|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 5, 2009 23:17:58 GMT
..Just wanted to say a big thankyou to you all, especially Trystan, Hayley and Marsh (does he post on here?) .
I'm still on a big high after having a long skeptical debate with 3 of my colleagues all of whom are woo to varying degrees. I had all the arguments, logic and information I needed to well and truly beat off anything they put my way and most of it I've picked up either on this forum or from sources that I've gone to from here.
I think the lesser woo ones were won round a little bit as well, which I suppose is the important thing.
Anyway, the first person to spot the deliberate innuendo gets a karma from me
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 6, 2009 9:32:25 GMT
"truly beat off!"
lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2009 10:51:20 GMT
Aww. That's really cool. I used to be a woo who started to doubt what I believed and I too learnt valuable information from these forums as well as others that are closely linked so I get where you're coming from  I always found that skeptical, rational people are more willing to explain things and go into detail with topics than those of a more woo disposition and it's simply because the more 'woo' people only believe what they believe because either they have: a) developed their own beliefs through lack of critical thinking with their personal experiences, or b) blindly accepted what somebody else as told them to be true Therefor they cannot go into detail with their theories because there is no detail. |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 6, 2009 13:17:46 GMT
The full text was "I needed to well and truly beat off anything they put my way" but seeing as you're the first you win. |
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Nov 6, 2009 20:46:45 GMT
Whether your a sceptical believer or disbeliever is irrelevant. What is important is to keep an open mind and not accept things at face value.
Too often believers and sceptics fall on extreme sides making them both closed minded and no use to anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Nov 6, 2009 21:06:22 GMT
That's a very uplifting and encouraging post LYM and I'm sure it will give a warm sceptical glow to the hearts and minds of the members on BP who you've been inspired by - but from what I've read of your posts you've got an enquiring mind and a healthy no nonsense approach to all things woo anyway and talk a lot of sense. I also agree with Antmanias view that we shouldn't be extreme in our scepticism any more than the believers should be blind to rational debate. morganp |
|
|
|
Post by fluffet on Nov 7, 2009 0:21:35 GMT
Ive enjoyed all your posts LYM and basically what Morg said |
|
|
|
Post by terry on Nov 7, 2009 11:38:08 GMT
Why are sceptics so adamant in convincing believers that they are delusional? Why not leave them in their happy state.
It like telling children there ain't no Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy.
Why don't you do the same with religious people, of all different religions? is it because it would cause an uproar. God isn't real, there isn't a heaven, whatever the religious belief.
It reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses knocking on doors to tell everyone what they believe is wrong, or the missionary that goes to another country to try and change their beliefs.
You all seem to take pleasure in it.
Sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 7, 2009 11:48:42 GMT
Why are sceptics so adamant in convincing believers that they are delusional? Why not leave them in their happy state. We have no reason to convince believers they are delusion, instead we want the proof so we can believe like they do. I would never lie to a child in the first place. I would hate for any child of mine to realise i was lying to them But there is no proof of such beliefs. I take no pleasure. However when a JW comes to my door i do however have an intelligent debate with them whereby usually at the end they have togo away and get advice from their leaders because they cant answer my questions. |
|
|
|
Post by trystan on Nov 7, 2009 21:03:04 GMT
..Just wanted to say a big thankyou to you all, especially Trystan, Hayley and Marsh (does he post on here?) . Aww, thank you! Seriously, if all the podcast has done is help one person become more skeptical in their thinking then it has been a success. As for Marsh, he avoids forums. Probably wise given my track record. Why are sceptics so adamant in convincing believers that they are delusional? Hi Terry - I don't think it is necessarily the case that believers are delusional. For many people it is either because they are unaware of the bigger picture or are ignorant (not necessarily their own fault) as to what science and critical thinking entail. Why not leave them in their happy state. It like telling children there ain't no Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy. It isn't a case of forcing it down the throats of believers. The idea is to put the information out there although there are certainly occasions where a proponent of some outrageous claim can overstep the mark and do real harm. I think you underestimate the child when it comes to Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Imaginary play is a normal part of child development; toys become real and characters planted in their minds by others (such as Santa) can become part of the tapestry. But kids soon learn that Ted isn't breathing. They figure it out for themselves. And even if they don't they'll find that out during their very first year at school. Why don't you do the same with religious people, of all different religions? What, put the evidence out there? Lol! Come on now, get real. |
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Nov 7, 2009 21:26:12 GMT
As far as the podcast goes and I haven't yet heard the latest one, I think a little advice to Trystan, Hayley and co. I have noticed one or two woo guests being a little ridiculed. Not at the time I may add. The actual interviews seem fair as they are aired but in subsequent episodes I have heard discussions about them with some childish sniggering going on.
Thats not for me to say if that is right or wrong. Its not my show but I think for a podcast that wants to attract some woo guests however difficult that may be, it might be an idea to at least respect the few that have the balls to put their side accross.
Don't take it personally please because I do enjoy the podcast and the banter that goes on and if some woo guest is giving you lot some crap, then its open game to attack them back but do it there and then.
|
|
|
|
Post by trystan on Nov 8, 2009 1:11:53 GMT
I think I'll have another go at addressing the podcast related issues from Antmania as I didn't do a very good job at 1am or whenever it was: Yes, we can have huge problems in getting guests from the other side of the fence to come on the show. That tends to not be for things we have said about past guests on the show. Rather, it seems to be for other reasons: a) Our association with BP. Our potential guests typically aren't daft and they do their research. b) Things we have written elsewhere, for example, forums and blogs. Or our affiliations with other organisations. c) Imposition of unrealistic interview conditions. For example, we have to broadcast them live within certain time constraints or can only ask certain questions. Obviously this presents issues at our end ... think of an interview broadcast by another show with Derek Acorah. Also there is no point in conducting an interview which doesn't ask critical questions. There are plenty of other shows that do that. d) Some are content to make claims but run a mile from anyone skeptical. You may be surprised at the good terms we are on with the overwhelming majority of past guests. These include Lance Reed, David Farrant, David Griffin and Rupert Sheldrake. Plus there are others whose interviews have not yet been published: Nick Redfern, Dwayne Claud. And I know Hayley gets on well with Jon King. There are also occasions where the listener may hear a quip but not immediately have the wider context as to why it has been said. For example, one past guest was immediately on the offensive about the BP link and his opinions are in the public domain here and elsewhere. As such, our comments weren't unreasonable, especially as they were meant in jest. Anything we do say in regard to past guests is meant in good humour. On a serious point, perhaps we should not be as scathing in our news and quote game sections about people who may, one day, come on as future guests? However, I recognise that humour and morals are something that differ greatly from individual to individual ... I have received emails saying that we are too polite to certain past guests. I'm closer here to you than them as despite differences in belief we are all human and probably have more good points than bad. Overall, the podcast will sink or swim depending on the guests we can get on - although we are considering the idea of having occasional guest free shows. If we annoy past guests - especially those who are well connected - we run the risk of getting a bad reputation.  |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 8, 2009 1:22:29 GMT
Why are sceptics so adamant in convincing believers that they are delusional? Why not leave them in their happy state. It like telling children there ain't no Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy. The colleagues I was debating with were talking about visiting psychics, they were being charged £20 a time for what was (from their reports) basic cold reading. One colleague in particular was making decisions about her child's upbringing from what the psychic had told her. That's why I felt I couldn't leave them in a "happy state". Obviously because I like being employed I wouldn't discuss religion at work, but I'm quite happy to have that debate with someone in a social situation, I often do in fact. It has never caused "uproar" but I will let you know if it does. Personally I've always harboured a quiet admiration for JWs for constantly facing ridicule and abuse in order to spread what they truly believe is the truth. In the case I posted about I was asked to put forward my opinion in a conversation that was already taking place, I didn't force my views on anyone. I absolutely took great pleasure in being able to back up my statemments with facts, evidence and logic. Not going to apologise for that. Jon, I should apologise for not including you in my original post, you did start up the site in the first place I s'pose. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Nov 8, 2009 3:38:21 GMT
Why are sceptics so adamant in convincing believers that they are delusional? Why not leave them in their happy state. |
|
|
|
Post by terry on Nov 8, 2009 13:04:29 GMT
In the past I have said that Fraudulent mediums should be exposed. (are there any other?) I have been conned in my life, they only did it once. (nothing to do with mediums) I assume that your friends/relations are of sound mind, able to make their own choices. Nothing wrong with debate but why do you try so hard to convince people that they are wrong? Leave them to find out for themselves. You can tell children not to touch something hot, but they do, for me, learning by my own mistakes is the only way. Try to enlighten, yes, then let them make up their own minds.  |
|
|
|
Post by mesmo on Nov 8, 2009 13:42:13 GMT
In the past I have said that Fraudulent mediums should be exposed. (are there any other?) I have been conned in my life, they only did it once. (nothing to do with mediums) I assume that your friends/relations are of sound mind, able to make their own choices. Nothing wrong with debate but why do you try so hard to convince people that they are wrong? Leave them to find out for themselves. You can tell children not to touch something hot, but they do, for me, learning by my own mistakes is the only way. Try to enlighten, yes, then let them make up their own minds. Terry With great respect, I think you have missed the point. In general, skeptics do not take pleasure in trying to disprove mediums etc. or trying to argue against somebody's beliefs. The ''Psychics'' are the ones making the claims. Me personaly, I do not have a problem with any belief system but there is a world of difference between letting a child believe in Santa Claus and a person conducting a possible scam! |
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Nov 11, 2009 1:13:05 GMT
In the past I have said that Fraudulent mediums should be exposed. (are there any other?) I have been conned in my life, they only did it once. (nothing to do with mediums) I assume that your friends/relations are of sound mind, able to make their own choices. Nothing wrong with debate but why do you try so hard to convince people that they are wrong? Leave them to find out for themselves. You can tell children not to touch something hot, but they do, for me, learning by my own mistakes is the only way. Try to enlighten, yes, then let them make up their own minds. Terry With great respect, I think you have missed the point. In general, skeptics do not take pleasure in trying to disprove mediums etc. or trying to argue against somebody's beliefs. The ''Psychics'' are the ones making the claims. Me personaly, I do not have a problem with any belief system but there is a world of difference between letting a child believe in Santa Claus and a person conducting a possible scam!
Terry, all we do is try to "enlighten" as you say I feel that believers who visit this forum post the same arguments for what they believe and we point out the flaws in their argument, they then, for a few posts, repeat the same arguments before disappearing, usually after berating us for not understanding.
Surely if no one pointed out the flaws in something we would have never progressed |
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Nov 11, 2009 6:15:49 GMT
I don't think people should use the word "we" on here as if everyone is reading from the same hymn sheet so to speak.
I have found that sceptics, like believers all share different opinions which vary.
There are some sceptics who claim to be athiests so no amount of 'evidence' will convince them otherwise whilst others just need to have scientific proof before jumping ship.
I still consider myself a sceptical believer but I am very thankful to this site and certain posters who offer different viewpoints.
I never take things at face value whether scientific of paranormal so always look at both sides before coming to a conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 11, 2009 9:45:24 GMT
How can you be a skeptical believer?
That is like saying you are Miaowing dog
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 11, 2009 10:45:41 GMT
The process that skepticism is can lead to belief/acceptance of things - as long as they have supporting evidence. You could ask the question, " Do you believe that we landed on the moon or are you a skeptic?" Of course, skeptics do accept that we landed on the moon because that's what the evidence supports; so the question makes no sense when it's phrased like that. 'Not believing something' doesn't mean you're a skeptic and being sceptical (doubtful) of something doesn't mean you're a skeptic. Skepticism is the process of rational inquiry and not the position of non-belief. Apologies to those who've heard this all before  but this point is worth repeating until people get it. |
|
but this point is worth repeating until people get it.