# What do skeptics gain by trying to get ppl not to believe in religion/psychics/et al? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2001, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118 "2001-09-17T07:08:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/41 "2001-09-17T20:51:44Z")
Hastur said: > [@](#): > > I think that your definition falls under blind faith. Blind faith is destructive. > > I think faith requires more. It does require proof, if only for the individual. What, exactly, is “proof, if only for the individual”? Is it a voice in the person’s head? An experience that they take as having come into contact with God? No. Faith is specifically that there is no tangible evidence. If there were, it wouldn’t be faith. And in case you still disagree, let’s look at the dictionary. Faith: “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” Hmmm. Whaddaya know. So what about the rest of my message? You asked a question and I typed in all of that – yet you have nothing to say? ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/42 "2001-09-17T21:05:15Z")
From [randi.org](http://randi.org) (I know that the OP doesn’t like Randi very much, but even so, I think Randi makes a good point here.) > [@](#): > > And, she prescribed the drug Tegretol, as well, for another caller’s disorder. This type of medical advice,\* which by law Sylvia cannot offer,\* is dangerous as it can mislead the caller. Who is she to give medical advice? Larry King was amazed at her facility with medical terms. Facility does not necessarily equate with accuracy. Multiply one person handing out dangerous advice by the a thousand, or ten thousand, or even a million and you have problems. Every time I think of psychics I think of _Pee Wee’s Big Adventure_ He goes to the psychic to find his bike. She figures this out by stealing his wallet and looking at the pictures. Then she tells him to go to the basement of the Alamo. Hilarity ensues. But the point is, she didn’t know what she was talking about and sent him a potentially dangerous mission to nowhere. Psychics are exploiting people like that _every day_. The more people who have faith in the “paranormal”, the more that are duped, injured, hurt, exploited, insulted, and made fools of. I will echo the sentiment that I would love to see a ghost. I really, really would. It would make my day, hell, my entire year. The psychic that really makes me angry is John the Fraud Edwards. From his latest appearance on Larry King Live > [@](#): > > And sometimes – I have coined the phrase psychic amnesia. That is like the sudden and complete deterioration of the brain when I start talking to someone. They completely forget who they are, who they’re related to, what their name is, how their friends passed, all that kind of stuff – until after the fact. And then the a-ha moment comes in. And I think that when people Would a real psychic really need an out like that? I had to re-read this three times because I could not believe what he was saying. And this is not limited to Edwards. Like I said before, this kind of fraud is being perpretrated by the thousands, on a daily basis! **Hastur** , if there are some authentic psychics out there, could you please post a list? I am genuinely curious. I will admit that I could be bias because every single psychic that I have ever seen has been such a huge fraud. Maybe the authentic ones just are publicity hounds. ---
**Author:** ![JayUtah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@JayUtah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JayUtah)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/43 "2001-09-17T21:06:25Z")
First, the difference between personal and universal belief. Personal belief can base itself on anything meaningful to the person. So if someone adheres to a religious belief for personal reasons, no one minds. But if you say, “I believe in Jesus, and you should to,” that brings to bear the rules of establishing universal belief. My personal reasons for believing something are insufficient to establish a universal belief. There has to be a testable body of evidence to support a universal belief. This explains why skeptics typically reject arguments in favor of religion, but it doesn’t explain why skeptics would want to stop people believing in these things. The answer to that question lies in the logic and rhetoric that persist in religions and other professions of belief in the supernatural. I have encountered many die-hard believers in religion etc. who exhibit a fundamental inability to distinguish between observed fact, proven conclusion, and axiomatic belief. This, I believe, is a serious dysfunction in the ability to reason. I’m not talking about simple disagreements of opinion. I’m talking about patterns of thought which ascribe undeserved levels of certainty to ideas which, from an objective standpoint, are taken on faith. This translates into the inability to agree to disagree. Everyone takes a certain body of knowledge on faith, but skeptics seem to have a better grip on the process by which knowledge is attained and by which conclusions are asserted. There seems to be a great epistemological gulf between skeptics and religious. Skeptics don’t seem to want so much for people to renounce their religious beliefs as to simply recognize the nature of the axiomatic basis on which those beliefs are predicated. Among religion there is a form of logic, but one which denies the fullness of logical practice. Someone, for example, who disagrees with the authenticity of the Bible is consider by rational Christians to simply lack faith or to have been unconvinced by evidence in favor of it. This presents no special problem. But fundamentalist Christians, who often cannot distinguish that their belief in the Bible is axiomatic, will often view disbelief of the Bible as a contradiction of fact. That is, if one cannot distinguish between axioms and facts, then disagreement brands the skeptic as someone unconcerned with “facts” and thus irrational. So when the fundamentally religious or adovcates of the metaphysical mix in company with skeptics, the same words are used by both parties, but there is no common understanding. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/44 "2001-09-17T21:09:04Z")
_sigh_ That should read > [@](#): > > Maybe the authetic ones **aren’t** publicity hounds ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/45 "2001-09-17T21:32:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by daffodil \* > \*\*Lemur; So? Let them believe in anything. > > As long as I don’t have to. \*\* Because the history of the 20th century shows that irrational beliefs can cause untold suffering, misery and death for hundreds of millions of people. I think JayUtah has a good point. I have no problem with religious belief when it stems from axiomatic belief and the logical consequences thereof. After all, we have to start with some metaphysical axioms no matter how skeptical we are. I take it as an axiom that I exist, that my sensory impressions have some relation to an external reality, that other human beings have similar consciousness to mine, etc. Most people, if they were logically minded, would characterize their religious beliefs as axiomatic. That’s fine. But does it make sense to take astrology, fairies, unicorns and ESP as axioms? These seem to me to be empirically derived observations of the world. Astrologers believe scorpios are outgoing because their experience leads them to believe that, not as a metaphysical given. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/46 "2001-09-17T21:55:34Z")
When I was a young lad, I really really wanted to have psychic powers. They sounded super neato keen. I would be able to read people’s minds, move objects without touching them, and see the future. Now, certainly, these weren’t the only super-powers I wanted to have. I also liked the thought of flying at supersonic speeds, being indestructable, bench-pressing whole apartment buildings, firing heat beams out of my eyes, etc… But by and by I came to understand that such superopowers were just a child’s fantasy. **Not so with psychic powers.** A friend of mine from music camp got me into this “alternate superintelligent state of mind” in which I would supposedly be able to steal others’ personalities, kill flies by staring at them, and cause the tops of pine trees to bend just by wanting it to happen. My 10th Grade English teacher, also, was a “true believer” in the paranormal if ever there was one. She convinced me that Uri Geller was for real, and that anyone could develop psychic abilities “if they got into the right state of mind and tried hard enough.” **I wasted months, perhaps years of my life, trying to develop psychic superpowers that do not exist!** Had I known about the overwhelming evidence **against** telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, etc., I could have just said “pish-tosh!” to these two peoples’ claims and be done with it. I would have seen just how much I was grasping at straws when I desperately tried to “prove” to myself that these powers were real. But such evidence was **not** easily visible. Go into the “weird stuff” section of the bookstore, and you’ll see tons of books telling you that psychic powers are real, but you’d be lucky to find **one** book telling you why psychic powers are **not** real. And don’t even get me started on the way “evidence” for psychic powers is presented on TV shows. So, yeah, I hate paranormalism. I hate how these hucksters – most of which are not even aware that they **are** hucksters – try to dangle the carrot of psychic power in front of me and get me to hop on their shoddy bandwagons. I hate how they try to make me out to be a “dupe” of the “evil scientific establishment” if I don’t immediately believe everything they tell me. I hate how they imply that nonbelievers in psychic powers – and **belief** , not evidence, is at the heart of all their arguments – are inferior and are ignorant of THE TRUTH. I hate how they label as closed-minded cynics anyone who asks for tight controls on an experiment. I hate how they attack peer-reviewed scientific journals for not publishing the “obvious truth” of their paranormal work because it rests on a foundation of flimsy evidence and fervent belief. I hate the quasi-religious nature of “true believers’” attachments to the idea that psychic powers **must** exist, they’ve just **gotta** exist, they just **gotta!** (Partly because it reminds me of my **own** fervent need for psychic powers to be real when I was younger.) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/47 "2001-09-17T22:34:59Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Hastur \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*Hastur, why are you angry at the skeptics that are telling you that people are trying to con you and others out of your hard-earned money, and not at the con artists themselves? Personally, I feel no need to be polite to people that lie, cheat and steal, or people that endanger the lives of others be selling them “miracle” cures that dissuade them from seeking proper medical attention. \*\* That is because I do not believe all of them are con artists. I think some of them have an authentic gift which allows them to see a glimpse into the past, present, and future.\*\* Give me names. Any names. Or even _one_ name. Please. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/48 "2001-09-17T22:43:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JayUtah \* > Among religion there is a form of logic, but one which denies the fullness of logical practice. Someone, for example, who disagrees with the authenticity of the Bible is consider by rational Christians to simply lack faith or to have been unconvinced by evidence in favor of it. This presents no special problem. But fundamentalist Christians, who often cannot distinguish that their belief in the Bible is axiomatic, will often view disbelief of the Bible as a contradiction of fact. That’s it, that’s it! I believe what I believe, and yes, I have felt in my own heart that I have personal convincing “proof” (for myself, and myself only). I have faith because things have happened to me that have fueled this faith. But I don’t expect a guy off the street to agree with me, or take my word for it, or anything. Same goes for the Bible, etc. I think it is an important book, but don’t automatically expect everyone else to see it that way. My mom (who is a “rational” Christian) can sometimes be irrational in other areas. She’s a health nut (but it seems to be working for her - she’s in good shape, and looks about 20 years younger than her actual age). Anyway, a while back she found this “crackpot” health book, and fell in love with it. Everything in it were pearls of wisdom. Now, I’m sure a lot of the book made sense, but come on. Sometimes she’d argue with my sisters and me by saying, “Well, it says it in this book! What more do you need?” We painstakingly tried to explain to her that some guy in Seattle wrote the book, who the hell was he, anyway? Hell, _we_ could write a crackpot health book, and get it published, would that make us “experts” too? But she just wouldn’t grasp it. She just kept citing her crackpot book, like we were automatically expected to accept it as credible. Airman Doors wrote: > [@](#): > > All faith is destructive to a certain extent. Gee. Way to not generalize. > [@](#): > > It results in indoctrination instead of realization. How many of you grew up a Roman Catholic, or a Baptist, or a Muslim and never gave it a second thought? Maybe some do, but many of us don’t. It’s hard to go through your entire life, adhering to something so specific like a religion, without giving it a “second thought”. > [@](#): > > Do you sincerely believe in what you say, or is it just that it is what you were taught? Maybe both. I make no judgments about that. That is only appropriate that you make no judgments. It is not _your_ personal belief, and frankly, really none of your business. > [@](#): > > But the fact that your mind was made up for you limits your thinking, whether you realize it or not. Oh please. You can’t, and don’t, speak for every religious person out there. Many of us have traveled long paths to get to where we are. Many of us are still on our paths. I find your statement condescending. > [@](#): > > That is why I have a problem with religion and Fundamentalists. It requires no thought, just unwavering faith that they are 100% correct and you are wrong. I don’t know where you draw the line at “fundamentalists”, because most people have their own limits, and their own levels of rigidity. It’s true, some people are frighteningly rigid, but the point is, you can’t paint all religious people with the same brush, or assume they all think the same way. And I’d like to ask, when you (the collective “you”) say you have a “problem” with certain religions or faiths, what do you do about it? Just feel critical thoughts? That’s perfectly fine. We all have opinions, even strong ones, about religion. But I am seeing some examples of people acting as if they need to take a “pro-active” action against things they have a “problem” with. They think religion is “dangerous”, and so they think all religious people are potentially “dangerous”. Which is sublimely obnoxious, if you ask me. Now, I’ve never seen anyone DO anything in the way of being “pro-active”, other than argue and be a pain in the ass, but I thought I’d point that out. _It’s obnoxious._ It’s _obnoxious_ to be “pro-active” with someone who hasn’t DONE ANYTHING, other than believe in something, while minding their own business. Give me a freakin’ break. Something simular happened on a different thread a few months ago, regarding vegetarianism. Some deluded souls deemed vegetarianism to be “dangerous” (for convoluted reasons). I guess all they wanted to do to in the way of being “pro-active” was to argue and pester vegetarians (who made it clear they were MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS). So I have to repeat: **it’s obnoxious.** There now, I have concluded my little tangent, and rant! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![TheeGrumpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/779978/32.png) [@TheeGrumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheeGrumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/49 "2001-09-17T22:54:00Z")
Carl Sagan answered the question in the O.P. in **Demon Haunted World** (page 298) this way: > [@](#): > > Imagine that you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in, the driver begins a harangue about the supposes iniquities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent? Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab – because you knwo that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice? Likewise, if we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition – even when it seems to be doing a little good – we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/50 "2001-09-17T23:44:39Z")
I don’t know what to say that has not already been said. All I can do is state that I feel threatened when someone tries to convince me that certain things I know to be false are, instead, true. I mean, if I believe Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind, then I just might believe that someone else could heal cancer with his mind and not get proper treatment. How long would I survive if I could not distinguish fact from fantasy? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/51 "2001-09-18T00:10:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > All I can do is state that I feel threatened when someone tries to convince me that certain things I know to be false are, instead, true. “Threatened”? _“Threatened”?!?_ What exactly do you expect this spoon-bending-believing crackpot to _do_ to you? Hijack a bus, with you on it? Spike your drink and perform unspeakable acts upon your body? I mean, do the vast majority of “crackpots” have a habit of doing this as a direct result of their “crackpot” (spoon-bending/psychic/religious/whatever) beliefs? Do you have reason to “feel threatened”, (based on a pattern of behavior that is already established) that they’ll do it to you, too? > [@](#): > > I mean, if I believe Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind, then I just might believe that someone else could heal cancer with his mind and not get proper treatment. Or, you might not. What do you know about someone else, or their private beliefs, anyway? How can you predict how, or what they will do, just because they believe in something you don’t accept, or think is crackpot? > [@](#): > > How long would I survive if I could not distinguish fact from fantasy? Who says you are? I mean, we don’t _know_ you, for all we know, you are fully delusional, and merely _think_ you can distiguish fact from fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/52 "2001-09-18T00:42:59Z")
yosemitebabe wrote: > [@](#): > > What exactly do you expect this spoon-bending-believing crackpot to _do_ to you? Hijack a bus, with you on it? Spike your drink and perform unspeakable acts upon your body? How about: Convincing my doctor that “traditional” medicine has got it all wrond, so that the next time I go to him with a pain in my appendix he’ll just send me to a psychic surgeon. Or: Goading Congress into spending taxpayer money – some of which is MY taxpayer money – developing an elite squad of remote-viewing spies. (Not merely funding research into the possibility of using remote viewing, which Congress **has** done in the past. I mean actually establishing a dedicated remote viewing branch of the CIA, on the notion that remote viewing actually works despite the evidence.) Or: Charging me with a crime because a psychic “sensed” that I was guilty. Want more? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/53 "2001-09-18T00:53:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hastur \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > > \*\*Hastur, why are you angry at the skeptics that are telling you that people are trying to con you and others out of your hard-earned money, and not at the con artists themselves? Personally, I feel no need to be polite to people that lie, cheat and steal, or people that endanger the lives of others be selling them “miracle” cures that dissuade them from seeking proper medical attention. \*\* > > That is because I do not believe all of them are con artists. I think some of them have an authentic gift which allows them to see a glimpse into the past, present, and future. > \*\* Hastur, I’d expect that someone who believed in psychic powers would feel strongly that the fake ones be driven out of the marketplace, because every fake makes the real ones harder to find. The way I look at the issue is this: If psychic powers that can produce valuable results exist, they are very very important. By trying their best to distinguish between real and fake “psychics” skeptics are taking the whole issue seriously, just as it is building inspectors who take the issue of building safety seriously. No one asks why building inspectors are so negative about buildings that turn out to be unsafe - but the difference between a valid psychic prediction and a fradulent one is at least as important as the distinction between a safe building and a dangerous one - real psychic predictions would lead to a revolution in science, health (mental and physical), business, etc. producing great benefits for society. With all that at stake, how can someone simply not care whether a particular claimed psychic is faking it or not. Andy ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/54 "2001-09-18T01:11:23Z")
Yosemitebabe, I’ve lived it and I’ve seen it. Granted, I did generalize, and I’m sorry if you find it condescending, but since this is more or less an opinion debate, I gave you mine. Your experiences may be different from mine. That’s great. Those are my observations, from years of going to church and seeing the phonies pray for the salvation that they want and then proceed to immediately forget what they were taught as soon as they left the church. I’m sorry if you find my viewpoint cynical. I find it to be extremely so. I have yet to be convinced that I am wrong, though, so take it for what it’s worth, which apparently isn’t too much in your case. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/55 "2001-09-18T01:19:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > How about: Convincing my doctor that “traditional” medicine has got it all wrond, so that the next time I go to him with a pain in my appendix he’ll just send me to a psychic surgeon. First off, cite please? Do HMOs cover psychic surgery these days? 😃 And of course, you are powerless to refuse to go to the psychic surgeon. Or are you? If your surgeon were to be so convinced, take it up with _him_ (or her) for being so swayed. Unless you believe that they have been brainwashed in some real and substantive way - I mean, _literally_ brainwashed. In which case - yikes. But that still doesn’t mean that you are powerless to refuse to go to the psychic surgeon. > [@](#): > > Or: Goading Congress into spending taxpayer money – some of which is MY taxpayer money – developing an elite squad of remote-viewing spies. (Not merely funding research into the possibility of using remote viewing, which Congress **has** done in the past. I mean actually establishing a dedicated remote viewing branch of the CIA, on the notion that remote viewing actually works despite the evidence.) OK, once again, cite please. (Not that I don’t believe you, but a cite is always nice.) Once again, blame Congress - good grief! What were they thinking? And while you’re at it, blame Congress for all the other taxpayer’s money they piss away on useless or weird stuff. You’ll have a long, long, list, and a whole lot of other people to “blame”, for being somehow able to “goad” Congress in such a manner. > [@](#): > > Or: Charging me with a crime because a psychic “sensed” that I was guilty. Cite please? When has this become part of law? Note - I have said I’d like some evidence of things that _have_ happened, not what you imagine or fear _might_ happen. Because if we start going down _that_ road, then we might as well suspect everyone who “looks funny”, and feel entitled to pester them. Because, you know, they _might_ do something “dangerous”. Is this what you are advocating? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/56 "2001-09-18T01:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > I’m sorry if you find my viewpoint cynical. I find it to be extremely so. I have yet to be convinced that I am wrong, though, so take it for what it’s worth, which apparently isn’t too much in your case. Hey - I don’t blame you if you have had experiences that have made you cynical. There are a lot of phonies out there. I won’t attempt to sway you, other than to urge you to keep an open mind when you meet new people. (That’s something we all should do, rather than immediately pigeon-holing everyone.) As long as you don’t “pester” me, and take some sort of “pro-active” action (because, you know, I might be “dangerous”) we have no problem. I won’t pester or insult you, you won’t pester or insult me. All is well. No problems. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/57 "2001-09-18T01:24:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*“Threatened”? _“Threatened”?!?_ > > What exactly do you expect this spoon-bending-believing crackpot to _do_ to you?\*\* By himself? No more than any other person. A large number of fellow believers? The potential for damage goes up with the number of believers. What if the next election is as close as the last and a really dangerous person is elected president because a trusted “psychic” convinced _just enough_ people to vote for the candidate he favored? Suppose we had a president (or a presidential spouse) who listened to astrologers? Never happen, right? [sub]Ronald and Nancy Reagan[/sub]\* > [@](#): > > **What do you know about someone else, or their private beliefs, anyway?** I know what they tell me. Think about this: If a person tells you he is convinced that Silvia Browne is a true psychic, chances are good that he is sincere. When a person admits he believes something weird, he is MORE likely to be telling the truth, not less. (That, or he’s pulling your leg.) > [@](#): > > **How can you predict how, or what they will do, just because they believe in something you don’t accept, or think is crackpot?** That’s the point: they _aren’t_ predictable. They aren’t predictable _because_ of their crackpot beliefs. A crackpot belief tells you that this person is not wholly trustworthy because they have a loose grip on reality. Perhaps he isn’t dangerous, but it’s best to be on your guard just in case. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > How long would I survive if I could not distinguish fact from fantasy? > > Who says you are? I mean, we don’t _know_ you, for all we know, you are fully delusional, and merely _think_ you can distiguish fact from fantasy. \*\* Read my posts and decide if I am delusional. [sub]\*I don’t know if Reagan based any of his important decisions on advice from astrologers, but the fact that he listened to them AT ALL makes me uneasy. The next guy (or the current one) might trust astrologers even more than Ronnie did.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/58 "2001-09-18T01:47:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > What if the next election is as close as the last and a really dangerous person is elected president because a trusted “psychic” convinced _just enough_ people to vote for the candidate he favored? What if? What if? Mind you, I carry no real respect for psychics, but I don’t see any evidence that this belief in psychics is so vast, that it will affect elections. There are a lot of “what if” fears in this world. Unless you can show me that psychic-believers are solid and steadfast, and a significant majority, I don’t wring my hands over “what ifs”. But, go ahead and “feel threatened” if you want. Just don’t pester individual people, because or your “what if” fears. > [@](#): > > Suppose we had a president (or a presidential spouse) who listened to astrologers? Never happen, right? Any evidence that policy was significantly changed because of their beliefs? > [@](#): > > I know what they tell me. Think about this: If a person tells you he is convinced that Silvia Browne is a true psychic, chances are good that he is sincere. When a person admits he believes something weird, he is MORE likely to be telling the truth, not less. (That, or he’s pulling your leg.) OK… so what’s your point. And who gets to be the final word on what is “weird”? And when you decide that someone believes something “weird”, what are you going to do about it, other than feel “threatened”? > [@](#): > > That’s the point: they _aren’t_ predictable. They aren’t predictable _because_ of their crackpot beliefs. Sez you. For one thing, who gets to be the final word about what is crackpot, and what isn’t? And, if we can all universally decide what is “crackpot”, where are the cites that show that people with “crackpot” beliefs are more unpredictable than people without “crackpot” beliefs? I mean, is the ability to hold down a steady job enough to indicate that a person’s isn’t “unpredictable”? How do you determine this? And what about the people who don’t have “crackpot” beliefs? Do you think that all of them are exempt from being “unpredictable”? > [@](#): > > A crackpot belief tells you that this person is not wholly trustworthy because they have a loose grip on reality. Perhaps he isn’t dangerous, but it’s best to be on your guard just in case. Be on your guard, if you wish. But you assume that “crackpot” beliefs mean that a person will allow themselves to escalate to more and more unpredictability, and I don’t think you _know_ this. > [@](#): > > Read my posts and decide if I am delusional. Hun, you _really_ don’t want to go there with me. Not that I am accusing you of being “delusional”, but you were the one just _insisting_ that vegetarians are “suspect”, questioning their stability, on a recent thread. You seemed to be inordinantly disturbed by what other people choose not to eat, even when they are not interacting with you, or trying to influence you. That seems to me to be really…“weird” and “crackpot”. So let’s say that I don’t think your discernment or judgment on every issue is always rock solid. Of course, I certainly don’t claim _my_ judgment is rock solid either, but then again, I don’t make any claims of sanity here! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/59 "2001-09-18T02:13:18Z")
Have you not heard the expression “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? How about “The price of lberty is eternal vigilence”? How about “Knowledge is power” (which implies that ignorance is weakness)? Waiting until an ignorant fool does something bad before you do something about it is waiting too long. If we learn _anything_ from last week, it ought to be that. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/60 "2001-09-18T02:21:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Or: Goading Congress into spending taxpayer money – some of which is MY taxpayer money – developing an elite squad of remote-viewing spies. (Not merely funding research into the possibility of using remote viewing, which Congress has done in the past. I mean actually establishing a dedicated remote viewing branch of the CIA, on the notion that remote viewing actually works despite the evidence.) Or spending over a million dollars of taxpayer money to provide aromatherapy and other bogus “therapies” instead of using the money for housing programs the way they were supposed to be done. Wouldn’t happen, right? Did happen, under a HUD grant near the end of Clinton’s term (he didn’t have anything to do with it – I’m just using it as a time identifier). The program almost expanded to even more people but it was found and killed before that could happen. Here’s a link to a summary (though the article cited in there is gone now): [Bush Team Kills HUD “Wellness” Plan](http://www.skepticnews.com/articles/01/06/01/1420204.shtml). Oh, and yosemitebabe, if you don’t already know the cite for the psychics on the military payroll, then I suggest you need to bone up on your Straight Dope 😃 : [Did the U.S. Government Fund Psychic Research?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118.md?page=4)