Who is the biggest fanatic?

[manxman]

and dodgy debunking links do what exactly for a thread ?.

and yes i will keep on and on until i get an answer.

 

[boomerang]

It's a bit of a trick question. The underlying psychology of the true believer and the utterly closed minded is much the same. Both are systems based on defending an inner conviction regardless of evidence. This is why the polar opposite of iron clad religious faith is not atheism. It is more closely agnosticism (whether the questions are religious or otherwise). True belief and abiding disbelief are often mirror images of the same world view.

 

[manxman]

ofcourse it is boomerang, you get nowhere fighting woo with quasi science woo, when both opposite extremes collide, the sheer lack of integrity is shameful, i/we need to be able to trust those that do the science, to not deceive us, due to their personal bias's, then have that deception echoed by an army of useful idiots on either side of the divide.

[ useful idiot is a CIA term for an unwitting propagandist, the perfect breeding ground for this type of useful idiot are so called sceptical forums, like randies, or the opposit like ike's, where they can be honed to almost a cult ]

 

[Burnt State]

and dodgy debunking links do what exactly for a thread ?.

and yes i will keep on and on until i get an answer.

ok, it's actually getting boring now - what actual link are you talking about? The links posted in the other thread i suspect you are talking about from Skeptical Science regarding climate change and climate denial are a consensus science discussion set that is pretty much the best of what there's to offer when trying to weed through the many climate denial folk out there. Have you actually looked at who the team of contributors are and what they do for a living? I really think you are little offbeat here.

 

[Burnt State]

It's a bit of a trick question. The underlying psychology of the true believer and the utterly closed minded is much the same. Both are systems based on defending an inner conviction regardless of evidence. This is why the polar opposite of iron clad religious faith is not atheism. It is more closely agnosticism (whether the questions are religious or otherwise). True belief and abiding disbelief are often mirror images of the same world view.

I've seen/heard fanatics in all four areas speak, and they each truly inhabit their own reality that is quite separate and uniquely apart from most of mainstream society. I think if it wasn't for the rabid, incessant mockery from the skeptical camp they could almost seem a lot more reasonable than the other three areas. Though each i suppose has it's own way of characterizing the non-believer.

I think the better question would have been to ask, "Who has the most fanatics," as the absolutism of this question doesn't allow for any latitudes within each field which is quite silly of me actually. But i do recognize that in each field there a wide range of belief systems and purposes to belief. What i'm curious about is which field is most likely to produce that individual overridden by emotion who is most likely to step into the centre of the crowd and yell, "Burn the witch!!" That really takes a special kind of person and a special kind of belief system to move towards fanaticism. Maybe the better question is which field does the most damage and disruption socially? Though that's a whole other kettle of fish, perhaps that's getting closer to what i'm asking about.

There's also something in here about how belief systems will create destabilized cult like individuals who will drag others into suicide. Do skeptics and conspiracists do that sort of thing too, i wonder?

 

[manxman]

ok, it's actually getting boring now - what actual link are you talking about? The links posted in the other thread i suspect you are talking about from Skeptical Science regarding climate change and climate denial are a consensus science discussion set that is pretty much the best of what there's to offer when trying to weed through the many climate denial folk out there. Have you actually looked at who the team of contributors are and what they do for a living? I really think you are little offbeat here.

no im talking about your constant links to ufo debunks from dyed in the wool debunkers who are bereft of a scintilla of intellectual integrity, with just as much woo in them as in phychic weekly.

remember mick west link, and his 2000 word debunk, all based on this in his second sentence.

What we are seeing here are individual pixels from a low resolution image, which have been greatly enlarged and filtered in a way that gives this grid-like effect. All it took was a few pixels in the right place to give this effect.

that was plain and simply deception right from the get go.

it was hi res film, out of a high res camera, experts do not make that kind of error, it was complete bs, as was anything else he went on to say all 2000 words of it, all based on that lie, i would like to say error but he plainly tries to decieve..

im prepared to accept you didnt notice, only you make a habit of it.

 

[Burnt State]

no im talking about your constant links to ufo debunks from dyed in the wool debunkers who are bereft of a scintilla of intellectual integrity, with just as much woo in them as in phychic weekly.

remember mick west link, and his 2000 word debunk, all based on this in his second sentence.

What we are seeing here are individual pixels from a low resolution image, which have been greatly enlarged and filtered in a way that gives this grid-like effect. All it took was a few pixels in the right place to give this effect.

that was plain and simply deception right from the get go.

it was hi res film, out of a high res camera, experts do not make that kind of error, it was complete bs, as was anything else he went on to say all 2000 words of it, all based on that lie, i would like to say error but he plainly tries to decieve..

im prepared to accept you didnt notice, only you make a habit of it.

Ok, i searched your quote in bold. You do realize that i do not even have a post on the the thread that you are referring to, right? Are you hallucinating? I've got better questions than that to ask you but that will do for now.

 

[manxman]

Ok, i searched your quote in bold. You do realize that i do not even have a post on the the thread that you are referring to, right? Are you hallucinating? I've got better questions than that to ask you but that will do for now.

only you said the climate thread not me, it was only 3 days ago now that you posted the mick west link, and that really does show you didnt even scan it before posting, how the feck could you forget that if you knew him to start with, you didnt know him, but 2000 words later you certainly would remember him, if you had read it, it was in the soft landing thread.

so its obvious now that you are on a mission.
and your trickster jibes are telling them here what you are about, and you do think they are too stupid to 'get it'

 

[Burnt State]

only you said the climate thread not me, it was only 3 days ago now that you posted the mick west link, and that really does show you didnt even scan it before posting, how the feck could you forget that if you knew him to start with, you didnt know him, but 2000 words later you certainly would remember him, if you had read it, it was in the soft landing thread.

so its obvious now that you are on a mission.
and your trickster jibes are telling them here what you are about, and you do think they are too stupid to 'get it'

you need to get yourself to that thread and look through it.

 

[manxman]

i dont need to do anything his debunk was based solely on a 100% false assumption, i dont care about '' is it a craft or isnt is '' i care about fighting woo with woo, i care about a wolf presenting itself in sheeps clothing and ripping the piss out of everyone here until they catch on, whilst you go quietly about your business of trying to dampen any UFO threads down with your scrag-end debunking links...

 

[Burnt State]

for the last time. i have not posted in the soft landing thread that you are referring to. you are starting to destabilize once again over something that i have not posted so please get a grip young fellow and straighten yourself out. i don't quite understand your confusion as my icon is pretty well defined as is my name. the post you are talking about has nothing to do with me. get it together already.

 

[smcder]

This forum has been an interesting place of competing ideologies, though i think most of the religious believers were chased away, but we still clearly have the voices of the paranormal believer, the skeptic, the conspiracist and everyone inbetween. I'm curious to know who you think is the biggest zealot. Who is the most likely to spew uninformed nonsense based purely on emotion and conviction, selective facts, repeated unconfirmed information or their version of science?

From my vantage point the four areas i've outlined shake down as follows:

a) The skeptical debunker loves to use science and Occam as a hammer, and sometimes will discredit or ignore real information for the sake of a clearly rational worldview where nothing magical ever happens. They rarely admit to their own misgivings and like to protect their own.

b) The faith based religious believer who might ignore any bit of science in favour of their imaginary god as blind faith rules their world and everyone else is going to hell, or something like that.

c) The paranormal/ufo believer believes every odd bright light in the sky comes from outer space, ghosts and evp's are everywhere - you're just not looking/listening carefully enough they say, and yes, demons and angels are entirely real.

d) The conspiracist thinks that 911 was an inside job, humans have nothing to do with global warming and JFK's dog was in cahoots with the driver to shoot him dead. Everywhere there is a chemtrail causing cancer for these folk as their facts get pulled out of thin air.

We've had some very interesting battles here on the forum and any longtime forum reader knows that there have been some threads that have been all out battles of the uninformed, the believers, the skeptics and the exasperated on a variety of topics. But who is the most fanatic of all and most likely to promote a viewpoint based on weak information or pure emotion simply for the sake of proving their point?

though i think most of the religious believers were chased away

don't worry - you haven't gotten rid of all of them! ;-)

 

[Burnt State]

well i'm certainly working on keeping my faith in humanity's ability to reason at the moment.

but you know, i do feel bad about the religious folk - as they were openly mocked on a high order, and i wonder about that as a position on its own. but i guess when you see things one way, others are not just impossible, perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened? whenever a person has conviction over something and it is debunked it's not pretty; its equally impossible a feeling i suppose.

 

[smcder]

well i'm certainly working on keeping my faith in humanity's ability to reason at the moment.

but you know, i do feel bad about the religious folk - as they were openly mocked on a high order, and i wonder about that as a position on its own. but i guess when you see things one way, others are not just impossible, perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened? whenever a person of conviction over something is debunked it's not pretty; its equally impossible a feeling i suppose.

Thomas Moore defined religion as "any creative and concrete response to the mysteries we encounter in our regular, everyday lives" - in the interview I posted on the magic thread, he discusses, with integrity, mystery and religion - in a very interesting way, it's worth listening too. Houston Smith is a reasonable (as in a man of reason, not in the pejorative sense of "reasonable") and religious man as is Charles Taylor. Karen Armstrong is also a strong voice. Faith and doubt have a long history in common - strongest, perhaps, when they occur in the same person.

perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened?

I think so, any position can be held to for dear life. My favorite literary example is Bulkington in Moby Dick.

 

[smcder]

well i'm certainly working on keeping my faith in humanity's ability to reason at the moment.

but you know, i do feel bad about the religious folk - as they were openly mocked on a high order, and i wonder about that as a position on its own. but i guess when you see things one way, others are not just impossible, perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened? whenever a person has conviction over something and it is debunked it's not pretty; its equally impossible a feeling i suppose.

perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened?

Someone pointed out to me that people will use the form of intimidation on others that they find most intimidating - and this has proven true enough to be useful in many situations.

Skeptics in the sense of what I have seen on the JREF forum and when I read Skeptical Inquirer years ago (things haven't changed much), Martin Gardner (who was a philosophical deist, by the way), CSICOP, etc use (and, if the above principle is true, greatly fear) ridicule, perhaps above all else.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

So, what does it say of those who make every conceivable effort to be understood and to bring every thought in line with some over-arching set of principles so that the motions of their minds (and therefore the world around them) is predictable?

But, I am off-topic!

 

[manxman]

A better description of how this is likely fake Debunked: Alien Base on the Moon, Triangle of Dots [photo artifact] | Metabunk

burnt state you are correct, and i apologise hand on heart, i genuinely do, you were right i should of went back and checked, then i would not have made a c@@t out of myself, i wont edit my postings, unless you want me to, they will stay as permanent reminder of how i feel now, be lucky.

 

[Burnt State]

Thomas Moore defined religion as "any creative and concrete response to the mysteries we encounter in our regular, everyday lives" - in the interview I posted on the magic thread, he discusses, with integrity, mystery and religion - in a very interesting way, it's worth listening too. Houston Smith is a reasonable (as in a man of reason, not in the pejorative sense of "reasonable") and religious man as is Charles Taylor. Karen Armstrong is also a strong voice. Faith and doubt have a long history in common - strongest, perhaps, when they occur in the same person.

perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened?

I think so, any position can be held to for dear life. My favorite literary example is Bulkington in Moby Dick.

I will listen to that as i was very taken by the gentle poetry on the site - some very nice internal dwelling there. You made me start thinking about Thomas Aquinas who a friend who was entering the priesthood introduced me to years ago. He explained to me that his God did not want a blind believer but someone who knew implicitly, with all the possible reason mustered from one's own critical faculties why God did exist. I was fascinated by this type of conversation - was it possible to use reason to become a spiritual and devout Catholic? This was unheard of for the most part in my RC upbringing.

The other things this faith and doubt conversation reminds me was in a theology class i took where the theologian explained to me one night that those people who are thinking about suicide, who are on the edge of their life - those most vulnerable, lonely and doubtful, they are the ones closest to God and in sheer terror and personal destabilization to be in the presence of the almighty who cares so deeply for his lost child. For a believer those are heavy, beautiful words. For the angry atheist them's fightin' words.

Thank you for posting the literary example as is not the entire literary canon replete with such characters whose convictions run them up against the philosophies of others, or must deconstruct the philosophy that they were programmed with in childhood? If I could I would share this book with you, The Little Girl Who Was Too Fond of Matches (i know the title is reminiscent of Steig's stuff but it has absolutely nothing to do with that trilogy):

Here's an excellent review of this short piece of fiction from Quebec. It is a gothic horror, philosophical tour de force examination of gender, madness and there's even a ghost sequence. I think you would enjoy it quite a bit. Review of The Little Girl Who Was Too Fond of Matches by Gaétan Soucy , Sheila Fischman, trans. | Quill & Quire

 

[Burnt State]

burnt state you are correct, and i apologise hand on heart, i genuinely do, you were right i should of went back and checked, then i would not have made a c@@t out of myself, i wont edit my postings, unless you want me to, they will stay as permanent reminder of how i feel now, be lucky.

but this is a forum and we should try not to let emotion get into our discussions, though we are all guilty of that, well everyone except smcder because he has superhuman patience.

so all i can say is that there are always lessons. the one i often have to learn the most is to look before i leap and so it goes. i try to think about my betters around here whenever i feel like i'm losing it and think about what they would do and respond in kind. be well and be considerate of others. i'm still working on that one myself.

 

[manxman]

i feel bad because fecked up, and i stopped any attempt at being nice when i thought you were selling us short, i care about the integrity of UFO discussion, i despise the way the sides have become entrenched, and we in the middle have to sift excrement from both sides to get any sense out of the subject, i dont apologise for caring, i do deeply apologise for the hounding ive put you thru totally unnecessarily tho.

 

[Burnt State]

perhaps the skeptic feels entirely uncomfortable with such thoughts, like their very being is threatened?

Someone pointed out to me that people will use the form of intimidation on others that they find most intimidating - and this has proven true enough to be useful in many situations.

Skeptics in the sense of what I have seen on the JREF forum and when I read Skeptical Inquirer years ago (things haven't changed much), Martin Gardner (who was a philosophical deist, by the way), CSICOP, etc use (and, if the above principle is true, greatly fear) ridicule, perhaps above all else.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

So, what does it say of those who make every conceivable effort to be understood and to bring every thought in line with some over-arching set of principles so that the motions of their minds (and therefore the world around them) is predictable?

But, I am off-topic!

Not off topic at all, as it is that indomitable conviction that we hold that defines who we are. Sometimes you get a Tesla out of this and other times you get someone on a streetcorner on a box with a megaphone. Can we separate one from the other? One man's god is another's trash heap. It is in the spirit of conviction that destabilizes that i ask the question and what is the impact of those on their own fields, and how do those looking in from the outside perceive the whole of the field as a result?

I hung out a little in skeptical circles for a while and i just could not deal with the constant mockery, as manxman points out above. Now i personally thing that the skeptic has a critical role to play and i just wish they would do it without rubbing people's nose in it, especially when we are talking about fields mostly concerned with the intangible. Should we get that excited about that, about possible trace evidence? crop circles? Well, then people get really excited about god so…

Here's a link to the first forty pages of that book: The Little Girl who was Too Fond of Matches: A Novel - Gaétan Soucy - Google Books