# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/101 "2001-09-18T10:26:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > > **My sister is legally blind because of a traditional doctor. In no way was he a “charaltan” doctor. She trusted him, she has permanent nerve damage to her eyes. Don’t you think this issue is more wide-spread than just “crackpots”? The medical profession has major problems, IMO. If there are “doctors” that are deceiving people in the way that you describe (and I appreciate the cite) then something should be done. But of course, something should be done about the kind of doctors who caused my sister’s blindness, too.** There is a large difference between a “doctor” practicing a form of medicine for which there is no basis in fact, and a doctor who poorly practices a medicine which has a basis in fact. Would you rather be treated by a doctor that could cause problems **if** he performs a treatment improperly, or a doctor whose treatment has absolutely no chance of working, no matter how he performs it? I am saddened by your sister’s experience. ---
**Author:** ![E1skeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3da27b/32.png) [@E1skeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E1skeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/102 "2001-09-18T10:37:05Z")
This is funny… skeptics debating skeptics. “I believe in Jesus, and am skeptical of Mohammed” “I believe in aromatherapy, but not in acupuncture” “I believe in chiropractics, but not in iridology” “I believe in ESP, but not in UFOs” “I believe in science, not in psychics” “I believe in psychics, not in science” Aren’t we ALL skeptical somehow? Regarding the OP, I don’t think there’s much more to say. Some people are jerks, whether they are skeptics or not. But generalizing is not right. We are not all jerks. Enjoy your debate. Saludos. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/103 "2001-09-18T12:01:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*What if? What if? . . . 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. \*\* What if they’re a rapist? I mean, we don’t **know** , do we? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/104 "2001-09-18T12:06:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Captain Amazing \* > > she chose “alternative” treatment, which basically consisted of making sure that energy fields were aligned and using natural herbs to counteract the poisons of the cancer. Not suprisingly, she died. > > As tragic is this is, this is her choice. Feel free to attempt to expose such people to other alternatives, but remember, in the end - it _is_ the individual’s choice. > \*\* You don’t think it should be against the law to sell products – like, say, “medical” treatments – which clearly do not do what they are advertised to do? Can I go around selling products and mnake all kinds of claims about their capabilities when they cannot do what I claim? Of course not; the FTC would have my ass in jail in a New York minute. Why, then, should providers of medical services be exempt from the same standards? ---
**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, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/105 "2001-09-18T12:06:59Z")
**yosemitebabe** said: > [@](#): > > David B: I had heard some such story about the crackpot “aromatherapy” garbage prior to this, but a cite is always nice. It never ceases to amaze me that the US government will piss our money away on such things. And yet people wonder why skeptics fight against it. Hmm. Imagine that… > [@](#): > > But they are known for that, and we all should be outraged by their rampant waste of tax dollars, and not just because of the “crackpot” stuff. Yes, and? Some of us _are_ outraged at it. Does that mean we shouldn’t be outraged even more at this particular type? > [@](#): > > I’d still like to see some cites showing that HMOs are paying for psychic surgery, though… While it thankfully hasn’t gotten that far yet, some HMOs _do_ pay for various types of alternative medicine (read: “therapies” with no scientific basis). **hastur** : Unlike the claims of psychics, I _cannot_ read minds. So when I see a message replying to one of mine, but only addressing _part_ of it, I tend to wonder why this is so – _especially_ when that person has also posted **two more** messages _after_ the response. Now you try to make me feel bad because you took your friend – sorry, won’t work. If you had time to write what you did to me **and** to write another message to somebody else **and** yet another to somebody else, then you had time to say, “David – I don’t have time right now, but I’d like to more fully explore the other things you said.” Oh, and I notice you still haven’t addressed them. But you did take the opportunity to try to slam skeptics. So, yes, maybe this thread has become “pointless.” But it isn’t the skeptics who have made it so. Look in the mirror. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/106 "2001-09-18T12:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > Abe, you bring up excellent points, and I don’t disagree with most of them. Thank you for articulating them very well, you have given me much to contemplate. Why, thanks, in that case I hope I have managed to uphold the sceptical position successfully without venom and hostility! I see the discussion has become more personal, so please forgive my approach (below). > [@](#): > > But, I will repeat, there comes a point where an attempt to “educate” just become plain old pain-in-the-ass pestering, and “nagging”. It does more harm than good. I’ve seen this with many smokers, for instance. THEY KNOW. **THEY KNOW.** The more they are nagged, the more they resist the “holier than thou” people who feel like it is their Mission in Life to “save” all smokers. That sounds rather like Jehovah’s Witnesses! I suppose the trick lies in the method of education. Sceptics ought to avoid holier-than-thou attitudes. A sceptic, after all, is not holier than the average person, just better informed. > [@](#): > > Where do you draw the line on “crackpots”? Let’s be fair here: I did not use the term “crackpot”, although I certainly believe it applies to certain people. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a crackpot as an eccentric or impractical person. When used as an adjective, the term means mad or unworkable. > [@](#): > > Am I a crackpot because I take garlic pills for my colds? Garlic is good for you, so I would no more consider that crackpot than if you were taking vitamin pills. I do not have information on whether garlic specificaly helps your cold though, perhaps someone else can help out. > [@](#): > > Is my New Age friend a “crackpot” because she enjoys Astrology, even though she functions well in society? Again, I am not sure how you define crackpots. I have been talking mostly about charlatans and frauds, who by definition require interaction with other people. Does your friend _enjoy_ or _believe_ in Astrology? Does she do so by herself, or does she gab about it endlessly like some astrology freaks I know? Since astrology is in no way practical, serves no purpose, and is rooted in fable, if your friend _believes_ in it she matches the OED’s definition of crackpot. If she shares her passion about it with others, she could be helping to multiply ignorance. > [@](#): > > There are many examples of people who live and die with little “crackpot” quirks, but these quirks never escalate to anything dire. Do you feel it is your **duty** to tirelessly “educate” us, for fear that we will progress into something you deem “dangerous”? Are not adults allowed to have quirks and weird beliefs, and be left alone with them? Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion. Unfortunately this phrase is often shortened by removal of the word “informed”. I don’t think quirks ever hurt anyone (I’m probably wrong), and there is a big difference between having a quirk and, e.g., spreading the message of phrenology or DIY colour therapy. Private trifles, I think I mentioned earlier, do not really concern others. Everyone has peculiarities of behaviour, but I have a problem with phrenologists, astrologers, psychics, people who think men did not walk on the moon, creationists, and the like. For the simple reason that these ridiculous beliefs are A) rooted in the deepest ignorance and based solely on opinion, and B) they multiply themselves unless they are checked. > [@](#): > > what about the less extreme cases (that I feel are also quite common)? People who enjoy listening to psychics on TV (John Edwards, etc.), but never invest any money on psychics themselves? People who enjoy consulting their horoscopes? People who buy a lot of health food products, or enjoy aromatherapy, but do not eschew visiting a regular doctor? I know _a lot_ of people like this. (Hell, I _am_ this kind of person, with my garlic pills! 😉 ) How do you react to these kinds of people? Are they at terrible risk? Do they _need_ your help? Let me be absolutely clear on this: everyone needs help, but sceptics are not missionaries. I don’t know of **any** self-respecting sceptic who fights ignorance in the badgering way you allude to. If, on the other hand, I know you and I know children X and I catch you telling X how good astrology is, I will become somewhat upset. That’s because I know both how easily impressed children can be and how persistent belief in astrology may prove, so I would not want to see a child’s fresh mind become indoctrinated with such ridiculous notions as belief in astrology (which for some reason does not seem to fade away like other childhood fantasies such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy). On the other hand, if you keep your astrology fetish to yourself, I have absolutely no reason to annoy you about it. If it comes up in conversation I may mention what I think about it and what science has determined about it, but that’s it. On the other _other_ hand, were you 15 years old and telling me how awesome your horoscope is and you really believe in it, etc., I would probably make some effort to explain the difference between truth and falsehood, science and make-believe, opinion and the scientific method, etc. > [@](#): > > And we haven’t even gotten to the regular, run-of-the-mill religious person, who goes to church. Perhaps attends Mass each week. Is that not “crackpot” as well? Or not? (And if not, why not?) I actually mentioned religion in response to Airman Doors, USAF, and your discussion. It’s an earlier post. The situation is complicated and there are strong social pressures on the topic of religion. I think I did provide an answer. Religion is a private affair, and it is never my intention, nor I believe the intention of most sceptics, to invalidate personal religious beliefs. But preach at me, and I will be understandably offended. I don’t go up to religious people and claim anything about their God, but in an earnest discussion about religion I may say something similar to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=73688&pagenumber=2), although that is probably rather more than most people are willing to listen to in one sitting. That’s not really the topic of this thread though. > [@](#): > > Do you feel the burning desire to “educate” them, and save them from the errors of their ways? I think you may have me confused with some pretty hardcore religious zealots! > [@](#): > > And how far do you go in your attempt to “educate” them? Is there a point where you give up and let them believe what they wish in peace, as long as they are not hurting anyone? Of course. I have never claimed to compromise the privacy of others for trifling reasons. In fact, I generally do not start a debate _unless_ a suspicious claim is broadcast, i.e. it is no longer private but made public and therefore potentially dangerous. Ignorance is like a virus, dangerous and very difficult to fight. > [@](#): > > Some think that vegetarians are “crackpots”. More than a few threads have been devoted to this subject. (Oh my word - _more_ than a few!) Do you think vegetarianism is “crackpot”? If not, why not? Many people argue that some of the reasons for vegetarianism (and veganism) are not sound. So they argue, and pester vegetarians, even though the vegetarians in question dearly want to be left alone. OK, I say enough with these herring-questions, I do not feel they add to this argument (start another thread on them if you wish to discuss so many specifics!). Vegetarianism is certainly crackpot by the definition provided above. Does that make all vegetarians nutcases? No, of course not. What about Vegans? The case there is certainly stronger, but it’s none of my business… Now, if vegetarians or vegans came up to my 10 year old boy (hypothetical, I don’t actually have children) and started explaining how good a Veg diet is for his growing body, I would be seriously concerned about lack of animal protein, calcium, and a host of other important items (including the Veg preacher’s brain). > [@](#): > > And I’ve already brought up the fact that religious and/or “crackpot” people believe _they_ are right, just as strongly as you do. And they feel obliged to “save” you, just like you feel obliged to “save” them. There’s a very significant difference between fighting ignorance and “saving” people according to religious systems. The fight against ignorance is practical and has its origins in analytical thinking–scepticism and the scientific method are a way to analyze claims after all. Religion is not. I don’t care HOW convinced you are of anything, because personal conviction has absolutely no relevance to any argument. Put up or shut up, as they say. If I don’t see solid evidence/reasoning, I won’t take you too seriously. At the same time, I will always do my best to offer solid evidence and reasoning to all. That’s what sceptics do, although I am becoming wary of using the word so frequently. Remember, scepticism is nothing but a method. And to repeat: sceptics are certainly not going from house to house trying to save people, or stopping pedestrians in the street to tell them that “scepticism saves!”. Heck, I don’t even _like_ people as a rule. However, when I encounter broadcasts of ignorance I choose to do my best to stamp them out. > [@](#): > > Don’t you find it all this “saving” and “pestering” and educating (on both sides) to be rather exhausting? I sure do. 😉 Leaving aside, the exaggeration, it all depends on the educator involved. Again, our concepts of what is going on here appear to differ when it comes to pestering. I respect my privacy too much to condone the invasion of others’. ---
**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 18, 2001, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/107 "2001-09-18T12:26:41Z")
Yosemitebabe, pointing to the few people in the crowd that the conman _hasn’t_ directly harmed and saying, “_They_ haven’t been hurt, so back off!” is disingenuous at the very least. DavidB, I believe I’ve got dibs on Hastur’s next response. How many times has he(and oh, so many others) thrown out the claim that there are “real” psychics out there? How many times have I asked, “O.K., could you please show me just one?”, without ever recieving an answer? ---
**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/108 "2001-09-18T16:03:05Z")
pldennison wrote: > [@](#): > > You don’t think it should be against the law to sell products – like, say, “medical” treatments – which clearly do not do what they are advertised to do? Can I go around selling products and mnake all kinds of claims about their capabilities when they cannot do what I claim? Of course not; the FTC would have my ass in jail in a New York minute. I wish that were true. But, unfortunately, peddlers of “herbal remedies” have a really sneaky back door they take advantage of. So long as their products are classified as “dietary supplements,” they can make **any outlandish claims they want about them** , so long as the bottle has a little disclaimer in teeny tiny type that says: “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” You can put plain tap water in a bottle and claim it will give you more energy, regulate your menstrual cycle, put hair on your head, and extend your lifespan. You can sell it for $5.99 a bottle as a “miracle drink.” And so long as you put the above FDA disclaimer on the bottle, **you can get away with it.** In any other industry, this would be considered false advertising. It’s shameful how these frauds have the complete legal sanction of the Federal government. And what’s worse is, a lot of the people who make and sell these herbal remedies **actually believe** that they do all the things they’re claimed to do. One study mentioned on [http://www.quackwatch.org](http://www.quackwatch.org) showed that, of the 900 or so herbal remedies that **have** actually been tested, only about 11% of them did what their proponents claimed that they do, and worse, **only about 10% of them have been proven safe.** Yet many herb peddlers continue to believe every outlandish claim printed on the bottle. And they have the gall to accuse the mainstream medical establishment of suppressing the “truth” about these herbs because “they’re only being out to get your money,” while the herbal remedy sellers, of course, would **never** think of going after your money. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/109 "2001-09-18T16:42:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl \* > 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_. I can’t resist adding another example of this, from [What could this be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23631), where **Honesty** posted a question about experiences that _could_ have been symptoms of a significant neurological disorder and was told by a psychic (who later posted here as **WingedWolf** ): “It’s a type of energy which hasn’t yet been mechanically detected, but it is related to biomagnetism. … An energy surge–this could be related to your body’s ability to produce the energy described above in greater quantities than most people do. The nerve spasm–which caused your body to jerk–was caused by the stimulation to those nerves causing them to fire all at once, and triggering your muscles to contract. It’s a very common side-effect/symptom. It may also be in reaction to an increase in energy around you, that your nerves respond to. (A spirit entity can cause this as well). … It is normal for your genotype, if not common. It does mean that you psychic … Somewhere around 10% of the population is born-psi, and about 10% of those are “born-on”, having instinctive use of psi-abilities as well as having them innate. I would guess you are in the latter catagory, basedo on the age your abilities awakened, and that energy-manipulation and perception is your primary aspect. In other words, you perceive auras, and you can also manipulate them. There is a great deal more you can do, if you care to learn. I recommend you at least learn some self-defense, for you may be vulnerable to some things others wouldn’t be vulnerable to, simply because of your sensitivity to them.” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/110 "2001-09-18T16:44:09Z")
Hmmm: We’re mixing people of faith, people of blind faith, crackpots with delusional understandings of the world, and charlatans preying on one or more categories of the former and/or on the overcredulous. (For some of you, you may equate some of these categories.) I once suggested a spectrum of credulity from the straw-man hyperskeptic to the hypercredulous, suggesting that most people fell somewhere along the middle of the sequence. Obvious example: the whole “historical Jesus” argument, found on numerous threads here, past and present. On one previous argument (fall of '99, if I remember), David B., speaking in _vox skeptica_, raised the question of _confabulation_ to explain the entire 1st Century Christian movement. Well, maybe. But it seems highly unlikely to me, as a skeptic of such explanations, that it all can be attributed to erroneous memories being reinforced. This does not, of course, suggest that the stories told of Jesus are therefore the “Gospel truth” (pun intended) about a Person who was the Incarnate Son of God, as traditional Christian theology would have us accept. But it does to me suggest that there is more to what lies behind the Christian teachings than mere falsification of memory. In this sense, I feel the skeptics are “palming cards” – having set as the proper universe of discourse a worldview that accepts solely sensory evidence and authorities basing their concepts on purely sensory evidence, it often rejects any evidence which would presuppose something more than the world available to the senses (amplified, of course, by suitable detectors for things like infrared, gamma rays, sub- and supersonic vibrations, neutrinos, and so on) as “clearly erroneous.” In short, this is a form of circular reasoning, since in a purely mechanistic universe, any evidence tending to prove that the universe is not purely mechanistic is obviously misinterpreted, since it would disprove a purely mechanistic universe, which is a given. David, your definition of faith (p1 of the thread) may be the dictionary one, but it does not fit with the attitude toward faith of rational Christians (and, I would assume, other belief systems, but, following Izzy’s caveat, I will speak of the one I have some expertise in). May I ask your source dictionary, and whether other dictionaries suggest other definitions? One strong point here is that while many of the groups contained in the categories of my first paragraph solicit funds from the believer in one way or another, ranging from “free will donations” to the sale of supposedly efficacious things, there are those believers, of both my faith and others, who are sincerely focused on the search for truth and, in general, do not seek funds for anything, other than perhaps the betterment of humanity in measurable, acceptable ways (e.g., charitable activities for the poor). _I would challenge all the long-time members of this board_ (i.e., those sufficiently familiar with me and what I think to have grounds to form such a judgment) _to identify **one way** in which my faith (what I believe, not the group to which I belong) has in any way injured or impeded the rights of another._ ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/111 "2001-09-18T17:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > \*\*As tragic is this is, this is her choice. Feel free to attempt to expose such people to other alternatives, but remember, in the end - it _is_ the individual’s choice. > \*\* Well, of course this was that woman’s choice, but I wonder if the options were really presented to her. I don’t think these “alternative healers” said to her, “You have 2 choices. You can either have conventional treatment, which will give you about 70% of survival, or we can treat you using this alternative therapy, which hasn’t been scientifically tested, has never worked in the past, and will, in all likelihood, lead to you dying in agony as cancer takes over your body, but not before you first spend most of your money on this treatment.” I don’t think the woman was a “crackpot”, as you put it. She just decided that she’d prefer to believe in something unrealistic, because it gave her hope that she’d survive, rather than face the reality that she might die. She was neither a crackpot nor a bad person. She was, however, a victim of people who took her faith in them and abused it for their own personal gain, not caring if she lived or died, and if we as a society, and as individuals, can’t work against those people who, by force or fraud, prey on the weak, and the desperate, then we’ve failed as a society. BTW, as a side note, I think when you say “deist”, you mean “theist”. The deists as a whole probably would have come down on the side of the skeptics, because deism was an attempt to create a religion and moral philosophy based on the idea of rationality. Look, I don’t go around ripping astrology columns out of people’s hands. I’m a fan of fantasy novels, but I think that it can be dangerous when we’re not able to distinguish fantasy from reality, and when people believe stuff that’s not true. It’s always been one of my fantasies to be telekinectic…to be able to move things with my mind. That’s probably because I’m lazy, but I always thought it would be cool to shut doors across the room, or get a book off my shelf without going over there. I’d like somebody to be able to do it, and show me how, but, up to this point, nobody has done it or been able to prove it can be done. That’s all I’m asking, and I think that’s all anybody is asking…if you think the stars control our fates, if you think the world was created 6000 years ago, if you think aliens created the pyramids, if you think “whites” are inherently superior to "blacks, or “Aryans” to “Jews”, then prove it. That’s all skeptics ask. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/112 "2001-09-18T17:36:24Z")
Czarcasm said: > [@](#): > > DavidB, I believe I’ve got dibs on Hastur’s next response. How many times has he(and oh, so many others) thrown out the claim that there are “real” psychics out there? How many times have I asked, “O.K., could you please show me just one?”, without ever recieving an answer? OK, fine, you can have dibs on that one. But I suspect neither of us will be getting straight answers. Poly: Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition To whoever posted about **Quackwatch** – it’s not [quackwatch.org](http://quackwatch.org), it’s .com – some other, well, quacks have taken over the .org name because they know a lot of people will go there by accident. [The Real Quackwatch](http://www.quackwatch.com/) is here. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/113 "2001-09-18T17:58:30Z")
I wouldn’t hold my breath, **Czarcasm**. When Hastur posts about pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, the first thing that “falls through the cracks” in his responses is invariably _evidence_. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/114 "2001-09-18T18:58:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hastur \* > Well, this has already become pointless. > > jab1 and others like him have derailed the conversation to why skeptics get hostile and seem to need to be nasty in their skepticism and now it has become another rant against paranormal abilities. > > Thank you for injecting phrases like “crackpot” and being nasty. I was attempting to have a debate and discussion, and again I see that it is not possible on this board at this time. Hastur, Some of us are relentlessly plugging away politely. It’s a discussion board - you get all types here! It is certainly possible for you to continue to post to me, and here’s my latest reply. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hastur \* > I’ve only seen proof that there are some frauds, not that everyone who has seen or experienced such a thing is a fraud. A large difference, IMHO. OK, maybe every psychic isn’t a deliberate fraud. But none of them have any powers. So all psychics are mistaken or fraudulent. ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/115 "2001-09-18T19:24:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > > What if they’re a rapist? I mean, we don’t **know** , do we? :rolleyes: Give me a break, pl. This is about leaving someone alone with their own decisions. This isn’t about inviting (or not inviting) a spoon-bender you don’t know to stay overnight at your house. Too much to digest here, and I see I have successfully hijacked Hastur’s thread. (Sorry, Hastur!) I can’t remember all that you have written, and I have a limited amount of time. I will try to touch on several issues: I have said before, when someone makes claims to _you_ about what they believe, and are interesting in sharing with _you_ (and possibly attempting to influence you) they are welcoming your reaction. I am certainly not suggesting that you _shouldn’t_ discuss or argue with them. They have opened the conversation. Discuss, argue, debate away. They are inviting it, they have no reason to bitch because they don’t like the response they are getting to a conversation _they_ started. The kind of person I am thinking about is someone who seems relatively balanced, yet believes in something you don’t agree with - something “weird” and “crackpot”. They don’t ramble on and on about their particular “crackpot” belief (and I put that in quotes because I am being somewhat facetous with the term). They aren’t trying to persuade you to believe. They just may mention that _they_ believe. I think Abe has answered most of my questions and concerns on that area well enough - he certainly doesn’t advocate being a huge pain in the ass to these kind of people - people who are minding their own business. And I agree with this. That’s kind of been my main issue all along. I have seen too much of this “I’ll nag you to death for your own good” thinking going around. Too much busy-body intrusive **obnoxiousness** from people who are trying to “save” everyone, even people who are basically harmless, and minding their own business. (The issue of vegetarianism is the first thing that comes to mind - if you want to see any evidence of people pestering vegetarians, just search this board.) IRL, I have a friend who adheres to a certain religion where she won’t wear pants, or makeup. She has her kid home-schooled. Some people have pestered her about her “crackpot” ways. She’s made it clear, she’s not trying to convince anyone else to dress the way she dresses, or homeschool their kids. But _she_ wants to do this. (And yes, her kid is really smart and doing well.) But yet she gets pestered. I’ll also ramble and repeat - you can’t nag people to death, even for “their own good”. We all try to inform people of things we fear they don’t know, because we _care_. We all do this - I do the same thing with issues I feel are dire. But understand - there’s a certain point where you need to let it go. They have made their decision, they **know**. You can’t “save” every individual person who you feel is going down the wrong path. Any further attempt to “save” them will only be supremely irritating, and possibly make it worse. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/116 "2001-09-18T21:12:15Z")
As for the harmful effects of religion, we only have to look at the events of 9/11. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/117 "2001-09-18T21:57:56Z")
David B wrote: > [@](#): > > To whoever posted about **Quackwatch** – it’s not [quackwatch.org](http://quackwatch.org), it’s .com – some other, well, quacks have taken over the .org name because they know a lot of people will go there by accident. [The Real Quackwatch](http://www.quackwatch.com/) is here. Yikes! I must have gotten confused between [quackwatch.com](http://quackwatch.com) and [chirobase.org](http://chirobase.org), and reversed their top-level domains. I see the so-called [quackwatch.org](http://quackwatch.org) webpage has been taken over by chiropractors – who apparently still believe that chiropractic manipulation can cure deafness. ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/118 "2001-09-18T22:49:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **IRL, I have a friend who adheres to a certain religion where she won’t wear pants, or makeup. She has her kid home-schooled. Some people have pestered her about her “crackpot” ways. She’s made it clear, she’s not trying to convince anyone else to dress the way she dresses, or homeschool their kids. But _she_ wants to do this. (And yes, her kid is really smart and doing well.) But yet she gets pestered.** They’re probably worried about her child. Yeah, the kid is “really smart and doing well,” but how do you know the kid would not be doing even better at a public or private school? It isn’t just the education kids need, it’s the development of their social skills and you don’t get that being around Mom all day, you get by being around your peers. But they’re all in school, aren’t they? > [@](#): > > \*\*you can’t nag people to death, even for “their own good”. …there’s a certain point where you need to let it go. They have made their decision, they **know**. They “know” and yet they don’t believe? You tell someone about the dangers of smoking and yet they continue to smoke? What would you call someone who believes something in spite of contradictory facts? Irrational? Unreasonable? Do people really have the right to be irrational and/or unreasonable? And what about the effect that decision has on us, the ones giving the warnings? We talked to my father endlessly about his smoking. We kept asking him to stop and telling him about all that had been learned about how dangerous it is, especially if you smoked two to three packs a day like he did. He still refused to believe smoking was bad for _him_. He believed he had some sort of immunity to it because he had no symptoms of any illness. He died of a stroke, and strokes do happen more often to smokers than to non-smokers. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/119 "2001-09-18T23:11:43Z")
Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-skeptics-gain-by-trying-to-get-ppl-not-to-believe-in-religion-psychics-et-al/82118/120 "2001-09-18T23:49:09Z")
jab1 wrote: > [@](#): > > Do people really have the right to be irrational and/or unreasonable? Well … yes! They do! If I really really want to jump off a cliff tomorrow night, I should have the right to do so. It would be irrational for me to do so. It would be unreasonable for me to do so. My friends and family would probably feel a lot of grief if I did so. And if somebody talked me out of it, I would probably feel very glad a few days later that I didn’t jump off the cliff. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the _right_ to throw my life away. [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=5) [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=7)