Hastur wrote:
Well, ya gotta admit, the guy SPOOFE was asking (in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88501) did seem to be rather … prudish.
I would like to know why you interpret skepticism as criticism.
But I’ll tell you why I sometimes react the way I do: It’s the frustration from asking people questions (the same questions over and over, ad infinitum) and getting evasive replies (“Well I can’t demonstrate it to a disbeliever. Your disbelief would ruin the magic.”), no replies, or outright lying.
It’s the sometimes hostile response I get when I tell someone (only when they ask) that I am an atheist. (A man displayed the utmost contempt for me when I told him, saying atheists don’t believe in anything. I told him I believed a lot of things, but that I just didn’t believe that the Bible is the word of God. A woman overheard me and made a cross with her hands like she was trying to ward off Dracula.)
Hastur, surely there are some things you don’t believe? Surely there are some things so outrageous you would be unable to respect those who believe them. For example, you don’t believe the Apollo program was a hoax, right? Wouldn’t a person who believes Apollo was a hoax deserve ridicule and name-calling? They surely do not deserve respect.
But you’re still singing the same old tune. Tone has nothing to do with it.
:rolleyes: So? What does that have to do with your behavior?
Snidely? I suggest you look up the word “snide” sometime.
Neither did Dr. Seuss.
It IS whining when you’re constantly going on and on and ON about how some people are less-than-cordial. You must have mentioned it a half-dozen times in this thread alone, while ignoring most of the questions and requests posed to you. In fact, all you’ve done so far is toss out a name that can be a complete fabrication.
In fact, you have a tendency to make a LOT of excuses for yourself, none of which can be checked on. How convenient, don’t you think?
Ha. You’re just a broken record. You use the same excuses every time you’re confronted on your BS.
I’ve had one Pit thread that quickly died. You’ve had three that went on for pages. It seems that your knee-jerk hyperbole is as strong as ever.
If you don’t think I changed, then you obviously haven’t been paying attention. If you hadn’t noticed, I have tried to give you another chance… several times. In this thread alone, I started out by trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Yet you keep proving yourself to be deluded and unwilling to treat other people with a single shred of respect. You keep proving that you don’t want to debate… you want to keep making your terse little comments and then making a hasty retreat. You want to ignore the requests for evidence of your outrageous claims, and then whine when people don’t accept the scant bits you toss to them. And when all that is done, you act as you accuse others of acting.
I’ll believe you’ve changed when I see proof of it. Quite a fitting request for this particular thread, I believe.
You got it.
As for those who do it even though they know how dangerous it is, I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude that they are suicidal. I find it interesting that people will try to stop someone from killing themselves with a gun or drugs or jumping, but they will permit someone to kill themselves by eating too much or drinking too much. Is it because the involvement necessary to stop the latter is just too great?
Wouldn’t you think someone who ate nothing but meat to be irrational, perhaps even suicidal?
There are PITA’s everywhere. You can’t hope that you’ll never encounter one or do away with them all. You can’t let them get you down.
Sorry if I’ve ever been a PITA.
Well, then, I get to decide for myself what is unreasonable or irrational.
How about assuming that a skeptic is more likely to be rational? (And I don’t recall any skeptic (even James Randi or Cecil) saying all skeptics are necessarily rational.)
I certainly do and I wish people would not take them. But my objections are more toward the so-called “War on Drugs” which has not accomplished its goals and has instead eroded our civil liberties and is a total waste of time, personnel and taxes.
No. It isn’t.
Hastur,
My determination to stay polite within your thread is as strong as ever.
You answered some other people, so perhaps you missed my shortish post above.
(I was asking about how you assessed your psychic Tarot reader at 70% accuracy, and whether you could do a reading over the Web).
Looking forward to your reply.
I’m having trouble grasping the context of this debate. When I saw “skeptics” in the thread title, I thought of people who take that position in public debates–however informal–such as here on the Web, on TV etc. Yet Yosemitebabe’s beef is that people in her personal life are queing up to cajole her about her privately held beliefs and lifestyle choices. I would like to think that most people know that it’s very impolite to persist in criticizing an individual’s religious beliefs. There are plenty of exeptions, as YB can attest, but to what extent is this a society-wide problem involving political groups?
If the context is the ongoing public debate over the Issues, I would still like some assessment as to how much of the feedback from skeptics could be characterized as “obnoxious” or “venomous”. This should be easier to document.
All movements have their extremists. It’s important to understand their extent before representatives of one overall group can charactererize another group along those lines.
Sorry. I have to say it, but I find that a little scary.
So. How far do you take this? You see a fat person choosing regular Coke instead of Diet Coke, do you try to intervene? After all, this person is obviously overweight, which can lead to dire health consquences, therefore they are…SUICIDAL!!! I mean, really. How far do you take it?
It’s probably because almost NO ONE is exempt from some form of risky or self-destructive behavior. Do you really intend to “save” everyone from everything?
Don’t excercise enough? SUICIDAL! Eat too many fatty foods? SUICIDAL! Live in a smoggy town? SUICIDAL! Work in a bar where there is a lot of second-hand smoke? SUICIDAL! Go over the speed limit? SUICIDAL!!! I mean, I am sure you could find studies to prove that people who live in a smoggy town have a higher risk of whatever, or that if you go over the speed limit, you risk more accidents, or whatever. So how far do you take this, anyway?
Give me a break.
No, I’m not saying any of these things are great. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t mention something, and make sure people know of their risks. But come on. I’m sure if I could delve into your daily life, jab, I could find something potentially SUICIDAL about your behavior. Maybe you drink milk past the expiration date, or something. I’m sure if enough of us looked closely enough at your life, we could find something.
LIVING is one huge risk. I mean - why don’t we just all carry it that far? Why don’t we scrutinize each other to death, and find out what we can nag each other about? It will all be in the name of “saving” a life, so it’s really OK!
Once again, give me a freakin’ break.
I’d think they were an idiot, I’d make sure they knew the risks, but I’d ultimately leave them alone. I’ve encountered eating problems in myself, and in other people. Trust me. NAGGING RARELY WORKS. It usually backfires and makes the person more resolved to not bend.
But, by all means - nag away to people about their eating problems, or whatever. You’ll be as popular as a telemarketer, I frickin’ guarantee.
I can complain about them. Just like I complain about telemarketers. Doesn’t mean that I think they’ll go away, but I sure as hell am not going to take such irritants patiently.
I appreciate that you’ve said that. Really. I’m sure I’m a PITA too sometimes. No one is exempt.
But you don’t necessarily get to decide for everyone else. That’s the whole point. What may seem “irrational” to you may work just perfectly for them. You are ultimately only in control of yourself, and your own choices. As much as you may wish to do so, you can’t control other people, and you can’t twist their arms and try to get them to agree to your idea of “rational”. It just doesn’t work that way.
I am sorry, I’m past the point of “assuming” anyone is “more rational” at this point. OK, call me a “skeptic”, but I would need some proof that they are acting “rational”! 
No, I know that not all skeptics are intrusive and busy-bodies. I don’t even think that the concept of “skeptics” is bad, when done rightly. I think people should be informed of their options. I know I’ve asked for “proof” on some things myself. (I’ve done this with my mom, the Crackpot Queen.)
I just sort of got on a tangent. I see this “I am intervening in your life for your own good” (or “I just want you to think”) thing taken way too far. And I’ve seen people assume that just because you mention that you believe in a particular religion, or refuse to eat meat, that you have invited a debate. I don’t think it works that way. Saying “I adhere to this religion” or “I’m a vegetarian” is NOT automatically an invitation for a question-and-answer session, or a debate. And I’ve seen it argued (on this board, actually) that it should be. I guess I’ve had my fill of it.
And another thing - the more I think of it, the more I suspect that there is some sort of double-standard when it comes to illicit drug use. Not with everyone, (like jab). But I just don’t see the outcry against drug use like I see against “crackpot” cures. Smells like a double standard to me. Hmmmm.
You know, I made this quip on another thread on another board…
What if someone replaces a psychic’s suite of tarot cards with a deck that has 52 (or however many) of the exact same card?
Or in other words, what is someone in some way has tampered with the cards, would you ever realize it? (Less obviously than than by replacing it with the same exact card.) Would future readings from that deck be contaminated? WOuld it even make a difference, or are the cards immaterial to this alleged power?
Here’s a great idea, Hastur. Why don’t you bring your psychic friend to the Second Annual Scotch Egg Fest at the Horse Brass Pub, 4pm Saturday the 29th of September? Friendly atmosphere, witnesses, and I’ll buy you your first scotch egg! 
Good God - you people have a scotch egg festival?! What - are they rare over there or something? Do you place them on velvet cushions? Do you juggle with them, caress and nuture them?
Now I’ve heard everything
pan
Hastur said:
Hmmm. Care to point out where I, in particular, have done any of these things here?
And yet, I’m still waiting for a response from you.
You’re going to be waiting for a while yet.
I’ve finally accomplished reading this thread so I can post to it. To get y’all back, I’m writing a novel here.
It’s important to distinguish between claims that can be tested by science (falsifiable) and those that can’t (nonfalsifiable). If lilac leaf tea cures cancer, science can test it, but science can’t prove the lilac fairies don’t exist. Religion can’t be tested by science, so it’s largely outside the skeptics’ criticism. Specific religious claims are falsifiable.
I live in a neck of the woods where skepticism is despised. I never mention- even when asked- that I’m an atheist to any but my closest friends. Although the atmosphere is rather extreme here, we all live in a culture of credulty. The scientific method is misunderstood (here, science is akin to Satanism because everyone knows scientists are evil, stupid folk who want everyone to stop believing in God) and reason isn’t taught well enough in schools to help children learn to make rational decisions.
Life is all about decisions, from what shoes to wear this morning to your marriage partner to which religion to believe. Decisions are best made when the person is well-informed and knows how to use at least rudimentary logic. Instead, we teach our kids to “follow their hearts”. Unfortunately, the best choices aren’t always the easy, feel-good ones. Should you have sex with your boyfriend? Do what feels right. Is this the right and true religion? It is if you feel it in your heart. Did NASA scientists really find the missing day? Of course; your friend told you. (Recently I overheard a woman telling her friend about NASA’s missing day; they both accepted the truth of the story with absolutely no question.)
Too many people ignore reason and and simply believe what they want to be true. They’re very susceptible to the beliefs of those around them because they’re unable to determine truth or falsehood for themselves.
We’re surrounded by credulty. Every newspaper carries a horoscope; my local paper carries a separate one for children. Catalogs carry ads for magnetic bracelets. Grocery stores have expanded their “health” isles to include a fantastic array of cure-all herbs. My sister-in-law tries to pressure me into going to her church to have my lupus healed by a laying-on of hands. I was appalled by the front page article in the local paper (slow news day) about dowsing. This article went on for 2 or 3 pages, extolling the ability of the area’s dowsers. The only attempt at examining the truth went something like this:
‘Some people believe dowsing doesn’t really work, but Farmer Brown stated, “Mr. Dowser found me a well on the first try, and we only had to dig a hundred feet!”’ This is accompanied by a photo of the smiling farmer beside his new well.
In my view, of course everyone should be free to believe what they wish. What hacks me is the lack of perspective, the lack of education. When both sides are not presented and people don’t know how to evaluate the evidence, how can they make a well-informed decision on anything? IMHO, credulty is dangerous because ignorance is easy, and contagious. Jumping on another person’s throat to criticize a belief is not a good method to promote skepticism, but it’s understandable that we get impatient sometimes.
What’s “NASA’s missing day”?
Hastur, heard anything from your psychic friend about meeting me, perhaps at the Scotch Egg Fest next Saturday?
SPOOFE wrote:
Why, the day NASA faked the moon landings, of course. 
<ducking and running>
Muchas grassy-ass, Mr. Green.
Kein problem, Herr Diddley.