts”

As for the person talking by the tombstone, as others have said, I don’t know anything more about them and it is none of my business anyway so I’ll keep my ideas to myself.

opqdan

5th July 2006, 09:01 AM

Beady

5th July 2006, 09:03 AM

I don't do anything. Why should I do anything?

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth? After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth? Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion? Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

Beady

5th July 2006, 09:10 AM

Most people haven't got financial or political motives when they express what they believe.

True, but a great many people do have egotistical motives when expressing their beliefs. I have perhaps as much of a problem with them as I do with the profiteers and politicians. More of a problem, perhaps, since I have more personal experience with them.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 09:34 AM

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth? After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth? Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion? Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

Whoa, not so fast. There's a hell of a difference between someone talking to their dearly departed, and someone who claims to be able to talk with the dearly departed of someone else.

Do the people at cemetaries really believe that they are talking, as in holding a conversation? Doubtful. What they are doing is pouring their heart out to one they are missing.

Like Penn said on "Bulls**t": It's easy to talk to the dead. The trick is to get them to talk back.

Tanstaafl

5th July 2006, 09:52 AM

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

I think it would be extremely inapropriate to say anything in that case. I myself have talked to my mother's tombstone. I know no one is there and she doesn't hear me. It's just a tool to focus my thoughts on her. It seems to me it would be hard to tell the difference between that and someone who really believes they are being heard. And I think it would be rude and presumptuous to jump in and say something.

But I think I understand the urge to do so. I think such delusions are sad, but I can't imagine trying to correct someone on them.

Argh! Rasmus beat me to this thought! Sorry for not reading to the end before posting.

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 09:53 AM

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth?

In my case, that's just what it means.

After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

You would never hear me utter such outrageous nonsense.

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth?

The key factor here is: Was I asked to voice my opinion?

If I accepted your version of what it means to "omit a truth" I would spend most of my time talking about frogs. I have no intention of doing that, though.

I am only omitting a truth if I do tell things on either side of the truth and create the impression that there was nothing else in the middle. In the scene on the graveyard, I am just being quiet. And, again, I don't even know what the person thinks that is doing the talking.

Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion?

In that situation, I would not know what their alleged delusions are. Also, by approaching them in that situation, I would find myself violating a lot of other things that are important, such as their right to privacy.

I see nothing wrong with approaching that person and finding about their believes and possibly addressing their delusions should it turn out they have any. All I need now is a way of doing that without also stalking them.

I suspect there might be away that would respect their privacy, but I dount it'd be worth my efforts, really.

Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

No. :D

tkingdoll

5th July 2006, 10:23 AM

From Edmond Way Teale, by way of Carl Sagan
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have it"

Not sure if I agree completely (I think it is far more gray than he makes it seem), but food for thought.
That's exactly the point though! Many many people do not care how they get their money! We can take the moral high ground all we want, but if we say that our ideal of what is moral should be mandatory for all society, we are no better than a religion.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 10:25 AM

On a slightly related subject, no sceptic should use any phase that implies Freud theories are correct. To do so would be lying to the public.

As far as I know most are not falsifiable and those that have been tested have been shown to be false! Therefore anyone referring to his theories by using constructs such as ego are on shaky ground to say the least.

Not that anyone here would have any wrong ideas about Freuds theories:D

Beady:
True, but a great many people do have egotistical motives when expressing their beliefs. I have perhaps as much of a problem with them as I do with the profiteers and politicians. More of a problem, perhaps, since I have more personal experience with them.

I'm not picking on you - I've seen it a lot on threads and am amazed nobody has commented on it before.

aggle-rithm

5th July 2006, 10:32 AM

On a slightly related subject, no sceptic should use any phase that implies Freud theories are correct. To do so would be lying to the public.

As far as I know most are not falsifiable and those that have been tested have been shown to be false! Therefore anyone referring to his theories by using constructs such as ego are on shaky ground to say the least.

Not that anyone here would have any wrong ideas about Freuds theories:D

Beady:

I'm not picking on you - I've seen it a lot on threads and am amazed nobody has commented on it before.

"Ego" is just Latin for "I". The actual word Freud used was "Ich". It was the translators that turned it into "ego".

AmateurScientist

5th July 2006, 10:34 AM

Don't people want "facts" though? It's uncertainty that's scary.

You are right. I provide advice and counsel in my job, and quite often the truthful answer to a question posed to me is along the lines of "I don't know and cannot know. All I can give you is an educated guess."

This is often enormously frustrating for my clients, and some of them grow angry with me because of it. No offense, but as a category I find that it is my engineer clients who often find such a response unacceptable. Many of them seem to have a compulsive need to have some degree of certainty. In fact, this often gets asked as "What are my chances [of success]?"

The truth is that in law, which is what I do, much of the professional advice is guesswork. Clients often want guarantees. Sorry, but I can't do those. Neither can I assess a set of odds as to anyone's chances to any mathematical degree. I can give my subjective, gut-level opinion, but that's all it is.

I know a colleague who always answers the chances question with "50-50. You could win, or you could lose." I think that's a little cynical and dismissive, but he's got a point.

AS

ImaginalDisc

5th July 2006, 10:41 AM

You are right. I provide advice and counsel in my job, and quite often the truthful answer to a question posed to me is along the lines of "I don't know and cannot know. All I can give you is an educated guess."

This is often enormously frustrating for my clients, and some of them grow angry with me because of it. No offense, but as a category I find that it is my engineer clients who often find such a response unacceptable. Many of them seem to have a compulsive need to have some degree of certainty. In fact, this often gets asked as "What are my chances [of success]?"

The truth is that in law, which is what I do, much of the professional advice is guesswork. Clients often want guarantees. Sorry, but I can't do those. Neither can I assess a set of odds as to anyone's chances to any mathematical degree. I can give my subjective, gut-level opinion, but that's all it is.

I know a colleague who always answers the chances question with "50-50. You could win, or you could lose." I think that's a little cynical and dismissive, but he's got a point.

AS
Well, you're an expert going off of your experiance in the field. If I asked a lawyer, "What are my chances that I'll be sucessfully sued for negligence if I don't do X, Y, and Z?" and the lawyer says, "I can't give you any precise figures, but in my professional judgement, you'd be taking on a large risk of a costly legal battle and a small risk of a huge financial loss." that would be good enough for me.

When someone answers a difficult question to the best of their ability, that ain't the same a lie.

aggle-rithm

5th July 2006, 10:56 AM

I think it would be extremely inapropriate to say anything in that case. I myself have talked to my mother's tombstone. I know no one is there and she doesn't hear me. It's just a tool to focus my thoughts on her. It seems to me it would be hard to tell the difference between that and someone who really believes they are being heard. And I think it would be rude and presumptuous to jump in and say something.

But I think I understand the urge to do so. I think such delusions are sad, but I can't imagine trying to correct someone on them.

Argh! Rasmus beat me to this thought! Sorry for not reading to the end before posting.

On the TV show "Monk" he was at his wife's grave, playing the clarinet. His assistant approached and said, "I'm sure she could hear you."

His reply: "I don't see how. She's been dead for four years."

Axenos

5th July 2006, 11:12 AM

On the TV show "Monk" he was at his wife's grave, playing the clarinet. His assistant approached and said, "I'm sure she could hear you."

His reply: "I don't see how. She's been dead for four years."

The opposite of that would be what I originally meant.

Hardcore skeptic walks up to person playing clarinet and says " You know, since she's been dead for four years, there is no way that she could hear you."

Now most people would know (or believe) that is true, but some people cannot quite make that connection, for whatever reason. These are the ones that I feel it would be "cruel" or at the very least mean to enlighten.

Now if Joe Woo is sitting there saying that he could "talk" to the departed, then of course I would kick Joe Woo square out of the area...

Axe

Kelly

5th July 2006, 11:18 AM

Hi Axenos. If I understand your point correctly, it's a modified form of the "what's the harm?" argument: Why not let the "poor simpletons" believe that psychics are real, if it makes them feel better and doesn't cost them any money? If so, it's an argument for which I have very little sympathy. To see why, I suggest you read the "Psychics and missing people" thread in this forum, if you haven't already. As you'll see, in many cases these self-proclaimed psychics (Carla Baron, for instance) offer free assistance to find missing people. But the fact that they don't charge money in no way mitigates or excuses the damage they cause to the families of the missing: emotional trauma, time wasted by police following false leads, divisiveness between friends and family members, casting guilt on the innocent, and so on. Sure, they sometimes make the victims' families feel better (at least temporarily). But it's a false, and untimately cruel hope.

It appears Stellafane already answered quite well, at least in regards to the missing person issue as an example of the harm caused.

For the record, I always try to explain the reasons to other families of the missing at to why they should not use psychics regardless of my perception of their level of intelligence.

From my own perspective as the mother of a missing person, I want the truth, no matter how horrible. I don't want lies and false hope. I've spent 5 years being jerked around emotionally because of these people and also due to the general nature of this situation. (investigation ups and downs, false sightings, etc)

Luke T.

5th July 2006, 11:24 AM

Being tactless with the truth does not win friends or influence people.

And that's a truth that some skeptics seem to be simpletons about. ;)

Luke T.

5th July 2006, 11:28 AM

Yahzi

5th July 2006, 11:30 AM

If someone will never understand the difference, is it up to us to destroy "peace of mind"?
If their peace of mind were never to have any effect on us, then no.

But that's not the case.

People don't hold just one woo idea; they hold to woo processes, which produce woo ideas. And they tend to use those processes in other areas... like the voting booth.

I"m all for live and let live. But I can't tell you how many times people say to me, "How does religion harm you?"

Closing your eyes to the staggering cost of woo around the world and through history does not strike me as a logical argument.

Edit to add: Come to think of it, I completely agree with Axenos. There are an entire class of people whose woo beliefs I do not challenge. That class is comprised solely of people I do not think will ever be able to understand, or who are too emotionally fragile to cope.

But that's a small group of people.

Ivor the Engineer

5th July 2006, 11:37 AM

Tactless, "Your dead wife can't hear you."

Tact, "Do you think your dead wife can hear you?", but probably most of the time, saying nothing at all.

Skeptics could use a little more empathy. Try to imagine how a person who believes their dead wife can hear them is going to feel toward someone who bluntly states their wife can't hear them.

"Oh! Thanks! I so want to be a skeptic now!"

Yeah. Right.

Exactly. It comes down to your level of moral reasoning. Truth is good, lies are bad is very simplistic, almost childish. A more advanced form of reasoning is placing yourself in the shoes of everyone who your actions will affect. That goes for both woos AND sceptics.

Edited for spelling.

Axenos

5th July 2006, 11:40 AM

The odd thing about this thread so far is what I like to call the "conversational singularity". People will grab a hold of one sentence, which by itself holds no relation to the context when taken alone.

Yahzi grabs one sentence and formulates a reply based on just that sentence, not on the whole body of discussion... I am not singling Yahzi out, just pointing to an example...

"Closing your eyes to the staggering cost of woo around the world and through history does not strike me as a logical argument." I am not doing that at all, I am merely pointing out that there may be instances when spouting skeptical beliefs may not be a tactful or pleasant thing to do.

To KellyJ: I responded soon after saying that I did not consider that portion in my original thread, and do not agree with "psychics" giving a false hope in missing person cases at all. Perhaps you did not see that... and also, considering your posts that I have read before, I would certainly not put you in the range of the people that I am referring to, those that cannot understand a logical argument.

Regards,

Axe

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 11:47 AM

The opposite of that would be what I originally meant.

Hardcore skeptic walks up to person playing clarinet and says " You know, since she's been dead for four years, there is no way that she could hear you."

That much the same as approaching a person in a supermarket and announcing to them that the 1006th decimal digit of pi is 2 - only a lot more tactless.

Now most people would know (or believe) that is true, but some people cannot quite make that connection, for whatever reason. These are the ones that I feel it would be "cruel" or at the very least mean to enlighten.

Why?

Why is it "cruel" in a way that implies that it shouldn't be done? Is it "cruel" if a doctor tells a man that his wife didn't survive surgery? I think not, no matter how cruel the described reality of the woman's death may be.

Reality is cruel, but it is not cruel to acknowledge that. And my gut reaction here is, that if I start looking at truths that I should shut up about because they might cause discomfort to some, then I might as well denounce any form of enlightenment, knowledge or education.

There might be certain ways and specific times where it would be unwise, hurtful or just plain tactless and inconsiderate to announce certain truths - but I find t hard to believe that anyone would really be better off not knowing the truth. Happier, maybe - but I do not put that much value in a person's happiness as I put in their well-being. I think you can be better off being unhappy.

“Was and will make me ill,
I take a gram and only am."

Rasmus.

Dogdoctor

5th July 2006, 12:10 PM

Some people have little affiliation to truth and prefer to pass their lives in a world made up by their own minds. There is no need to intrude on their imaginary world as long as it stays with them. Once they start passing out their imaginary beliefs then it isn't only their imaginary world involved. The situation of 2 astrology believers telling each other imaginary things about themselves doesn't really require any response but if they are passing it out to undecided or uninformed individuals it would be prudent to point out that it's a bunch of imaginary crap so that they don't become sucked into the belief and do stupid things based on astrology.

Kaarjuus

5th July 2006, 12:12 PM

If you read Stephen Hawking's recent speeches or some or Carl Sagan's more dreamful ones they both talk about the importance of humans becoming a space faring civilation. They talk about how humanity is constantly on the edge of destroying itself before we could even hope to accomplish feats like this.

I've always had trouble comprehending why us becoming spacefaring would be beneficial for our survival. Do they think that humans will be more likely to survive in space, in artificial habitats? Or is this some sort of avoiding the "all the eggs in one basket" situation in case we somehow manage to screw up the planet to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable? I think that if that ever happens, the artificial habitats in space and on Moon/Mars/wherever are doomed to fail if they have to support themselves without the resources of Earth.

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 12:25 PM

Or is this some sort of avoiding the "all the eggs in one basket" situation in case we somehow manage to screw up the planet to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable?

I think that is the general idea, and I am fairly certain that it is bound to happen one way or another. It might be our fault, or some nasty virus, a meteor, ... but eventually, this planet will no longer sustain life. Eventually, the earth will be consumed by the sun; surviving that should be rather difficult lest you do it somewhere else.

I think that if that ever happens, the artificial habitats in space and on Moon/Mars/wherever are doomed to fail if they have to support themselves without the resources of Earth.

I agree for the foreseeable future. But it is possible that the virus dies out, the meteor calms down, etc. so that after a while the planet can be used again or harvested for resources.

Personally, I am not so sure that mankind has an intrinsic value that suggests we should try to let the species survive. Individuals, yes! But what good is it to me, or anyone on earth, if people on Mars survive? Sure, it'll be good for those on Mars, but that seems to be a different point entirely.

Beady

5th July 2006, 12:41 PM

There might be certain ways and specific times where it would be unwise, hurtful or just plain tactless and inconsiderate to announce certain truths - but I find t hard to believe that anyone would really be better off not knowing the truth.

It may well be that the "but" in that is the precise reason why you may not be qualified to tell those truths that someone most needs to hear. If you can't believe that occasions exist where someone would be better off not knowing the truth, then it does not stand to reason that you can recognize the difference between those times when you should and shouldn't say something.

Beady

5th July 2006, 12:45 PM

Hey! How did #s 71 and 72 get into this thread?

c0rbin

5th July 2006, 12:47 PM

Right on, LukeT.

One can be made aware of an error and probably be thankful for it with a little tact-fu.

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 12:47 PM

It's a conspiracy. I blame the Illuminati.

kitakaze

5th July 2006, 12:58 PM

snip...But what good is it to me, or anyone on earth, if people on Mars survive? Sure, it'll be good for those on Mars, but that seems to be a different point entirely.Pfft. Those Martian guys... always so smug.'Our pyramids are bigger then your pyramids'... oooh, yipee.:D

MRC_Hans

5th July 2006, 01:38 PM

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

AxeSo (to somewhat rephrase CFL), it is OK to cheat people IF they don't find out, AND IF you don't make money?

I would say that it is never OK to cheat people, unless it is really for their own good, but who can be the judge of that?

Hans

Ashles

5th July 2006, 02:13 PM

I think a major problem here is the question of why paranormal beliefs exist at all.

Are not the vast majority of paranormal beliefs comforting by their very nature?
Even scary or unpleasant beliefs like ghosts are desirable in some ways because they would imply that existence continues in some form beyond death.

It is desirable and/or exciting to believe in life after death, untapped ability of the mind, amazing abilities, alien visitations etc.

In my opinion (and experience) pretty much any attempt to disabuse anyone of a paranormal belief they have will have an undesirable aspect to it from that person.

If someone tells you they believe in something paranormal and you act sceptical towards it, it is almost certain to be an undesirable response as far as they are concerned.

There are different ways of pointing out to someone alternative explanations for paranormal phenomena - some are more positive than others.

But by its very nature a sceptical viewpoint is often opposed to certain self-delusions that make people happier at least in the short-term.
The question is whether they will be happier in the long term from knowing all the facts (or at least other possible explanations).

I personally think that everyone should be exposed to as much information as possible to make up their own minds.
Also just because someone has a strong belief about something doesn't mean that I should not be allowed to also express my strong different belief on the subject.
But without forcing it down people's throats.

I am generally far more likely to find out that someone believes in God before they find out that I am an atheist.
The sceptic position unfortunately tends to be a responsive position by its nature which gives it rather an antagonistic reputation.

Silly Green Monkey

5th July 2006, 02:14 PM

Isn't it more cruel to assume that the person playing clarinet in the graveyard thinks that the dead person can hear? Why can't they just be playing for themselves?

Almo

5th July 2006, 02:30 PM

Watch the movie "Equus." It deals with this exact dilemma, and not in some candy-assed way. Excellent film.

Yuri Nalyssus

5th July 2006, 02:30 PM

I've always had trouble comprehending why us becoming spacefaring would be beneficial for our survival....because it's really cool obviously - read Ian M Banks's 'Consider Phlebas' (http://www.iainbanks.net/sf01.htm)for further details.

Yuri

T'ai Chi

5th July 2006, 04:27 PM

I would say that it is never OK to cheat people, unless it is really for their own good, but who can be the judge of that?

Members of skeptical organizations and skeptical movements, of course!

One small example is Randi testing a dowser for gold in his office (http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html). Randi knew that the gold colored coins didn't have real gold in them, but they didn't bring it up because "..by the rules we should do nothing to discourage him."

Other examples are cold readers who pretend (ie. lie) that they are psychic to fool the audience, then reveal that they are fakes afterwards.

Carnivore

5th July 2006, 05:04 PM

My mother is a devoutly religious person. Not in a showy or evangelical way, I doubt many people who know her socially or professionaly are aware of her beliefs. She is just a lovely person who agrees very strongly with the Christian principles of compassion,tolerance and love. She is not a stupid person, and believes she has enough personal proof of God's existence to justify her faith.

I disagree with her on this, but I would never try to convince her that she is wrong.Possibly this is cowardice or hypocracy on my part, but I know that arguing with her about it would serve no useful purpose in convicing her she is wrong. (I have no proof that I am right and she believes she has subjective proof that she is right.) More importantly, it would hurt her. I know that her faith has helped her through some difficult times in her life, brings her into contact with good friends and provides her with a network for contributing to the community.

Sure, in my version of a perfect world she wouldnt need religion for any of those things, but here and now it's what she's got. And I dont feel any desire to take it away from her.

Apart from her religion, my Mum is a smart, skeptical person. She doesnt need protecting from any other sort of woo, and her religious beliefs are based on reality as she perceives it. I cant help but feel that aggressively trying to enlighten her "for her own good" would be an unkind and unnessacary act. I'm sure others will disagree.

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 05:45 PM

I'm sure others will disagree.

For what it's worth: No, not me.

Even though I also think it would be better for her if she didn't need religion and knew the truth.

Pyrrho

5th July 2006, 06:00 PM

Cruelty is an action. Any venture becomes cruel when the person practicing it knowingly uses it to cause pain. In psychotherapy is it often necessary to introduce painful discussions. In medicine, it is often necessary to use painful procedures in order to heal the patient. Being skeptical and asking skeptical questions is not psychotherapy, and it is not medicine. We should not labor under the misconception that we, as skeptics, are required to cause pain in the mistaken notion that doing so is helpful to anyone. I am not referring to discomfort caused by discussion of difficult topics or by disillusionment. I am referring to intentional, deliberate cruelty.

One of the most cruel things I've seen was John Edward alleging to receive messages from a dead child, thus directly causing pain for the grieving mother. Randi has related stories of faith healers who turned away a crippled child. Skeptics, like anyone else, can be cruel. At least we don't practice cruelty by means of raising false hopes, for money.

The Painter

5th July 2006, 06:04 PM

Axenos

5th July 2006, 06:08 PM

To Carnivore: Well said. You have illustrated what I was attempting to convey quite well.

In 2 weeks, it will have been 1 year since my father passed away. At the end, he made his peace with everyone around him, including his spiritual beliefs.

We had many discussions as to the nature of spirituality, and he could see the skeptical as well as the spiritual side of things... he was a retired science and art teacher. He studied religion for many years, and I mean all of them.

He once said "I don't care if people believe what I believe, I believe it because it makes me happy."

I'll miss him, and whether he is in Heaven, Valhalla, Purgatory, Hell, Olympus, or if the cord was unplugged and there is nothing... it's OK by him and myself.

Regards,

Axe

Pyrrho

5th July 2006, 06:11 PM

Pyrrho

5th July 2006, 06:16 PM

Rasmus

5th July 2006, 06:17 PM

Bravo. There is no point or good that can come from arguing with someone about their faith. I’ve noticed that is a real problem with some people on this board to just accept people as they are. They have to jam their ideas down someone else’s throat. Believe what you will and let them believe what they want. Compassion is a good thing. Don’t be jaded by those who have out smarted themselves and lost their compassion.

I think it is a mistake to judge us by our behaviour on internet discussion boards. The picture of the sceptic jumping at mourning visitors on some cemetery has been bugging me all along.

Absolutely everybody who writes in a public forum is submitting their viewpoint to the scrutiny, review, comments and ridicule of others. Out in the real world it is - as far as i can tell - a rare occurrence that a sceptic will enter a church and attempt to convert the congregation.

At the same time it feels as if my opinion that truth carries an intrinsic value is being subjected to a lot more criticism than what I should apparently be dishing out for the believes of others.

Sorry for pouncing on you, it was more convenient than targeted :D

Jeff Corey

5th July 2006, 06:17 PM

... Don’t be jaded by those who have out smarted themselves and lost their compassion.
Maybe I just didn't see it, but who did that? And what does it look like? Just in case I find some compassion by the side of the road and want to turn it in to Lost and Found.

Kochanski

5th July 2006, 07:06 PM

Axe, welcome to the board.

I have gotten to know the skeptics here fairly well, through the board and at TAM 4 (although I would not be so presumptuous as to say I know everything about them or how they would act at all times) and I doubt that anyone here, would be intentionally cruel to anyone. Nor can I see any one of them going around and "testifying" to the powers of skepticism to all they find. For what I have seen, they are very compassionate, thoughtful and concerned individuals.

The evidence is here in so many threads where people have asked "how do I talk to people about this" or "what do you do in this situation", many, many threads. I think we are all aware of the pain that we can cause if we take away someone's comfortable lies. We all struggle with it. We make choices about how far to go and how much to say, knowing that it may not be easy for the person to hear. Is it ever cruel, perhaps, if the person is in a fragile state, but again, I can not see any skeptic I know doing that.

As far as informing an uninformed person about some bit of woo they believe in, I don't see how that can be cruel at all. If all they have ever heard was the woo, how do you know they won't be very pleased to hear that there is an alternative? How do you know they won't be happy that someone was honest with them and shared information that can help them understand things better? How do you know that they won't be happy to discuss things about it that they had doubts about? It is all in how you discuss the subject. In how you listen to the person and answer them.

Now, if you talk to them and discover they are a "true believer" then what you say will have no effect on them, well besides them taking a dislike to you, no effect on their belief.

If you discover they are truly troubled and too fragile to handle truth, I don't think, again, that any of us would press the issue.

What you see here mostly is us discussing amongst ourselves, rather heatedly at times, our deeply held opinions, our true desire to illuminate and inform. We for the most part, hold high standards for ourselves, we want the truth, pain or no, comfortable lies are not what we want for ourselves.

Any who wander in here, who come with any woo baggage, must come with the understanding that we are skeptics and being our turf, we will expect them to produce evidence for their beliefs and claims. That we will not treat them gently when they dance and dodge and waffle and whine. The gloves are off here. They come here at their own risk and any pain they receive is their own doing.

Just my view from the peanut gallery...

orpheus

5th July 2006, 07:48 PM

Hello, all. I'm very much a newcomer here, and though I've read a lot, I've only posted a few times. But this thread has struck close to home. I've seen a lot of death and illness in the past few years, and have had to help others through it as well as deal with it myself. Some have found comfort in beliefs that I found really farfetched. Sometimes I bit my tongue. Other times, I opened my big skeptical mouth. I found it impossible to make any "rule" about it - so much depended on who I was talking with, and in what context. But I tried to keep in mind two things. (I can't take credit for either of them - the first is from a very articulate atheist rabbi I studied with, and the second my fiancée passed along to me):

1) Be very careful of demolishing someone's belief system if there's little chance that you'll be able to replace it with something better.

2) Before you say something, weigh in your mind three questions about what you want to say: is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?

Neither of these are categorical rules. But as guidelines, I've found them really useful. The first one, because people hold onto belief systems for reasons; if it's a deeply held belief, they probably have a good reason; it's probably serving an important emotional need. In an ideal world, the truth would probably serve even better, but it's not an ideal world, and there are lots of situations where it's unlikely you'll do anything other than hurt the person.

The second is an interesting triad of questions, and I find that it's necessary to weight them differently depending on the situation. But at no point have I found them to be irrelevant.

Just the two cents (four cents?) of two smart folks I've been lucky enough to know. And apologies all 'round if I've paraphrased what anyone else has said. (Unintentional if so, and due to rapid reading of this very interesting thread!)

orpheus

5th July 2006, 07:55 PM

Just reread what I posted, and I realized that it sounds like I rarely try to disabuse the woos of their beliefs. In a way, that's true - I think I err too much on the side of keeping my mouth shut. (Probably for reasons of my own neuroses and fears as much as trying to look out for their feelings.) But I'm trying to get better about speaking up. I've realized that in trying to answer those three questions, I need to look not just at the effect my words might have on the other person, but at the larger (though more diffuse) effect they might have in the fight to promote skeptical thinking in the world. It's a question of context, and every time I walk away having kept my mouth shut, I wind up kicking myself. Mouth shut and bruised from self-inficted kicks. Not fun!

Any advice about summoning courage and/or strategies for opening one's mouth in social situations most appreciated. (Or is there another thread for that?)

hellaeon

5th July 2006, 09:52 PM

Compassion can go hand in hand with the truth so there is no need for the two to be divorced.

excellent.

chillzero

6th July 2006, 05:21 AM

Which is more cruel:

A faith healer who makes sick elderly people stand in long lines out in the cold weather while they wait their turn, or a skeptic who points out evidence that the faith healer is a fraud, and suggests that the sick elderly people consult a legitimate physician?

Which one has more compassion, and why?

And, yes, a faith healer did just that: people had to wait in the cold...

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4280217/detail.html

Good point Pyrrho. I don't like the wording of the thread title. Being skeptical is not cruel. Cruelty comes from individual people, regardless of education, beliefs, upbringing, etc.
Some of the most cruel people I have ever known were the woo crowd I struggled for years to fit in with.

People can (and should) disagree with each other. It's good and healthy to be able to know and speak your mind. It is cruel when the discussion is continued to the detriment of one or both parties. This can occur from either direction.

It was ok for me and the woo crowd to disagree about homeopathy, or past life regression. It was cruel for the woo crowd to insist that all my troubles were of my own making, in a previous life. It was cruel for the woo crowd to tell me that I was not on the same spiritual path as my then husband, because he was better than me, and so I did not deserve to be with him - holding him back from his true calling. I have many many more examples.

I don't think it was cruel for me to ask about how grounding myself was supposed to fix all that. Or to ask what the reasons were that the men could undertake a native american dreamquest but the women were forbidden. But I was the one who was ostracised for doing just that - asking.

I definitely don't think it is cruel to discuss differing opinions with people, but everyone should have some tact about the situation, and some sensitivity for what the other person is prepared to hear or think about.

hammegk

6th July 2006, 05:53 AM

... At least we don't practice cruelty by means of raising false hopes, for money.
Some 'skeptics who are certain they have The Truth' do it for free.

Luke T.

6th July 2006, 06:01 AM

Why should someone who believes in an afterlife give that up for a belief in nothingness?

What does the skeptic have to offer to the person who believes in magic?

I think the answer lies in why people believe in such things to begin with. I think at the root of all belief in magic is the feeling that we have no control over what happens to us, and we need an explanation for what does control us so we can tap into it.

So I think what a skeptic offers is control over your own destiny.

Thoughts?

Luke T.

6th July 2006, 06:04 AM

CFLarsen

6th July 2006, 06:09 AM

Rasmus

6th July 2006, 06:26 AM

Why should someone who believes in an afterlife give that up for a belief in nothingness?

What does the skeptic have to offer to the person who believes in magic?

Truth?

Axenos

6th July 2006, 06:40 AM

To expand a little on my previous post, some people might not want to be in control of their own destiny. Or they may have surrendered control at some point in the past and are psychologically dependent on a powerful personality to run their lives for them, having come to the belief (encouraged by that powerful personality) that they are too weak to run their own lives.

Interesting and accurate, in my opinion.

Reminds me of one of my favorite words for humans in general, which is "Sheeplings".

A mixture of sheep, happy pack animals, and lemmings... using the general lemming myth of marching to their self destruction.

People who follow anything for any reason, regardless of the effect it may have upon them. Subtitled "Most people NEED to be part of a group."

I should copyright that one... or at least make a t-shirt :D

To those who will bust me for that one, it's just MY opinion...

Regards,

Axe

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 07:01 AM

Interesting and accurate, in my opinion.

Reminds me of one of my favorite words for humans in general, which is "Sheeplings".

A mixture of sheep, happy pack animals, and lemmings... using the general lemming myth of marching to their self destruction.

People who follow anything for any reason, regardless of the effect it may have upon them. Subtitled "Most people NEED to be part of a group."

I should copyright that one... or at least make a t-shirt :D

To those who will bust me for that one, it's just MY opinion...

Regards,

AxeWell, as long as we're touching on the cynical, is it fair to mention that skeptics are by no means exempt from your observation. Actually wait, no, it's not fair, it's obvious.

Luke T.

6th July 2006, 07:02 AM

Truth?

The truth can be a big letdown. "What, no magic? That sucks!"

"What, I've been a fool?"

Amapola

6th July 2006, 07:04 AM

I don't see what skeptics have to offer as "cold harsh reality" or "nothingness".

If I believed in religion, a lot of them anyway, I would have to believe that my father was burning in hell and suffering for all of eternity because he was not a believer in any religions or gods. That's comforting??!!

Instead, since I do NOT believe in any religions or gods myself, I can reflect on my father's years as a scientist and how he contributed a great deal to the body of human knowledge. He donated his body to science so that his disease (cancer) could be studied and perhaps defeated someday. There is no more suffering for him. His legacy will go on for long after I am gone, and THAT I find comforting.

And believing a bunch of errant nonsense is not really a freeing, comforting thing either. Most people limit their lives and experiences because they believe it's a bad day for their biorythms, it's against their religion, their horoscope told them not to, or their psychic advised against it. A friend of mine spent weeks alone in her house wearing a hepa mask, because she believed it would cure her of all the things she was allergic to, and the list was very long. And how did she know she was allergic to all these things? She held the substance in her hand, and if her hand moved down to the ground it meant she was allergic. ! :boggled: (I was tempted to ask if she was allergic to bowling balls, but I restrained myself.)

The skeptic does not get concerned about biorythms and such, but can get out there and enjoy life every single day. Instead of looking at the wonderful complexity found in the eye, giving up and saying "god did it", they can study and learn and find out how truly marvelous life and the world can be. They can learn something new every single day of their lives, because they don't need to worry that education might challenge their belief. Now, that is freedom.

And simply because the skeptic is not constrained by a belief in eternal punishment, that does not mean they will be socially destructive. As many have pointed out here, it is very easy to tell if someone wishes to hear about skepticism, or if they do not. And the truth is, it is very hard to shift someone from their belief. In fact, they have to do it themselves.

So I think the imaginary person in the OP will continue to cling to their belief because they wish to. As far as whether I personally would say anything to such a person would depend on circumstances; but I believe that the knowledge would set that person free for a richer life, not diminish them somehow.

Luke T.

6th July 2006, 07:05 AM

All the more reason to empower them with knowledge.

Absolutely. But learning takes an effort. It's easier to believe Zeus throws lightning bolts than it is to learn about physics.

And there is a human need to have a reason for Zeus zapping your ass.

Beady

6th July 2006, 07:26 AM

Truth?

That's a pretty cold blanket to sleep under.

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 07:30 AM

Sorry for the drive-by over-simplification but realizing you don't know $#!T is what sets you free IMHumbleO.

Beady

6th July 2006, 07:32 AM

If I believed in religion, a lot of them anyway, I would have to believe that my father was burning in hell and suffering for all of eternity because he was not a believer in any religions or gods.

No, you wouldn't. You would find a way to believe that your deity was intelligent enough to recognize your father's many good qualities, and compassionate enough to grant him dispensation. At the very least, you would believe (as the Catholics do) that God had made provision for your father to eventually earn his way into heaven after the fact.

You never heard of arguments based on Special Pleading?

Axenos

6th July 2006, 07:32 AM

Well, as long as we're touching on the cynical, is it fair to mention that skeptics are by no means exempt from your observation. Actually wait, no, it's not fair, it's obvious.

Agreed. I suppose I am a cynic by definition...

When it's all said and done, what are we really except pack animal mammals with deoderant and an inherent ability to hurt and/or destroy ourselves?

Regards,

Axenos

Rasmus

6th July 2006, 07:33 AM

That's a pretty cold blanket to sleep under.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that a warm blanket that isn't there would be better.

I value the truth, even though it's not always warm and fuzzy.

Beady

6th July 2006, 07:34 AM

Sorry for the drive-by over-simplification but realizing you don't know $#!T is what sets you free IMHumbleO.

And yet there's a certain comfort in believing Daddy can fix anything, no matter how bad it is.

CFLarsen

6th July 2006, 07:34 AM

Absolutely. But learning takes an effort. It's easier to believe Zeus throws lightning bolts than it is to learn about physics.

And there is a human need to have a reason for Zeus zapping your ass.
It's Thor, you infidel.

Beady

6th July 2006, 07:36 AM

Yes, but it doesn't follow that a warm blanket that isn't there would be better.

There are many situations where the warmth is all that matters.

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 07:57 AM

Compassion can go hand in hand with the truth so there is no need for the two to be divorced.Too soon we forget this.

My mother is a devoutly religious person. Not in a showy or evangelical way, I doubt many people who know her socially or professionaly are aware of her beliefs. She is just a lovely person who agrees very strongly with the Christian principles of compassion,tolerance and love. She is not a stupid person, and believes she has enough personal proof of God's existence to justify her faith.

I disagree with her on this, but I would never try to convince her that she is wrong.Possibly this is cowardice or hypocracy on my part, but I know that arguing with her about it would serve no useful purpose in convicing her she is wrong. (I have no proof that I am right and she believes she has subjective proof that she is right.) More importantly, it would hurt her. I know that her faith has helped her through some difficult times in her life, brings her into contact with good friends and provides her with a network for contributing to the community.

Sure, in my version of a perfect world she wouldnt need religion for any of those things, but here and now it's what she's got. And I dont feel any desire to take it away from her.

Apart from her religion, my Mum is a smart, skeptical person. She doesnt need protecting from any other sort of woo, and her religious beliefs are based on reality as she perceives it. I cant help but feel that aggressively trying to enlighten her "for her own good" would be an unkind and unnessacary act. I'm sure others will disagree.We should be wary in the arrogance or ignorance of our own beliefs to think there is any worth or benefit in trying to remove the belief of God from the heart of a person like this. In trying to remove the truth that this person (note I'm referring to a person such as Carnivore's mum) centers themselves on what do you hope to accomplish? What is the end result? What foundation do you have offer in return? Will it benefit her as it has for you?

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 08:08 AM

Agreed. I suppose I am a cynic by definition...

When it's all said and done, what are we really except pack animal mammals with deoderant and an inherent ability to hurt and/or destroy ourselves?

Regards,

AxenosFar, far more under sun and sky. We also have the inherent ability for compassion, for exploration, for inquisition to name a few. In between the killing ourselves we named the stars, peered their centers, pierced the firmament, and somehow between all of that at least one of us suppressed the inherent ability for self-destruction just long enough to raise you.

LONGWALK

6th July 2006, 09:10 AM

I refuse the kool-aid, otherwise, call a wank a wank and a douche a douche, if they just cannot tell the truth but to make the story they are SELLING worthwhile, then call them a lying thief...so often, the sad point of it all really is, the inability for all of mankind to accept that we do not know a great deal about anything really and most of what we do profess to know is merely the naming of something otherwise not understandable and through this artificial means of "identity" we can make something unknown, reduced in size that we might feel we have control over it...but it is only a lie.

someone is always telling us "there is a purpose for your life", "there is always a reason things happen they way they do, things happen for a reason" and it does make one feel good..to even give meaning to one's life...life does not have to have meaning, reason, right or wrong holdings to be, it is...anyone compounding that with their own ideas and thinking often misses the boat but when they insist that it is the truth..that is something else altogether different...many people are earnestly looking for answers and at least 90% of the people offering them are self-deceived to begin with as is...like taking a brick to the head of a mule that won't move, sometimes, that is what it takes to keep things moving along...just that the truth hurts...for these people an even greater tome of lies is created as a defense to the truth...see skepdic's "true believer syndrome"...

jm

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 09:45 AM

I refuse the kool-aid, otherwise, call a wank a wank and a douche a douche,That's very classy but as long as you've got your priorities straight, good for you.so often, the sad point of it all really is, the inability for all of mankind to accept that we do not know a great deal about anything really and most of what we do profess to know is merely the naming of something otherwise not understandable and through this artificial means of "identity" we can make something unknown, reduced in size that we might feel we have control over it...but it is only a lie.Now I'm gonna look silly as I made the assertion a few posts back that realizing you don't know $#!T sets you free but I feel compelled to mention the fact that through our collective efforts we've come to understand a great many things quite well and quite thoroughly. This is by no means a contradiction to the fact that there is so much more we don't understand.snip...life does not have to have meaning, reason, right or wrong holdings to be, I'm not arguing the contrary but I will assert that neither of us is in any position of authority to make that call.like taking a brick to the head of a mule that won't move, sometimes, that is what it takes to keep things moving along...Can you unfailingly judge who is a mule and who needs a brick?just that the truth hurts...That depends.for these people an even greater tome of lies is created as a defense to the truth...see skepdic's "true believer syndrome"...For myself, I'll look to the human condition for answers on that.

Axenos

6th July 2006, 09:49 AM

Far, far more under sun and sky. We also have the inherent ability for compassion, for exploration, for inquisition to name a few. In between the killing ourselves we named the stars, peered their centers, pierced the firmament, and somehow between all of that at least one of us suppressed the inherent ability for self-destruction just long enough to raise you.

True enough... my comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek oversimplification... I tend to prefer very subtle humor... sometimes only humorous to me... :)

Regards,

Axe

Rasmus

6th July 2006, 09:50 AM

There are many situations where the warmth is all that matters.

If you do absolutely not care for the truth in those situations, yes.

If a situation like that continues for a long enough time, then whoever needs the warmth has a bigger problem that should be addressed accordingly, though. (Because, again, I value truth, and it has not been shown that that position should be dominated by the one where truth doesn't matter.)

Moochie

6th July 2006, 09:54 AM

No, I do not, but the key to this for me is " some poor simpleton who will not know any better ".

There are people who will not understand a logical argument, either by hard-headedness or simple lack of intelligence, and these are the people I am referring to.

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

My, you do have great faith in your "superior" intelligence, don't you?

Perhaps you should work on your powers of pursuasion.

I have never had a problem disabusing anyone of their fanciful ideation, when they were amenable to it.

On the other hand, I've met some very "high IQ" folks who stubbornly resisted any attempts to enlighten them.

BS is recognizable by even the the most apparently "lowly" among us. You would do well to learn that.

M.

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 09:59 AM

True enough... my comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek oversimplification... I tend to prefer very subtle humor... sometimes only humorous to me... :)

Regards,

AxeYes, another one of our best inherent abilities- humour. Tongue-in-cheek I find especially amusing but I also remain concious of the fact that there are those who just don't get it and take things literally. 'There is no meaning to life' however, seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Moochie

6th July 2006, 10:04 AM

I’ve noticed that is a real problem with some people on this board to just accept people as they are.

Excuse me, but if the "faithful" come in here to proselytize then we have every right to pull their chain, IMHO. :)

M.

Axenos

6th July 2006, 10:04 AM

My, you do have great faith in your "superior" intelligence, don't you?

Perhaps you should work on your powers of pursuasion.

I have never had a problem disabusing anyone of their fanciful ideation, when they were amenable to it.

On the other hand, I've met some very "high IQ" folks who stubbornly resisted any attempts to enlighten them.

BS is recognizable by even the the most apparently "lowly" among us. You would do well to learn that.

M.

Reading is fundamental... Have you read through this entire thread? No, I didn't think so...

You will find that I do not see myself as having "superior" intelligence... that's simply laughable...

"I have never had a problem disabusing anyone of their fanciful ideation, when they were amenable to it." The important part of that is "amenable". What if they aren't? What if they do not possess the tools to be "amenable"?
Isn't this what the whole thread is about, more or less?

Work on my powers of persuasion? That would be great, but it is obvious that I am not trying to persuade anyone about anything in this... I am just listening to opinion.

You wish to flame me, that's cool, but at least have a solid base to do it...

Best Regards,

Axe

(Edited for spelling, not content)

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 10:09 AM

Excuse me, but if the "faithful" come in here to proselytize then we have every right to pull their chain, IMHO. :)

M.What thread are you reading? Not this one it seems.

Axenos

6th July 2006, 10:14 AM

Yes, another one of our best inherent abilities- humour. Tongue-in-cheek I find especially amusing but I also remain concious of the fact that there are those who just don't get it and take things literally. 'There is no meaning to life' however, seems pretty unambiguous to me.

True again... sometimes I get a bit dark about humanity in general...

Regards,

Axe

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 10:18 AM

All too easy the path to the dark side is.

c0rbin

6th July 2006, 10:23 AM

So many false dichotomies...

One does not have to perpetuate a lie to be friendly.
One does not have to be mean to correct someone who is mistaken.
One does not have to be cruel to expose another's self-delusion.
It is not cruel to let someone believe in a concept that is not provable (afterlife, invisible pink unicorns, god).

In other words, we are not doing anyone a favor by telling them that they are probably wasting their time in prayer.

Some here revel in that and I find such joy to be cruel.

Moochie

6th July 2006, 10:29 AM

Reading is fundamental... Have you read through this entire thread? No, I didn't think so...

You will find that I do not see myself as having "superior" intelligence... that's simply laughable...

"I have never had a problem disabusing anyone of their fanciful ideation, when they were amenable to it." The important part of that is "amenable". What if they aren't? What if they do not possess the tools to be "amenable"?
Isn't this what the whole thread is about, more or less?

Work on my powers of persuasion? That would be great, but it is obvious that I am not trying to persuade anyone about anything in this... I am just listening to opinion.

You wish to flame me, that's cool, but at least have a solid base to do it...

Best Regards,

Axe

(Edited for spelling, not content)

Wasn't it you who used language like "some poor simpleton who will not know any better" and "lack of intelligence" and "someone of lower intelligence"?

Define "intelligence," if you will.

M.

LONGWALK

6th July 2006, 10:31 AM

Moochie

6th July 2006, 10:37 AM

What thread are you reading? Not this one it seems.

Sorry, I didn't get the full quote in. Here it is again:

Bravo. There is no point or good that can come from arguing with someone about their faith. I’ve noticed that is a real problem with some people on this board to just accept people as they are. They have to jam their ideas down someone else’s throat. Believe what you will and let them believe what they want. Compassion is a good thing. Don’t be jaded by those who have out smarted themselves and lost their compassion.

My meaning, in case it escaped you, was that if people like Kurious Kathy insist on coming to this forum to display their beliefs, then they are fair game. Or isn't this a skeptics' forum?

M.

Axenos

6th July 2006, 10:40 AM

Wasn't it you who used language like "some poor simpleton who will not know any better" and "lack of intelligence" and "someone of lower intelligence"?

Define "intelligence," if you will.

M.

I have already acknowledged the fact that "some poor simpleton" was a poor choice of words... Oh, that's right, you would have to have read the whole thread to find that...

And yes, I will use "someone of lower intelligence" and "lack of intelligence". Not politically correct enough for you? So sorry.

Would you like to know why? While I am no mad raving genius, I am aware that I am smarter than a lot of people. I do not say that to be cocky, arrogant, or whatever, I just know it's true and accept that.

Websters first 3 of intelligence:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION

Am I more intelligent than some by this defintion? Yes, I am.

You cannot tell me that EVERYONE you know is capable of some or even all of these definitions...

Read, reason, then post... your knee-jerk reactions make you look foolish...

Warmest Regards,

Axe

(Edited for grammar...)

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 10:54 AM

of some of the things that we do know, what we are making of the present will wake up in the children of our children...I personally have hope that the efforts we take today will be the better ones to make self accountability and reliability...to turn the word impossible into I'M possible! and to go into what the potential human can truly be..rather than degrade and decompose in the mire that is religion...if we truly were to count all the lives taken in the name or God or actions of what is otherwise murder or killing in the name of God, what would we have to compare that against....the real thing of all this belief garbage in the first place is to remove the oness off of the self and place it on the shoulders of something external to us all...we are the ones responsible for we..and that goes deep down to the i, the you and the me...

we have never been closer to annihilating ourselves and never closer to finding out what is beyond this capacity that we so obsess upon being human..meaning, purpose, reason...all part of our collective hopes, but never more than weights upon our ankles, tying and binding us back, whatever we truly are, we have the capacity as a collective whole for expansion and likewise, retraction...I will not let my view of humanity be anything other than what can make it grow and what needs to be cut out, cut off, removed and let go of in order to do that...so much of what we hold onto that we feel "identifies" us, only indebts us to whatever limits that "identity" contains as its definition.Longwalk, I agree with much of what you said in this post in that striving to fulfill a greater potential and possibility of what we coud be as a race is the greatest cause. Just a couple points...if we truly were to count all the lives taken in the name or God or actions of what is otherwise murder or killing in the name of God, what would we have to compare that against....Tell you what, forget God. If you count the number of people that have died as a result of conflicting belief systems can I count the number that have averted or alleviated suffering based on one? Can I count the achievements of humankind done in tribute to a belief system? What shall we do when we've tallied the score?the real thing of all this belief garbage in the first place is to remove the oness off of the self and place it on the shoulders of something external to us all...What of those faiths that strive to remove the oneness of the self and devote it to us all?snip...we have never been closer to annihilating ourselves We most certainly have.

Moochie

6th July 2006, 10:55 AM

I have already acknowledged the fact that "some poor simpleton" was a poor choice of words... Oh, that's right, you would have to have read the whole thread to find that...

Typical politician -- "Oops! I did it again!" Perhaps you could choose your words more wisely next time.

And yes, I will use "someone of lower intelligence" and "lack of intelligence". Not politically correct enough for you? So sorry.

Would you like to know why? While I am no mad raving genius, I am aware that I am smarter than a lot of people. I do not say that to be cocky, arrogant, or whatever, I just know it's true and accept that.

That's what I said. :|

Websters first 3 of intelligence:

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION

You cannot tell me that EVERYONE you know is capable some or even all of these definitions...

It's fairly obvious to me that you have never tried to find out.

Read, reason, then post... your knee-jerk reactions make you look foolish...

Your malevolence shines brightly.

Warmest Regards,

As does your sarcasm.

M.

(Edited to remove Axe's name.)

aggle-rithm

6th July 2006, 11:05 AM

Hardcore skeptic walks up to person playing clarinet and says " You know, since she's been dead for four years, there is no way that she could hear you."

Two ways to make this even more tactless:

"Two years, I could see. Maybe three. But four? Don't be ridiculous!"

or:

"Maybe you should play louder!"

Axenos

6th July 2006, 11:09 AM

Typical politician -- "Oops! I did it again!" Perhaps you could choose your words more wisely next time.

Politician? If you knew me, you'd find good humor in that... Of course I should choose words more wisely, but alas, while basking in my "superior" intelligence I just overlooked that aspect...

Ok, turning off the sarcasm... for now.

It's apparent that continuing this argument with you will serve no useful purpose, other than a pleasant distraction. You seem to be as tight-minded and smug as you accuse me of being, and that's OK, because I respect your opinion.

OK, sarcasm back on again...

Warmest, Kindest, Loving Regards, :p

Axe

Moochie

6th July 2006, 11:13 AM

Politician? If you knew me, you'd find good humor in that... Of course I should choose words more wisely, but alas, while basking in my "superior" intelligence I just overlooked that aspect...

Ok, turning off the sarcasm... for now.

It's apparent that continuing this argument with you will serve no useful purpose, other than a pleasant distraction. You seem to be as tight-minded and smug as you accuse me of being, and that's OK, because I respect your opinion.

OK, sarcasm back on again...

Warmest, Kindest, Loving Regards, :p

Axe

What Ever. :)

(Edited to add smiley.)

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 11:17 AM

Bravo. There is no point or good that can come from arguing with someone about their faith. I’ve noticed that is a real problem with some people on this board to just accept people as they are. They have to jam their ideas down someone else’s throat. Believe what you will and let them believe what they want. Compassion is a good thing. Don’t be jaded by those who have out smarted themselves and lost their compassion.

Sorry, I didn't get the full quote in. Here it is again:

My meaning, in case it escaped you, was that if people like Kurious Kathy insist on coming to this forum to display their beliefs, then they are fair game. Or isn't this a skeptics' forum?

M.I'll assume for the moment that I am not aware that Kurious Kathy and The Painter are the same person and that your meaning did not escape me and state that I don't see The Painter explicitly stating a belief in congruence with the anecdote relating to christianity in the post he/she responded to. However, if this is a game to you and he/she is a fair target than here's to you finding a better one. BTW, yes this is a skeptics' forum but I wasn't aware that preaching to the choir was a prerequisite to comment on it. Skepticism is like a very cool hat that often looks funny on those who try to wear it.

Moochie

6th July 2006, 11:53 AM

I'll assume for the moment that I am not aware that Kurious Kathy and The Painter are the same person and that your meaning did not escape me and state that I don't see The Painter explicitly stating a belief in congruence with the anecdote relating to christianity in the post he/she responded to. However, if this is a game to you and he/she is a fair target than here's to you finding a better one. BTW, yes this is a skeptics' forum but I wasn't aware that preaching to the choir was a prerequisite to comment on it. Skepticism is like a very cool hat that often looks funny on those who try to wear it.

Ho hum...

Nose out of joint again?

M.

Belz...

6th July 2006, 12:03 PM

I don't see what skeptics have to offer as "cold harsh reality" or "nothingness".

[...]

And simply because the skeptic is not constrained by a belief in eternal punishment, that does not mean they will be socially destructive. As many have pointed out here, it is very easy to tell if someone wishes to hear about skepticism, or if they do not. And the truth is, it is very hard to shift someone from their belief. In fact, they have to do it themselves.

So I think the imaginary person in the OP will continue to cling to their belief because they wish to. As far as whether I personally would say anything to such a person would depend on circumstances; but I believe that the knowledge would set that person free for a richer life, not diminish them somehow.

Very good post, Amapola!

Belz...

6th July 2006, 12:04 PM

Sorry for the drive-by over-simplification but realizing you don't know $#!T is what sets you free IMHumbleO.

WHAT ?? I thought Japanese knew everything !! ;)

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 12:08 PM

Ho hum...

Nose out of joint again?

M.I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bore you. That's not sarcasm as I hoped for a sincere response. I didn't realize my nose had been dislocated a first time. Moochie, it seems your finger itches on the conflict button rather than the discussion button. I can consider Axenos' posts and disagree with something with out getting silly about it. If you actually give any fair consideration to his contributions so far, smugness is not a fair interpretation. I've modified my views on a number of matters since joining this forum in large part due to members that took the time to discuss things without getting snide (however, nobody asks you to do the same.) If you wanna tussle, no worries, you'll find no shortage of mates to do that with but thus far the thread has nothing to do with skeptic vs believer.

Moochie

6th July 2006, 12:13 PM

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bore you. That's not sarcasm as I hoped for a sincere response. I didn't realize my nose had been dislocated a first time. Moochie, it seems your finger itches on the conflict button rather than the discussion button. I can consider Axenos' posts and disagree with something with out getting silly about it. If you actually give any fair consideration to his contributions so far, smugness is not a fair interpretation. I've modified my views on a number of matters since joining this forum in large part due to members that took the time to discuss things without getting snide (however, nobody asks you to do the same.) If you wanna tussle, no worries, you'll find no shortage of mates to do that with but thus far the thread has nothing to do with skeptic vs believer.

So, get over your disdain for me and tell TP that "thus far the thread has nothing to do with skeptic vs believer."

Sheesh!

M.

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 12:15 PM

WHAT ?? I thought Japanese knew everything !! ;)Yes! No, wait... err, crap. OK, weird porn and storage space- yes. Candid debate?... hey, look! Izu zatto Supelman ando Lobin!?

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 12:22 PM

So, get over your disdain for me and tell TP that "thus far the thread has nothing to do with skeptic vs believer."

Sheesh!

M.Moochie, I have no disdain for you or any other person on this board (except Beckjord when he worms in). TP's post or your interpretation of his post doesn't change the discussion at hand. How might we find similar ground on which to come to an understanding? I for one at first could see where you were coming from in suspecting arrogance in Axenos' 'some poor simpleton' comment but he retracted that, did he not?

Axenos

6th July 2006, 12:28 PM

Moochie, I have no disdain for you or any other person on this board (except Beckjord when he worms in). TP's post or your interpretation of his post doesn't change the discussion at hand. How might we find similar ground on which to come to an understanding? I for one at first could see where you were coming from in suspecting arrogance in Axenos' 'some poor simpleton' comment but he retracted that, did he not?

The one thing missing sometimes typing is inflection... the tone and mood of a voice, and that indeed is what was missing at the beginning, as well as a poor choice of wording... but the point indeed got across, and this thread has produced nice food for thought from many different perspectives...

Now I must head to Job #2, for no matter how smart I may be, I still have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet... guess I'm not THAT smart :p

Best to All (You too, Moochie,)

Axe

Moochie

6th July 2006, 12:32 PM

Moochie, I have no disdain for you or any other person on this board (except Beckjord when he worms in). TP's post or your interpretation of his post doesn't change the discussion at hand. How might we find similar ground on which to come to an understanding? I for one at first could see where you were coming from in suspecting arrogance in Axenos' 'some poor simpleton' comment but he retracted that, did he not?

Retraction after the fact is just more weasel words, IMO.

If I misinterpreted TP's post, then kindly let her/him explain.

As for me, I will disgracefully bow out of this thread now, as kitty has just come in from his predawn prowl and we are both going to bed.

M.

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 12:35 PM

Oyasuminasai. (goodnight)

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 12:38 PM

Anyone of you other toughs wanna go!? JK:D

AmateurScientist

6th July 2006, 01:30 PM

Well, you're an expert going off of your experiance in the field. If I asked a lawyer, "What are my chances that I'll be sucessfully sued for negligence if I don't do X, Y, and Z?" and the lawyer says, "I can't give you any precise figures, but in my professional judgement, you'd be taking on a large risk of a costly legal battle and a small risk of a huge financial loss." that would be good enough for me.

When someone answers a difficult question to the best of their ability, that ain't the same a lie.

The post of mine which you quote was directly addressing IvontheEngineer's narrow tangent about uncertainty. I agree with him that uncertainty is scary for many, if not most, people. Trying to predict the outcome in litigation is always fraught with some uncertainty. Ask any trial judge.

I don't disagree with your post, but what you address is a different issue from what I meant to address. In no way did I mean to imply that expressing that "I don't know and can't give you a precise answer or guarantee" is a lie. It is most assuredly the truth in most cases. Where I have a big problem is with some of my colleagues who do in fact tell people what they want to hear. I know of some who do make promises they cannot deliver and issue guarantees as to outcomes. That is lying, in my opinion.

AS

RSLancastr

6th July 2006, 02:06 PM

"Most people NEED to be part of a group."

I should copyright that one... or at least make a t-shirt :DNo, make a t-shirt that says "Proud to be one of the few who doesn't need to be part of a group!"

Sorry for the drive-by over-simplification but realizing you don't know $#!T is what sets you free IMHumbleO.I'm free!!! I'm fre!!! I'm...

Oh.

Damn. :(

It's Thor, you infidel.Well, put thome thalve on it.

CFLarsen

6th July 2006, 02:15 PM

Well, put thome thalve on it.

Antipode!

kitakaze

6th July 2006, 07:55 PM

Well, put thome thalve on it.Oh cripes, that was the best laugh I've had all day.:)

Belz...

7th July 2006, 04:55 AM

Yes! No, wait... err, crap. OK, weird porn and storage space- yes.

Huh ?

Candid debate?... hey, look! Izu zatto Supelman ando Lobin!?

Wait a minute, there. The Romaji for "L" is "R", isn't it ?

kitakaze

7th July 2006, 05:25 AM

Huh ?Trust me, don't ask.Wait a minute, there. The Romaji for "L" is "R", isn't it ?Well, actually the romaji for 'L' is 'L' and for 'R' is 'R'.

Belz...

7th July 2006, 07:13 AM

Well, actually the romaji for 'L' is 'L' and for 'R' is 'R'.

Woah. I never saw an "L" in Romaji. I thought they were one and the same in Japanese ?

Okay... derail mode. Time for PMs!

ImaginalDisc

7th July 2006, 07:35 AM

The post of mine which you quote was directly addressing IvontheEngineer's narrow tangent about uncertainty. I agree with him that uncertainty is scary for many, if not most, people. Trying to predict the outcome in litigation is always fraught with some uncertainty. Ask any trial judge.

I don't disagree with your post, but what you address is a different issue from what I meant to address. In no way did I mean to imply that expressing that "I don't know and can't give you a precise answer or guarantee" is a lie. It is most assuredly the truth in most cases. Where I have a big problem is with some of my colleagues who do in fact tell people what they want to hear. I know of some who do make promises they cannot deliver and issue guarantees as to outcomes. That is lying, in my opinion.

AS
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was trying to support your position that uncertainty is inescapable sometimes, and that giving the best answer you can is truthful.