What do skeptics gain by trying to get ppl not to believe in religion/psychics/et al?

Forgive me for using ppl and not people in the title. I was pressed for space.

I’ve seen for the time I have been on here, a great many who think that anything metaphysical is bad and they decry it and wish to stomp it dead. Why?

Why is it ignorant to have a faith or belief? Why is it ignorant to get tarot readings, see psychics, or god forbid: be one?

For all the desire to remove ignorance, from the side that wishes to be steadfastly skeptical, I see a great deal of venom, hatred, and vicious condesention. Why?

If skeptics of the board wish to prove to those of us who believe in things that are disagreed with, why can’t the intelligent lot of those who are on here do so with their intellect, rather than through attack?

Anyone care to discuss the topic from the skeptical side without being nasty?

To answer your question:

Cynics and “non-beleivers” are insecure. They need to convice others that they are right so they feel right.

It is a valaidation thing.

I think that is part of it.

But, if they wanted to succeed with proving to people they were right, why are they so often hateful about it?

The recent threads about Sylvia Browne and the Psychics as they relate to the recent disaster come to mind.

Member since 1999, 1400 posts, and you haven’t seen this discussed before? Or you just didn’t like their answer?

I think the vehemence is just a manifestation of irritation. After all, many of the things implied in the OP (psychics, metaphysics, etc.) have been discussed many times without any resolution, and a lack of resolution can be frustrating for anyone.

I think it’s also fair to say, however, that many people don’t want to hear claims that can’t be supported referred to as facts. That’s where the big conflict is. If you want to hold a belief, that’s fine, but don’t try and convince people that it’s truth without real evidence. That’s all.

I’m not trying to say, by the way, that everyone who has a belief tries to foist it upon others, but a number do, and that is enough to condition a response (unfair though it may be).

To answer your question, I provide you with Merriam-Webster’s (partial) definition of “skepticism”…

One of my best friend’s is a life-long member of the Skeptic’s Society. He says that a skeptic is a person who would LOVE to see a ghost, or witness psychic powers, or see an angel of the Lord. Skeptics base their observations on that nagging little thing known as “evidence”. If there’s no evidence, then they’re skeptical of its existence. If evidence is asked for, and none provided, they are skeptical of claims thus made.

It has nothing to do with insecurity or validation. They just want to see proof. Evidence. Something they can observe. If Ms. Brown takes the Skeptic’s challenge and passes, well by golly, they’ll say, “Hey, she’s got something going for her.”

Skeptics don’t like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you think about it for a minute, you’ll realize why.

Looks like Hastur simply didn’t like the answers so far.

The fight against ignorance includes such unfounded claims and phenomena as psychics, magic, water-sensing, spoon-benders, fortune-telling, etc. If you need me to tell you why such claims are evidence of ignorance, you have not been reading these boards–or you’ve been reading the drive-by posts only.

Let me make it very clear on behalf of all of us who are not gifted in the unconditional credulity department: show solid evidence/reasoning or don’t waste people’s time with silly claims

Many skeptics (read: people who don’t believe blindly but who insist on establishing the truthfulness of claims) are tired of having to cover the same elementary material over and over again. No one said the fight against ignorance was easy, but it feels like a long, tiring, uphill battle. You want to believe in psychics or creationism, that’s fine, it’s your private belief. If, however, you want to discuss such matters, please make sure you are in command of the facts. In most cases, however, command of the facts will merely destroy your own position, be it psychic powers or water-dowsing, so I can see why those who wish to believe in such phenomena consistently steer clear of any relevant facts.

Accurate Information is your friend–get to know her better.

And remember–the burden of proof is on the person or entity making a claim. Whining about how skeptics address your claims somewhat roughly when you make a reference to tarot-reading just sounds like an emotional appeal to rally the good decent people against the skeptical method. Sure, it would be nice if we could all be patient and address the same unfounded, undocumented, unsupported claims in a polite manner every single day; but skeptics are human too, and when they are confronted with road blocks of ignorance day in and day out their patience wears thin. That is not to say skeptics are engaging in “condesention” or “valaidation”, just that they are human and they are tired of being stuck on chapter one in the tome of basic human knowledge.

Contrary to your opinions as well as Abe’s, no that isn’t it.

I have dealt with skeptics on this board and seen them deal in issues as I have described in manners that I do not see as debate, but as vile attacks and slanders.

I respect good debate on any issue. I do not see that where these issues are concerned. I am attempting to start a dialogue on this issue for that purpose.

I will happily debate any belief you like: religion, psychic powers, crop circles etc.

My position is that of a scientist. Show me the evidence and I will accept that your belief just turned into everyone’s science.
Please be aware that eye-witnesses are sometimes mistaken (or even telling untruths), and that physical evidence is the business.
Also if something exists, we should be able to see it demonstrated repeatedly.

*and here’s the proof of that assertion - look up my posts to this board!

I do agree with basing testing in the scientific method.

One thing which bothers me about James Randi’s debunking, at least on television is that is is on television. In most cases, he looks like an ass, the subject looks like an ass, and in the most recent case, Larry King looks like more of an ass.

Sorry for getting off on a tangent, but the Larry King/James Randi thing annoyed me.

I would like to see impartial, unbiased testing. I would like to prove things or disprove as the case may be so people would cease acting as if ALL paranormal phenomena was no more than cold fusion.

The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them have grown rich and fat by taking us for a ride. You wouldn’t fall for a smooth salesman who offered you a car without an engine. So why be fooled by paranormal con-artists? What they are selling you doesn’t work. Send them packing and drive them out of business.

But I think we see that from the opposite side as well. I think it’s a “human” response to being challenged, not necessarily one thats indiginous to any one side. Some people are able to debate their beliefs civily and politely; some people are not.

I don’t have a problem with skeptics, if the person making the claims wants to debate, and invites debate from a skeptic. Then, by all means, take the gloves off, and debate!

I do make a distinction, however, between someone who wants to believe what they want to believe, and someone who wants to “convert” others. I am a religious person, but I rarely debate the subject in any depth. And I cannot remember any time in recent history (or ever, really) where I tried to “convert” anyone. I just believe what I believe. And yet, occasionally, someone will try to rain on my parade, and tell me it’s all a lot of hooey. You know what? I didn’t ask for their opinion. I’m leaving them alone, I’m not pestering them. So all I ask is that they, in turn, not annoy me with their unsolicited opinion.

The same goes for psychics, tarot cards, or what have you. If someone enjoys it, gets something out of it, I am not going to give them a huge hard time about it, as long as they leave me alone. (I am not a big believer of such things.) I mean, I’m willing to discuss it with them, and discuss belief systems in general, but I wouldn’t want to do it in an aggressive “I’m going to change your mind and get you to see things my way” attitude. I think that is totally obnoxious. I would probably express some concern if I strongly felt someone was being victimized by a scam artist (this happens sometimes) but barring that - what business is it of mine?

Not that I see this sort of thing a lot, though. Most people are willing to let such subjects drop peacefully as soon as they discover you aren’t trying to convert them. But there are still people out there who are huge, smug, pains in the ass.

Excellent.

I didn’t see this (I’m British), but of course television is not the place to have a reasoned debate. TV producers want controversy, and are pressed for time.
I have seen a lot of spurious programs about UFO’s, Alien abductions, the Ark of the Covenant etc. In all these 30 minute specials there are masses of unsupported assertions, wild claims and precisely ** no ** evidence.

Ah, but this is the point!
Some scientists claimed cold fusion existed. Their experiments were unrepeatable. So their theory was rejected.
No paranormal phenomena has ever been demonstrated.
As I’m sure you konw, James Randi’s foundation has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate psychic abilities (dowsing, ESP, levitation etc).
No successful takers.
You act as if scientists aren’t willing to test for the paranormal. Of course they are! It’s simply that most ‘psychics’ won’t go near a scientific test (especially if they’re making a good living fleecing suckers).
Those psychics who have taken the Randi challenge have been saddened to discover their ‘powers’ don’t exist.

You are right about the occasional venom exhibited by sceptics, I’ve been guilty of it a few times myself.

Most sceptics judge things by whether they are subject to proof or not. Is something subject to mathematical analysis? Are there simpler explanations which cover the facts? This is the way sceptics organize their world.
Most sceptics are willing to examine other beliefs but insist on proof, and rightly so. Anecdotes, arguments from authority, and claims that “it hasn’t been disproved so it must be so,” just don’t make it in that court.

The “true-believers” keep making assertions that something, (tarot, palmistry, numerology, astrology, etc.) work but are unable to offer a shred of proof. Yet they persist in believing their theories and become extremely peeved when confronted by a demand for their proof. How can someone persist in his beliefs when logic, mathematics, and occasionally even common sense refute them? After a while, many sceptics begin to believe they are dealing with someone who is unbalanced.

The many mystical/New Age belief systems are seen as a relic of the dark ages, something best buried and forgotten outside of anthropology books and museums. Some of the people here have thought about what the widespread belief in mysticism leads to and wish to have no part of it. Seriously, if/when you come down with pneumonia, do you want someone waving crystals and chicken-bones while dancing around your bed? Or would you like a penicillin injection?

Electricity, clean running water, the existance of computers and communications channels that allow me to be informed of what’s happening outside my own village and even talk to interesting people that I would never have met. I enjoy the fruits of the scientific method and have no wish to see it replaced with something that, in the final analysis, just doesn’t work.

Testy.

I understand that you were talking about things like psychics and such when you wrote that - but I am curious - do you feel the same way about people who have religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs, or a personal faith? I mean, as long as they aren’t trying to “prove” it to other people, and not trying to engage in any sort of debate, or aggressive “conversion” attempt. It is acceptable to you that they persist in believing whatever they wish, even though “logic, mathematics, and occasionally even common sense” refute their beliefs?

'Babe, I, for one, see a stark difference in “offering up something as a belief” and “offering up something as a fact”. Religion, spirituality, take as much of it as you want. It can be quite soothing. Just like some people find it soothing to look at artwork, or read a good book. Those are personal things, inherent to individuals.

Skeptics deal with universal things, things which - supposedly - can be observed/felt by anyone. A good skeptic (read: a skeptic who doesn’t just want to cause trouble) will stick with these subjects, and leave personal things alone (after all, it’s impossible to prove or disprove whether or not you believe in, say, God, yes?).

So in that sense, it’s A-Okay to say “I believe in God.” However, if you say “God will let me walk on air” or “I can talk with dead people”, you had better be prepared to back that claim up if you intend for people to take you seriously. The reason many skeptics get so vehement towards people who make the latter claim is because claims of “psychic powers” are - in my view, anyway - often used to trick, manipulate, and otherwise take advantage of people. Sylvia Brown, you say? She’s rich because of her claims of psychic powers. Where did that money come from? People that she - I believe - fooled.

To the OP, speaking personally, I have an insatiable curiosity. That 3-year-old’s drive to ask “why is the sky blue?” has never really left me. (Hey, that’s why I’m here in the Straight Dope!)

As I learned more, the curiosity simply grew. I read more, I learned to look things up, and yes, like any good tinkerer, I took things apart to see what was inside.

But early on, I kept running into stuff that didn’t make sense. “Pyramid” power. Astrology. Dowsing. Fortune telling.
In an effort to understand, I researched, I looked things up, I asked people. (Okay, I asked Dad. :smiley: )
My father is a doctor, so we had a decent “library” of encyclopaedia, chemistry and human physiology texts, and books literally ranging from Astronomy to Zoology. When I had a question, he said, invaribly, “look it up.”

Take pyramid power. I read an article, I think it was a flyer in a newspaper advertising a clear pyramid that was supposed to do all sorts of interesting stuff, from keeping fruit fresh longer to… imparting good luck to bracelet charms? Recharging crystals?

So I looked it up. I asked around. How did it keep fruit fresh? How was it supposed to “recharge” a crystal? (By that time I knew how electricity and batteries worked, and had a vague idea how you stuffed energy back into a battery.) Where did that energy come from, how did the crystal “hold” it, and, for that matter, how did it get “used up” in the first place? What kind of energy was it?

I distinctly remember looking in, among other things, an astronomical text showing the different forms of energy the Sun gives off (radio, light, heat/infrared, charged particles, etc) looking for this mysterious power called “karma”. :smiley:

(Hey, we didn’t have the Internet and video games back then. I had books and two channels of TV. Had to do something.)

How did the Pyramid impart Good Luck to a charm? Where did this Good Luck come from? What was the collecting mechanism? How did you know that it worked? How could you tell when it was “full”?

By the time I reached middle school, it was well established that I was wasting my time with these sorts of pursuits. But the more I read, the more nonsense I ran across. Not having been raised in a religious family- for which I am eternally grateful- I wasn’t exposed to concentrated religion until I could think for myself.

And yes, I ‘researched’ it too. Where is God? Where did he come from? Is he the one that gathered all the swirling gas and dust that turned into the Earth? Why do some people say the Earth is 6,000 years old, but others say it’s millions and millions? Where did the fossils come from? Why are we supposed to pray? If he’s everywhere, all the time, why go to Church and pray only on Sunday mornings? Who wrote the Bible? Why don’t these two Bibles have the same text? Why are there different denominations? Why don’t those denominations agree? Why did some Churches go to war to force other people to believe the way they believed? If the Egyptians believed in a great many Gods over a thousand years before The One God was popularized, why is the “new” version supposed to be the “right” one?

At that age and temperment, I tended to lean far more towards the side that could provide answers- or at least plausible theorem backed by other data- and away from the one that said “You simply must have faith, my son.”

About that time- seventh grade or so, keep in mind I wasn’t asking these questions in so “organized” a manner :smiley: - my mother happened to sign me up for a magic class over the summer, probably to get me out of her hair for a little while. The instructor was a grizzled old guy, who could work absolute wonders with cards, small foam balls, bits of rope and coins. It turns out this guy was an old-time fifties’ “Carny”. As in the old traveling carnivals that had chicken-biting Geeks, crooked games, real “freaks”, and, in the “back”, out of sight, prostitution and gambling, illegal liquor, you name it.

As he was showing us how a certain trick worked, he’d regale us in the class with stories from the carny days. How they were chased out of this town, how the mayor of that town was caught by a local reporter, with one of the carny’s midget prostitutes… you know, the gritty stuff.

But mainly, he told us stories of how the games were fixed, how the fortune tellers worked their trade, how the weight guessers and stage-magic was done, and how he would, when the “front” was slow, he’d go in “back” and get a card game going to fleece some local rubes. About here he’d shuffle the cards three times, and deal two hands. His would have anything- a royal flush, four of a kind, an inside straight. The other would have one face card and two of a kind. He’d shuffle the cards again and deal two more hands: One was ace-through-five, the other was six through ten, just to show what he could do.

That was one of the definite points I can remember in my early life where a lot of little pieces fell into place, and suddenly the mosaic was a little more clear. The gist of it was, ‘hey, some people aren’t entirely honest, and further, there’s usually some underlying reason for that dishonesty’.

And that led me to start asking the exact opposite of Hastur’s question: Why do people believe in this stuff? What does it gain them? What does it do for them?

In some cases, it’s easy- Both Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller are in it partially for the ego boost, and mainly for the money. Miss Cleo’s in it for the hard cash too, else she’d have a toll-free number and maybe work from donations and grants. Let me repeat that in case I wasn’t clear- Uri, Sylvia and Cleo are frauds. (*Hey Sylvia! If your powers couldn’t forsee something as momentous as Black Tuesday, maybe you ought to rethink your abilities as a “psychic”, don’cha think? You can see a callers’ illness well enough to recommend a particular drug, but can’t see four plane crashes and thousands of deaths… so what good are you? *Just had to get that off my chest. I feel much better now.)

As far as religion is concerned, well, it’s my opinion- and just an opinion, before I’m flamed for being some pitiable nonbeliever- that the cliche` is predominantly true; It’s become a crutch for those afraid to think for themselves. Solace for those unable to handle the possibility that life was an accident, and their existence is, in the Great Scheme Of Things, meaningless.

That’s my story. In direct answer to the OP, it’s because as I learned, I kept winding up wasting a great deal of time and effort on wholly fruitless pursuits, as for the mythic “karma”, or to figure out how dowsing worked. (Did you know the surplus-tool catalog Harbor Freight sells a dowsing rod they call a “pipe locator”? It’s a telescoping radio type antenna on a pivot with a handle, sells for $10.)

I don’t pretend to be right all the time, but I have seen too many people spend money on “psychic” calls and tarot readings, buying “healing crystals”, planning their lives around astrology charts, and other nonsense, to just sit idly by. Doesn’t hurt anything to “believe”? Similar to the “pipe locator” I mentioned above, there’s a firm that sells a device that’s supposed to locate people by the electrical “aura” of the human heart. Several police departments have been suckered by the perp of this device, to the tune of, in some cases, over $2,000 per. They do not work. The same device is sold in Treasure Hunter Magazine, and makes wild claims on performance.

And they get away with it because people WANT to believe.

"I understand that you were talking about things like psychics and such when you wrote that - but I am curious - do you feel the same way about people who have religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs, or a personal faith? I mean, as long as they aren’t trying to “prove” it to other people, and not trying to engage in any sort of debate, or aggressive “conversion” attempt. It is acceptable to you that they persist in believing whatever they wish, even though “logic, mathematics, and occasionally even common sense” refute their beliefs? **
[/QUOTE]

It’s none of my business what religion a person subscribes to, nor is it my place to even comment as long as they aren’t insisting I convert to it. People that are very dear to me derive comfort and enjoyment from religion, I keep my opinions to myself. IMHO, theological beliefs aren’t subject to logical proof or disproof, that’s why they’re called “beliefs.”
Debating the validity of religion can be fun when it’s someone like Polycarp on the other side but there isn’t much point in it aside from the enjoyment of the debate.
I do actively dislike psychics of all sorts; spoon-benders, New-Agers, faith-healers, and other people that prey on the gullible to make a fast buck. Those people I see as a danger. (Apologies if you subscribe to faith healers, I don’t know what religion you believe in.)
All the best.

Testy.

Hastur asked:

These are actually two different subjects, though related.

Faith means that you accept something without evidence. I personally think that people should use evidence in making their decisions, so faith like this, when no evidence is available or possible, can be troubling. You ask why? Well, the terrorists had faith that they were going to be sitting with Allah after they took all those people to their deaths. Now, does this mean all faith is evil like this? No. But too often it can turn that way, whether it’s Islamic terrorists, Christian terrorists who shoot abortion doctors, etc.

Moving on to Tarot and psychics and the like, here is an area where there is evidence – and all of it is negative. So we have people believing in something that specifically does not have evidence to support it. Frankly, this blows my mind. In this day and age we have the ability to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t, and some people still choose to go with what doesn’t.

OK, but why do I care? Why? James Randi (who I know you’ve mentioned you don’t like, but that’s a different issue) was asked this on Dateline NBC a few years ago. He replied, “It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” And he’s right. Maybe you think it’s harmless to believe in a tarot reading, but I have seen too many people take actions they would not have otherwise taken based on such readings. I have seen too many people scammed out of their life savings by “psychics.” Why? Because they believed in nonsense.

It’s not limited to this. One writer has provided a series of articles to The REALL News (the newsletter of the local skeptics group I chair) about how beliefs have killed so many in various countries around the world. Leaders have convinced their people in Africa, India, and other locations that their magical powers would protect them against bullets (and everything else) and so they should just charge fearlessly into battle with the enemy. Of course, they ended up dead because they believed their leaders.

We are all human and have human failings. Some of us get sick and tired of seeing all the crap that is put out. Personally, I am absolutely disgusted that Sylvia Browne took the opportunity of the terrorist attacks to promote herself. I have seen at least two other “psychics” or the like who have done the same.

But even on an everyday basis, people like Browne and James Van Praagh, and John Edward prey on those who are in pain. They are parasites. But they are wealthy parasites. It makes me sick that they have left their consciences at the door, say what people want to hear, and get rich doing it. Frankly, the “getting rich” part bothers me the least – I would still be upset if they were poor and doing these things.

But I would like to note that the very first response you got in this thread was not from a skeptic, but did have the venom in it that you so dislike, when Green Fool attacked skeptics by calling us insecure.

We do. All the time. As somebody else mentioned, you’ve been here a while, so I’m rather surprised that you would say such a thing.