Skeptics' Attitude

[Energy]

skeptics are not interested to know the truth or try to understand.

They just want to prove you wrong.

Evven if you literally blast off a car by just pointing at it with a finger, with great ease,
skeptics will still find thousand of silly excuse to say you are playing tricks.

Discuss :)

[rainwing]

I knew a gentleman by that nature back in college. He was very left wing, an atheist and very confrontational, and not afraid to show any of his thoughts. Because he was my roommate, he tried to start a lot of debates with me to show that he was right, and I was either in agreement with him, or wrong.

I asked him one day why he kept hounding me for answers on stuff he already believed, and he told me that he wanted to understand my position better. I asked him why he wanted to understand me better if he had no intention of believing me, if and when my beliefs were at odds with his. He told me that he had arrived in a comfortable stage in life where all his beliefs made sense, and he didn't need to budge on anything. He was aggravating, but I learned a lot from him.

Then again, I'm also a kind of skeptical guy, but in a more "wary, but open minded" kind of way. I suppose my skeptical roommate wanted to prove he was right, but skeptical me wants to know more. :)

I find arguing to be of little value to me, because it's two angry people talking. I also find debate to be of little value to me, because it's two stubborn people talking. I like discussing a lot more.

Chris

[wstein]

Those choices are a little cynical. Certainly some bearing the banner of 'skeptic' fit each of the poll choices. I would add another in the same vein: fed up with being told stuff that is not true.


Even if you literally blast off a car by just pointing at it with a finger, with great ease, skeptics will still find thousand of silly excuse to say you are playing tricks.
Can't blame them really. Watch the TV show 'Criss Angel'. He does stuff that on par with this. I know some of it is tricks (stage magic) and some of it is years of physical and mental conditioning. The 'problem' is that he weaves them together purposely so that you don't know where one ends and the other begins. On top of that, virtually every movie and many TV shows use special effects that are near impossible to spot. In addition to not being able to believe what you hear, can't really believe much of what you see either.

I am a believer AND a skeptic. I don't believe most of what I am told. I always check out a new idea before adopting it for my own. I know a lot of people just make stuff up. I not indicating any malice here, just naivety and ignorance. On top of that, my truth is not the same as for anyone else. Makes one question if anyone actually knows anything. Even though I am virtually certain that everything I know is wrong, its the best I got and it helps me get through the day here on Earth.

[oath]

I used to be a skeptic, and still am :wink: Dont confuse me with the stereotype though please :)


I honestly think that many "skeptics" are people who are afraid of the truth. And that they if they see anyone trying to propagate that truth, they feel they are being attacked and so retalliate.

[Energy]

yeah thanks for your nice reply guys :)

there are endless color in a band of spectrum and we can put all the colors in only 2 or 3 categories.

you guys open up more possibilities and sheds/variants of skeptics and thats nice.

however there are some skeptics who bash people without any base or just to mock others.

There are some skeptics who contribute to us.
They help to spot lies and potential con men so that people wont fall as victim to them.

anyways the world is not black and white and we can simply label all skeptics as one.

I am glad you can point that out.

thanks you and kudos.

[rainwing]

So what about you, Energy? Where do you see yourself on the skeptic/believer issue on most things? What things do you tend to look a bit wary at, while others you are more likely to believe, like politics, occult beliefs, religion and the like?

Chris

[sash]

Even though I am virtually certain that everything I know is wrong, its the best I got and it helps me get through the day here on Earth.

My idea is that like all things skepticism can be either healthy or non-healthy.

Unhealthy skepticism is closed to truth
The basic idea behind it is that a person is not ready to look at their own reality and so creates veils that are not true about reality but help support their own view which is false. There is a desire to continue to press down this false view upon others and look for people that will agree with it to further the self-delusion that it is the correct version of reality.

Healthy skepticism is open to truth
..But is validated against the practicality of knowledge available (as wstein pointed out). From knowledge that is not belief-based I think it is possible to act skeptically in a healthy way, for instance 'listen to this tape and you will astral project in 10 minutes' or 'cross the street in front of that car and it will not harm you'. Someone who is not a skeptic might follow the above directions to prove their open-mindedness.
However the person who is healthy in their approach will not because they are trying to prove neither their open-mindedness nor another agenda version of reality. They have an inner sense of reality, but they don't need to prove it to anyone, it might change, and that's fine, or it might not, they are not holding onto it as an agenda for it to be able to bother them. In that sense it is possible to keep the tools that are practical right now, but leave the beliefs behind, but never attach emotionally to the tools.

[Dialgo]

It is but human nature to think that their own point of view is right, and wish to prove all other beliefs or reasons wrong. We all want to be right...Some things in life cannot be proven; and there is a point where one must believe in faith. Do not look at (closeminded) skeptics with hatrid or anger, but with compassion and hope that one day they may change their way...for you could just as easily be in their position...and be unaware. The best way to influence people like that, may well be through the way you live...and their observations of you.

[Krystal]

I think the problem is that people like to have the answers. They like to label and classify things. If something does not fit their answers, then they get uncomfortable that they might be wrong and that they may have been wrong all along. People feel the need to "do things right", they feel guilt if they are not "doing things right" and they also fear the unknown of not knowing the "right answers" if they don't already have them.

For some people even the concept of "there is no such thing as right or wrong" can cause them to get very angry.

I had someone get very angry at me why I brought up the possibility that one reality does not fit everyone - people can create their own reality that can be drastically different from someone else's reality. They got extremely angry at this.

I see it as a problem concerning control. they want the anwers (control). they want everything to fit their answers (control). If you don't believe the way they do, then they must show you that they are the person that has the correct answers, therefore you must be wrong (control).

To me a debate is for each person to present the options/evidence to be left for the open-minded to decide what to do with the information presented. AND that both people don't care how the other person decides. If either or both people are close minded and simply want the other person to change their minds to how they themselves think - this isn't a debate, this is a bully session.

[Energy]

yeah ...

too bad this happens to religion as well.

in the ultimate case they kill those who doesnt share the same set of doctrine with them.
the result? - millenia of bloodshed in the name of religion.

Pride is the root of such things

[Plumes.Gris]

If you consult the dictionary, the word "skepticism" actually means " Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets." but it also means "questioning attitude or state of mind"
When it comes to my reactions toward skeptics and being a skeptic, I tend to follow more a Buddhist philosophy. In order to find truth, we must put our knowledge through logical reasoning.
I find that the true nature of a skeptic is not to defend what he originally believes, but to find truth through questionning and if doing so brings you to disbelieving in religious or spiritual thought or if it brings you closer...should you really deny it?
For some people, there is an overwhelming amount of proof for an underlying spirituality to reality but for some, there is also not enough. In that respect, it's important to practice tolerance for people who don't share the same beliefs as you do.

[CFTraveler]

I think the problem with most people that think of themselves as skeptics are not really skeptical at all, it's just that they either cling to that label or like to hide their prejudices behind the name 'skeptic'. A true skeptic is a person who doesn't believe something because someone else says it happened- a skeptic is someone who doesn't make judgements about something or someone until they have verified to their satisfaction the veracity of an event or the character of whoever or whatever.
I would like to think that I am a skeptic, or rather a 'real' skeptic, in that I won't go off plunging into a belief system that doesn't benefit me. I like to ask questions, and often will change my mind about something when the evidence points to something else.
Unfortunately, the loudest, and more flamboyant 'skeptics' are not really- Those are the people that already know what it's about, that have already decided what reality is, and will ignore evidence, even change it, will make fun of whomever doesn't agree, and generally feel superior to others because of their beliefs or lack thereof. The funny thing about this is that that is the quality of most religious fanatics.

[Plumes.Gris]

Unfortunately, the loudest, and more flamboyant 'skeptics' are not really- Those are the people that already know what it's about, that have already decided what reality is, and will ignore evidence, even change it, will make fun of whomever doesn't agree, and generally feel superior to others because of their beliefs or lack thereof. The funny thing about this is that that is the quality of most religious fanatics.

Haha, very well said

[Tom]

skeptics are not interested to know the truth or try to understand.

They just want to prove you wrong.

Evven if you literally blast off a car by just pointing at it with a finger, with great ease,
skeptics will still find thousand of silly excuse to say you are playing tricks.

Discuss :)

There is nothing to discuss. You created a biased poll and then lectured on what you believe.

Of the 3 choices, I would have to say that "they are interested in the truth" would have to be the most likely to be correct. Everyone is interested in the truth. The problem lies in that everyone's truth is a bit different. We don't all believe the same thing, down to the very smallest detail, even those of us who believe ESP, PK, psychic phenomena, etc. are valid experiences. Those who disbelieve, even if they are stating it rudely, are just holding fast to what their belief is at that moment in time.

From my experience, belief is a moving target. I don't know anyone who believes exactly the same thing from year to year, and throughout their whole lives. Does that make them wrong or right? They are right according to their view of things at that time. We are all right. We all live under the delusion that what we know is how it is. My feeling is that we haven't gotten it quite right...none of us. That's why it's a good thing to keep an open mind, changing your beliefs as circumstances and your awareness changes, always moving productively toward whatever it is that will bring us together as One.

Enjoy your beliefs. Revel in them. Test them or don't. Feel strongly about them or don't. Just at least try to hurt as few people as possible when in the throes of defending them. You may just end up on the side of the person you hurt, sharing their beliefs. Then, you've got a whole other problem to deal with. :D I speak from experience. :roll:

[oath]

Some of the most (naturally) psychicallly gifted people ive come into contact with were skeptics, and many times in open denial of their abilities and things happening to them.

[journyman161]

It is but human nature to think that their own point of view is right, and wish to prove all other beliefs or reasons wrong... This applies to everyone whether or not they call themselves skeptic. The first part of this is fine, but the second part lies astray from any path to advancement. Wanting to prove others wrong is an action & as such can bring harm & cause a negative effect on others, whereas wanting to be right is a desire or attitude within oneself & as such is simply part of the need to advance.

It's a bit like the functional definitions for Judges that describe the difference between Bias & Prejudice - Bias is, 'If I can find for a particular side I will' where Prejudice is 'I will find for a particular side no matter what'. Wanting to be right IS a natural desire & actually has nothing wrong with it, but taking the next step into wanting to show others as wrong is simply negative no matter how you view it.

Most skeptics I have met or seen interviewed are scared of finding their safe world isn't as they wish to view it & that is why they defend their particular reality so vehemently. Those with minds open to change don't seem to define themselves as skeptics although they may be skeptical over some issues.

[equinox]

Most skeptics I have met or seen interviewed are scared of finding their safe world isn't as they wish to view it & that is why they defend their particular reality so vehemently. Those with minds open to change don't seem to define themselves as skeptics although they may be skeptical over some issues.
The sceptics I met are very careful and afraid of making mistakes.
They are afraid of deception, scam and stupidity.
They try to submit anything new to their tests...
Tests involve comparing what they see with the frameworks provided to them by the trusted people.
If it fails, they disgard it. Often they discard it if the responses are not properly formulated.
Their tests are not fail-safe but that is how it is.
I knew a guy, a sceptic who could not trust NEW.
He did not dare to give it a try.
I thought that might have helped him. He did not and died.
I wonder if he trusted the method, he would have lived.

[violetsky]

Are we being skeptical about skeptics????

Hmmm....does that make us skeptics?

So who is the pot and who is the kettle or do we take turns.....yes taking turns is only fair. We all live in glass houses...every last one of us. My house also has chandeliers so it will be extra interesting when stones are thrown at it. <smirk>

Hey intellectual snobs only bother us if we do not realize they are no better (or worse) they just have their own story that they are lost in....But HEY there is a wide variety of snobs. Spiritual snobs are slightly different than intellectual snobs sure after all they have a different story, but there are lots of similarities wouldn't you agree? I have been both an intellectual snob and a spiritual snob at some point in my life...live and learn. Hey that is the great thing about life...we can live and learn. Every last one of us.

We are all one and until we figure it out we will constantly be fighting ourselves...no one else. Just ourselves. When we catch on we can let go of defending ourselves and start understanding instead of fighting ourselves....understanding all that is ourself and inadvertantly everyone else.

Yet there is great discomfort in trying to understand isn't there. No one likes to look too closely at themselves. Much easier when it is someone else to look at (one of those 'them' people)... yes - yes - much easier. This is why nothing changes I guess? Or does it change? Or do we just trade one story or belief system for yet another? Maybe it is easier getting lost in yet another story or belief system than really looking at oneself? If we did truly look at ourselves, there would be no more drama!! Ah! There would be way more laughter as people laughed at their own personal insanities! Personal insanity just being another name for believing you are limited by any story or script you have chosen to incarnate into. And no more, 'But they......' What a strange world that would be.

And if you take this personally as appose to laughing at your own insanity???? Then you likely have a very interesting story that I would be very interested in hearing but the really important thing is that you hear it and wisely feel and understand (as apposed to surface knowing) that it never has to limit or solidify your view (a.k.a. judgement/opinion) of any story or anybody or anything.

Hugs and Lots of Love to All,
violetsky

[JonManuel23]

Doesn't the very act of say...classifying skeptics into ridiculous stereotypes and talking about how they lack open-mindedness and should be more like us on this forum defeat everything we stand for?

Why was this thread started in the first place?

Why do we care about skeptics and trying to "convert" them, shouldn't we be more focused on sayyyyyy.... energy work? You know... seeing as this is energy work section of the forum....

Well don't mind me, I just thought i'd throw it out there.

[kiwibonga]

I blame Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy... When kids realize that it's "common sense" that such things cannot exist, they apply this to everything else, and become insecure about their beliefs. Those who still believe in these things get bullied in school, and that's only the beginning... Throughout life we are taught not to be naive... The ones who control the world are those clever enough to fool others into doing things, from buying products to signing a contract, and clever enough not to fall in other people's traps.

Skepticism is a good thing, but too much of a good thing...

[sash]

So who is the pot and who is the kettle or do we take turns.....yes taking turns is only fair. We all live in glass houses...every last one of us. My house also has chandeliers so it will be extra interesting when stones are thrown at it. <smirk>

Hey violet, that's a very poetic way of putting across the dilemma at hand. :D

---

I tend to find it difficult to work with the word 'skeptic'.
I am fairly convinced from experience that the physical is a product of the astral and not the other way around.
I think this is also quite evident if we think about it. However someone who settles for the 'big bang theory' or 'God made everything' is just not thinking IMO. It doesn't matter if they are skeptical or not, it seems to me they just can't be bothered to think it through and then go ahead and just settle for how reality is(appears to be).

Most 'skeptics' would not propose 'really, can you show me proof of that?' when the doctor tells them they have cancer. However, when someone who hasn't been rubberstamped by the people, as being an 'authority', then a skepticism seems to be the natural response. Sometimes people tend to come to sites like this and ask for proof and this feels to me as an almost plead for help because they want to believe in some aspects of human experience that are socially taboo, but are out on a mission to prove themselves wrong and then to follow the socially acceptable trend again without looking back. That's my impression anyway.

According to definition of skeptic I think one self-acclaimed skeptic would not care about astral projection, for example, because if there is no proof, as one suspects, then there is no reason to tell others they are wrong. If one continues to behave that way then they are beginning to push people into believing that they are thinking the wrong way, and I think that is where the negative view of skeptics can come in.

Ultimately I have my doubts that either skepticism or open-mindedness is the best approach, I think at times we must surrender ourselves totally to one, and at other times to the other. The skill cannot be underestimated, that of letting go of everything you know for a few moments, while at the same time maintaining that internal integrity often called 'sanity'.

[journyman161]

*shrugs* Sceptics (those who label themselves as such, not just a person with a sceptical view) are on a sinking boat. Science is telling them that it is their very attitude that is making the experiments fail. Nothing can pass their tests because 'they make it so!'

Science is telling us the cosmos is a creation of observation - the natural byproduct of that is that if you go around trying to disprove everything, you will find yourself right nearly all the time. The Universe such a person lives in will always work to make the wondrous, banal, the surprising, dull & the beautiful, plain.

Sceptics lose the wonder of our reality, they have no glory & everything has to fit in their preconceived boxes. Being sceptical of a claim or boast is not the same as what a self-proclaimed sceptic does. Go to their sites - sceptics rip the heart out of anything they don't understand - if they can't make it sit up & dance, then obviously it's a con, the claimant is a charlatan & they hurry on down the road hugging their closest fears ever more tightly to their chests.

I agree we aren't about classifying people into categories but I would make 2 points - nobody here has done that & the ones who classify people as sceptics are the sceptics themselves.

[violetsky]

The skill cannot be underestimated, that of letting go of everything you know for a few moments, while at the same time maintaining that internal integrity often called 'sanity'.

Ah! But what if the world is mostly insane? In other words almost everyone is lost in their personal as well as family and even national stories and dramas. Would not a sane person seem insane to that world? So who is sane and who is insane? And what is sanity?

Is sanity fitting in to the insane family and nation? We allow ourselves to be controlled by our story far more than we would likely wish to admit.

Hey!!! Could you or I be the scientific skeptic next life time if we do not learn to see past your present story in this lifetime - afterall, this thread indicates our present story is causing us to be pretty skeptical........potential is there no?

The world will likely remain insane with argument, defense, skepticism, negativity until we see all our little stories for what they are.....limited experience.

Only when we see our limited view can we see: value beyond, how everything is connected, what we attract into our lives and move past being upset by people who are lost in their personal stories.

[asalantu]

Hi friends..!

Just a thought...

¿Why instead of to criticize scientist attitude towards paranormal phenomenon, not to inquiry about why science (methods and experimental setups) cannot reveal to us reality of paranormal phenomenon, putting apart all reference to "skeptic" attitude of scientist..?

Sincerely,
Ángel

[journyman161]

Hi friends..!

Just a thought...

¿Why instead of to criticize scientist attitude towards paranormal phenomenon, not to inquiry about why science (methods and experimental setups) cannot reveal to us reality of paranormal phenomenon, putting apart all reference to "skeptic" attitude of scientist..?

Sincerely,
ÁngelWell, you see, you can't leave aside the 'skeptic' attitude of the observer. Science itself tells us that the way you observe something affects the something. This doesn't matter so much when you're checking out the latest model Hummer, but when you're talking things that are more sensitive to observation, the attitude can be critical.

Science has a problem with things astral or spiritual as most of the people attracted into the field have distinctly limited minds - they need to be able to hold, to touch, to see results or they simply refuse to accept them.

When you begin to look at consciousness you run into the problem that some results vary as to how you ask the questions or when, or even who asks. Science tries to tell us, in the face of mounting contrary evidence, that everything about humans can be explained by the brain. Yet experience shows that human problems aren't being solved by this attitude - which is why the holistic approach is a growth industry.

Science is a nice tool; it's a pity so many of the practitioners are also. *grins*

[asalantu]

Just a thought...

The problem is common people (those who aren't proficient in NEW techniques) blindness. Blindness from a sensory viewpoint (not from an intellectual viewpoint) restricted to five sensory input channels. If scientist were able of to expand as NEW practitioners are, then occult affaires could be explored abroad. Curiosity will act like an initial spark when scientist shall be able of to experiment with such an expanded sensory input.

Remember, science history is founded through data gathered by means five sensory input channels. Those five sensory input channels are the basic experimental setup. With time, experimental setup evolved in microscopes, telescopes, rules, calipers, electronic measurement systems, computers, etc..

Is my opinion that a soft approach of scientist to NEW techniques, too early or too late, will make them interested in occult affaires. Soft approach, I mean, despite any spiritual or occult concern initially intended to break previous skeptical attitude. We must to be very polite in that.

Think about it...

My best regards.
Sincerely,
Ángel

[journyman161]

*grins* Um... you don't appear to have met many scientists. they are hardly polite as a group & nothing short of catastrophic upheaval will shift most of them from a view they have decided is correct - bit like the rest of us really.

A life of science is no guarantee of either openmindedness or a balanced view of the world.

But you're right; A scientist learning some of the techniques of NEW etc could be a good way to bring a logical mind to what is going on

[asalantu]

Is my opinion that a soft approach of scientist to NEW techniques, too early or too late, will make them interested in occult affaires. Soft approach, I mean, despite any spiritual or occult concern initially intended to break previous skeptical attitude. We must to be very polite in that.

I want to mean an adequate approach policy is needed in order to not exert a hard (and shocking) breaking of scientist belief systems.

The problem arises when occult phenomenology builds up "polluting" mind of NEW practitioner leading to common people (or common scientist, if you want) to think they are becoming schyzophrenic or mad. An adequate leader is needed. Someone able (may be) of thelepatic communication or clariaudient capabilities, in order to help (through convincement that shocking evidence is normal) to cross the bridge between "normal" world and "supernormal" world.

My best regards,
Ángel

[asalantu]

*grins* Um... you don't appear to have met many scientists. they are hardly polite as a group & nothing short of catastrophic upheaval will shift most of them from a view they have decided is correct - bit like the rest of us really.

he he he I know some... Former Carl Sagan, by example. He was a superb exponent of skepticism. By reference, try to obtain (from web) following book: "Broca's Brain". There are a complete chapter devoted to occult affaires from a skeptic viewpoint ("Sense and Non-Sense in Science Frontiers", if my memory serves well)

Other reference: http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/whatsnew.cgi

Sincerely,
Ángel