A challenge to all "sceptics"

Before I deconstruct so-called "sceptisism" let me say that there is nothing wrong with being sceptical, critical, doubtful. If we loose that ability we`d be grinning at the prospect of jumping off a roof in the mistaken belief that we can fly. A sceptical viewpoint is an appropriate protection against charlatans, con-men, hoaxers, liars. Being doubtful of some things means you have good discernment and can form an opinion based on evidence, common sense, experience and intuition.

This is different to the growing group of people who label themselves "sceptics" and have set out to disprove, debunk and ridicule anything that goes beyond the materialistic, mechanistic, "I only believe what I see with my limited senses" Newtonian worldview. It is an established fact that our senses can only perceive a very small amount of the totality of reality. A dog perceives more sound-frequencies and an intuitive person may perceive more energy-frequencies. The motto of the "sceptic" is that anything that cannot be physically perceived and demonstrated must be untrue. From this vantage point, anything that doesnt fit into the limited confines of this view, must be distorted to fit. Sceptics will go to ridiculous lengths to prove that there are no paranormal and spiritual phenomena so that everything remains safe for them.

This type of attitude is NOT a scientific attitude. A scientific attitude looks at something and says: "This is interesting. Lets see if its true or not". A "sceptics" attitude looks at something and says: "This must be untrue" (because it doesnt match what was previously established). With this type of attitude, we wouldnt have had any new discoveries because everything would have been based on what used to be true. Nevertheless pioneer scientists establish new facts every day, making the old "facts" look stupid.

The problem with the "hardcore-sceptics" is that they will never be able to perceive or experience anything beyond their limited view, because their belief filters out anything to the contrary. What will they do instead? They will keep confirming their old views, day by day, month by month while discovering very little brand new information.

In my view, these types of sceptics use their philosophy to mask and supress insecurity. They feel insecure and fearful in life and, similar to the people who hold on to a religion, they hold on to the view that they know what most things mean, that physical reality is the prime reality and so forth. You have to be courageous to say "I really dont know whats true".

In this sense, materialist science and its promoters are like mommy and daddy to them. Often, rather than relying on their own common sense, their own ability to think, their own inner authority, their own intuition, they instead rely on what papa-scientist said. The open-minded curiosity of a child has been replaced with a rigid, close-minded need to be right about things because thats what papa-scientist said.

I will close in saying, that I am sceptical myself....but I am not sceptical towards paranormal and spiritual realities, I am sceptical towards the worldview spoon-fed by some scientists and "sceptics" posing as authorities.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Skyfloating]

whats going on here, then? There are thousands of "sceptics" here that wield their dull occams razor on a daily basis. Isnt anyone going to take the challenge?

Skeptical of what exactly?

It just makes sense to be skeptical of things until real proof is provided. Otherwise, I'd believe the story in the Weekly World News about Elvis being alive and well living with JFK and Diana in a trailer outside of Orlando.

Can I disprove it? Not off hand, but I'm better off just not believing it until some real proof is provided.

Silly British and American spelling differences.

Either way, my version of skepticism is just demanding proof before believing something. That's all.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Johnmike]

I just love how people can make posts assuming they know why I think the way I do.

I found the OP to be condescending and not worth answering.

Believing in something without proof -- REAL proof -- is just faith in a different suit. And as PT Barnum is reputed to have said, There's one born every minute.

I am a skeptic EXCEPT ... that's your choice. As it is mine to be a skeptic UNLESS. Unless there is actual proof that hasn't come off YouTube or from someone saying "I can't tell you how I got this."

I wouldn't believe coelacanths had been re-discovered either, except that they have actual carcasses.

So until you can prove to me that there is a spirit, afterlife, alien craft, Reptilians, or whatever, I'm not about to say they exist. That would make me a fool.

When there's good proof of something I will be glad to say I was wrong. But so far, there's been absolutely no danger of that whatsoever.

Do us all a favor and don't assume you know how someone thinks. That skirts on abusive behavior, something I left behind with my marriage, and hope never to have to put up with again. Telling someone how they think is not a right act. Nobody can presume to tell others what goes on inside their head. And there is a difference between asking me what I think about something and telling me.

I don't like to be told how to think, what to think, or when. thanks.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I found the OP to be condescending and not worth answering.

Thanks for answering anyway. You are the typical example of one of those sKeptics.

Believing in something without proof -- REAL proof -- is just faith in a different suit.

In my opening post I am critical of the limited amount of things that constitute "proof" in the sceptics worldview. Evidence does not only grow out of repeated experiments in some laboratory. There is also experiental-evidence, common sense and intution.

When there's good proof of something I will be glad to say I was wrong. But so far, there's been absolutely no danger of that whatsoever.

Yes, no danger whatsoever because you base your views only on what you personally perceive. I have experienced plenty of paranormal phenomena because I dont base my views soley on what goes on in my own little world. I dont filter out that much.

Do us all a favor and don't assume you know how someone thinks. That skirts on abusive behavior, something I left behind with my marriage .

By questioning the view of a sceptic I did not mean to be abusive but indeed challenging.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Skeptical of what exactly?

It just makes sense to be skeptical of things until real proof is provided. Otherwise, I'd believe the story in the Weekly World News about Elvis being alive and well living with JFK and Diana in a trailer outside of Orlando.

Can I disprove it? Not off hand, but I'm better off just not believing it until some real proof is provided.

Gosh, I wish some people would read posts carefully before responding. you make the exactly same point as MM by saying "until some real proof is provided". In my thread I said I am not talking about being skeptical but about the cult of the so-called "sceptics". Being sceptical is FINE. What is not fine is claiming that only what can be physically seen constitutes "proof". WHY? Because what we physically SEE is only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of what is out there.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What is not fine is claiming that only what can be physically seen constitutes "proof". WHY? Because what we physically SEE is only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of what is out there.

I believe there is a huge difference in what constitutes "proof" from one person to another. Some people will take oral and eyewitness accounts into consideration when formulating a hypothesis based on observation, but others would negate such conclusions because eyewitness testimony is often flawed and not based on scientific reasoning. In other words, science requires physical evidence to support the claimants ideas as having an ounce of truth. On top of this, a hypothesis that may lead to an actual theory needs to fulfill the requirements of being repeated in a controlled environment, and those results need to be verified by others as well. Taking the "paranormal events" slant on the issue we see that most sightings are often one time events that cannot be repeated and are often based on eyewitness testimony, which are both unreliable ways to find truth in amongst the evidence.

On another note, there are many skeptics that take account of evidence that we cannot necessarily see in the physical world, but can quantify in the form of mathematical proof. Skeptics are here to keep believers in balance, and there are a number of these believers which display an incoherent abuse of unscientific reasoning. They oftentimes offer no proof in the form of physical or mathematical evidence, and berate someone who posts scientific evidence in direct contradiction to their own experience.

A good skeptic is neither open-minded nor closed-minded, the simply do not have an opinion until evidence is tested and results are able to be reproduced under controlled conditions.

So what's the challenge?

Well, Skyfloating, I read your original post carefully -- and I'm sure good old Rasobasi420 did too -- and you know what? I couldn't find any challenge in it. What are you challenging sceptics to? A duel? A debate? An egg-and-spoon race?

The caricature sceptic in your post does not exist. He is a typical believer's misrepresentation of what a skeptic must be like. In fact, a sceptic is just someone who knows the dangers of believing what one would like to be true. And he is choosy about his proof, knowing that self-deception is easy and evidence too easily fabricated. And he never forget sthat extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Jazzerman explained the protocols of scientific verification in his post. I did the same, somewhat less elegantly, in a post on this thread -- the burthen of which is somewhat similar to yours. These protocols exist precisely because the desire to see at every turn the proof of what one wants to be true is an error to which scientists are by no means immune. What you call scepticism is just a process of testing and sifting. Why are you so afraid of it?

Anyway, hurry up throw out your challenge, whatever it is. I can't wait to take you up on it.

i have no idea what this post is about.

I would like to take a stance one way or the other, but really it seems you are simply picking apart minute details and I expect this thread to start analyzing semantics at a certain point.

Care to make yourself clear? It's obvious by replies so far that your are being vague (perhaps on purpose?)

i]Originally posted by Jazzerman

I believe there is a huge difference in what constitutes "proof" from one person to another.

Nice, balanced and very true statement. Thank you.

not based on scientific reasoning. In other words, science requires

yes, science requires this, science requires that. that is all well and good, but in some instances it slows down progress. I am all for stopping con-men and hoaxers and "news of the world" type nonsense. But we do live in the year 2007 and a new definition of what "the scientific method" is, would be helpful.

of physical or mathematical evidence, and berate someone who posts scientific evidence in direct contradiction to their own experience.

To be frank, I am SADDENED by looking at experiencers who come to ATS full of life, juice and enthusiasm, willing to spill their hearts out to others, and are then beaten with the cold and robotic response "wheres the evidence?" And this is my original motivation for opening the thread. So while skeptics have their validity, this thread goes against hardcore-sceptics.

A good skeptic is neither open-minded nor closed-minded, the simply do not have an opinion until evidence is tested and results are able to be reproduced under controlled conditions.

yes. that would be a GOOD skeptic.

reply to post by scientist


alright. one point I am making is that the stance of those who call themselves "the skeptics" (not those who say "I am skeptical of some things") is a belief-system similar to that of religions.

Taking this a step further Id speculate that there is a conspiracy to keep people in the dark by focussing them on 1% of totality/reality (what can be proven and repeated in a laboratory).

Since this is ATS, that is my conspiracy theory.

What you call scepticism is just a process of testing and sifting. Why are you so afraid of it?
Anyway, hurry up throw out your challenge, whatever it is. I can't wait to take you up on it.

OK, the challenge in simple words, the theory, my theory:

Because of a few experiences of spiritual nature I have had, I have come to believe that physical life on earth and what we can perceive about reality makes up not even 1% of what we COULD experience and perceive.

I believe religion and science play a part in supressing the rest of the 99%. And "skeptics", mostly without knowing it, play a role in this gigantic cover-up by constantly asking people for "hard physical evidence".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Because of a few experiences of spiritual nature I have had, I have come to believe that physical life on earth and what we can perceive about reality makes up not even 1% of what we COULD experience and perceive.

I believe religion and science play a part in supressing the rest of the 99%. And "skeptics", mostly without knowing it, play a role in this gigantic cover-up by constantly asking people for "hard physical evidence".

I think I understand where you are heading with this, but I respectfully have to disagree with some points. If I could be so bold, I would inquire as to what alternative humans have that would be better than scientific reasoning? Critical analysis, experimentation, verifiable results, etc. all contribute to the final outcome of a hypothesis and theory. The good thing about science is that it is a self correcting system; that is, one set of results may directly contradict another data set. Having said this, as we gain a greater understanding of the relationships between Biology, Physics, Chemistry and the other sciences we are able to correct old theories that may be disproven by greater understanding and modern approach. Science is not as "set in stone" as many seem to think...it is a constantly evolving system that uses empirical data to suggest how and why nature works the way it does. I can honestly think of no better system for analyzing results, but then again I'm not so obtuse as to think a better system may not one day be developed.

I do understand why you believe religion could be construed as a hinderance in our ability to understand the universe, but in that same sentence, science provides that alternative. Lest I repeat myself again, I know of no other sytem of analysis that has provided the kind of accuracy and self correction that science has.

Same old nonsense -- atheism is a "religion." Yeah, atheism is to religion what bald is to a hair color.

It's my belief that atheism is a religion, simply because we have absolutely no information about existence, consciousness, reality, and so on. We can analyze our universe all we want and make conclusions, but outside of that, we know absolutely nothing. Especially applicable are existential arguments like "brain in a vat."

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Because of a few experiences of spiritual nature I have had, I have come to believe

I believe religion and science play a part in supressing the rest of the 99%.

Ok. I'll take the bait.

You "believe". I respect your beliefs.

Do NOT have the audacity to force them on others.

Ever.

Solid evidence is tangible, can be measured.

Belief is personal, and in the mind.

At this point, mankind cannot fathom the
reality a mind can produce.

So, that being said; something that exists
only in someones mind (belief) is just a
thought.

Einstein found a way to theorize his ideas.

Can you ? In a way reproducible by a jury
of your un-biased peers ?

When you can, THEN you can attempt to
get me to believe.

Regards,
Lex

PS : Nice thread.

Reply to Lexion


Thanks for taking the bait. My response to you is:

"Only what can be measured is true" is also a belief.

My paranormal experiences may be a belief, but they are also an experience.

Definition of Experience: Something perceived with the senses, felt, circumstances one has lived through.

Definition of Belief: A thought.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Skyfloating]

Reply to Jazzerman

Excellent post. You make a good case for the other side. I would never suggest getting rid of science though. I acknolwedge the importance of science. What I am proposing is that purely materialistic science focussed on studying mainly physical objects is limited and needs improvement. Improvement to what? The study of consciousness (the part of us observing the objects). Rather than only looking at what is studied and has been studied, I would look at the one studying and also at what could be studied.

Reply to MajorMalfunction

Other then accusing me of being abusive and talking nonsense you havent really countered my points. see my definition for belief vs. experience above and counter THAT. I am absolutely and 100% certain that atheism is a belief-system that grew out of antagonism towards christianity.


Reply to Johnmike

Yep. The ant perceives 1% of the field and professes to know what is true or not true.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I am absolutely and 100% certain that atheism is a belief-system that grew out of antagonism towards christianity.

I'd like for you to expand on that. I understand there may be a majority of people that claim to be atheist, but they are really anti-christian... however stating that atheism grew out of an opposition to christianity is just innaccurate.

If anything, satanism grew from antagonism towards christians.