Why can't so many sceptical people think for themselves?

Question

I find it very strange that when one asks a question say on a religious or mystical subject there are always these people who immediately tell you how gullible you are or that it is complete nonsense. Say for instance I want to talk about using magic for some goal or other. People immediately say that is nonsense. But almost always the people who say this have not put in any study on the subject. They dont know anything about how or why it may work. Sometimes these "sceptics" are even religious themselves and think people walk on water but magic is utter nonsense. Or for instance a subject like scrying immediately the response is that it is nonsense. But these "sceptics" have put no work or effort into understanding what it could be. I am sceptical myself and I think it is good to be sceptical. But one cannot make a statement if you have done no research on your own but simply BELIEVE other sceptic's claims. I prefer to find out things for myself and to delve into it.

I do apologize Paul I would be interested in reading your phd. dissertation, sounds interesting. Hope you still see this though. I was acting like a rabid religious person defending my beliefs. The very thing I dislike myself. Will leave it at that I dont know what else to say, sorry.

Thanks everyone for all the decent answers.

Answer 1

I'm sorry, but you can't in all honesty claim that one cannot believe something for which there is ample amounts of proof. I cannot do all the math behind Einsteinian Astro-Physics, but I believe it untill it's proven false. If/when that happens, the next best theory will take it's place and I will do my best to understand it like I did with it's predecessors. The point of science is that it is repeatable. If someone repeats an experiment in a lab I don't have access to, and says "Yep, X claim checks out," I'll have to trust them to some extent. If 50 people in 50 labs do the same thing (this is called peer review) I'll lend it even more credence. Direct experience cannot be the only qualifier for knowledge. Else how can we claim anything at all? Ever been in space? THen how do you know the world is round?

Doing research does (despite what you say) include reading peer review journals and making sense of it yourself. Any given fact can be observed in the right conditions, but many of us don't have cycletrons, so we'll have to trust those who do.

I can claim not to believe in magic because every time it has been tested it's come up short of expectations. That is not to say that there is any way it could ever be refuted completely, as proving a negative is impossible. I'll merely say that based on my research and studying of the problem, I find it unlikely. If I'm proven wrong, so much the better, but untill that happens I'll stick with what I can grasp.

I agree those who make an absolute claim that there is no possible way magic could work are going to far, well outside the perview of science. However, those who say that it is highly unlikely, those people have credence, as the evidence in trials has borne out their point of view.

Answer 2

" But almost always the people who say this have not put in any study on the subject. They dont know anything about how or why it may work. "

That's simply a lie. Did you do anything at all to check on the backgrounds of the people (me, for example) who pointed out your gullibility? No, of course you didn't. As it turns out, I've studied belief in magic for over 25 years, earning a Ph.D. as well as an M.A. with those studies.

And you're obviously not "sceptical".

Look, you made a set of ridiculous statements, and I pointed out that fact. Your problem was simply that you're too gullible - but now you've compounded that with arrogance and dishonesty. Don't be so childish - accept the fact that my response to your question hit the nail directly on the head. You, on the other hand, came back with an ignorant insult. You owe me an apology, kid.
----------------------------------------
Hey, Duck, long time no see.
==============================
(Later: )

Okay, thank you. My hat's off to you for being adult enough to apologize. We all make mistakes - only the best among us own up to them and apologize. Nicely done.

Answer 3

I think such sceptics DO think for themselves... but unfortunately, they do not realise that they are not replying the question of the one who asked the question in the first place.... like eg. a question about scrying... why reply with an answer if they dont believe? They are just being troublesome, bothersome and most of all meddlesome... thinking that by meddling into the affair of others without being asked, they are actting out as a hero...


The scientific sceptics are usually not too caustic with replies from reading their replies, they will most times supply you with facts and maybe...with what they think is a better alternative to mysticism which they do not believe exists... and MOST times will accept logical retorts with an open mind

It is in fact, USUALLY the ultra religious ones that are closed to any form input, will give you NO factual logical answer to their statement and will often than not, tell you to repent and scare you with brimstone and hellfire when all you actually asked in the post was...what kind of material or technique is best used for scrying....Duh!

Answer 4

Look it is simple to tell what I think in nonsense. I don't have the time to check out every absurd claim myself. So there is a real simple line where it should be looked into.

If you want to claim any evidence for magic (or anything else), all you need to do is get evidence that will pass peer review and appear in one of the several hundred scientific journals. I have looked at a lot of it, and that line has never been wrong.

What it comes down to is that if you want to claim something like that the burden is on YOU to provide evidence. It is not on ME to look at every claim that any idiot makes.

Answer 5

Thinking for yourself is an admirable trait to be sure. I do see one major problem if it is taken to an extreme. As a kid, you are told by your parents not to put fingers in electrical outlets, hot hot ovens, boiling water, etc. Of course we all had to find out for ourselves. But when it came to being careful crossing the street, most of us took our parents word for it. I once saw a little girl at a crosswalk, break free of both parents hand holding and run across the street. She was hit by a police car that broke her hip.

The point is sometimes we need to rely on the experience of others with wisdom. It saves us from much pain or even loss of life.

Your example of magic. Illusion, slight of hand tricks and the like are much fun and pleasure. Other things like spiritism, ouji boards, contacting the dead have big differences. The Bible and experiences of others shows grave dangers. There are real demons out there. Spirit creatures who prey upon man through these things. To listen and heed the warnings against these things is not being guible. There is a moving police car. Will you run in front of it?

Answer 6

Look, I do believe in Magic, Satin AND GOD. God created Satin to be His best friend, and Satin betayed Him. Satin created magic to DISTRACT YOU FROM GOD!!! Read the book of Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, and Acts. They will tell you the very strong before and after story of the struggle. I am not here to pick on you, but your statement had so many incorrect statements I don't even know where to start. I had about 5 years of non-belief where I wanted to try to see where magic could take me and MAN did I find out! That is why I am a very very strong Christian now. From eirther end of the scope, what you said doesn't make a lot of sence. Please re-read, come up with some sort of background of proof of what you are trying to say, and re-write it for the English speaking community to understand. Thank you.

Answer 7

that's because they think that they know everything there is to know about everything because of some silly book which talks of people walking on water....and yes,it's not only for mystical subjects..even regarding science..i mean there's nothing mystical about science..

you would think that if they really wanted to prove their point to people they'd ATLEAST have a BASIC understanding about whatever they're trying to argue about without portraying themselves as uneducated fools right?

but ohhh noo "do humans come from monkeys? if so why are there still monkeys?" sheeesh!

atleast keep their mouths shut if they know nothing about a subject ..but no,they have to SHOW the world how ignorant they are..

Answer 8

Its a remember of assertion technological awareness vs historic (commencing place) technological awareness. One is definitely technological awareness (observable, testable, repeatable) and the different isn't. We settle for genuine technological awareness. something belongs to historians. The above from between the answerers is prima facia information of the psychological dishonesty or loss of practise it fairly is invovled with YEC viewpoints. for sure-measuring -nuclear decay is a technological awareness which would be stated, is testable and repeatable. via measuring nuclear decay--and searching effects that are repeatable advert infinitum--we can then use that suggestions. because of the fact the decay cost is a relentless for all the a number of radionucleides--they are able for use for courting purposes. Has no longer something to do with historic previous--has to do with difficult observable repeatable technological awareness. all of us be conscious of previous a shadow of a doubt that the earth is minimally billions of years previous--there is no question from the scientific community in this situation. for this reason via accepting that that's observable and repeatable--the YEC place is punctiliously demolished. This additionally tells us the bible is allegorical--and not describing literal introduction. because of the fact all of us be conscious of the earth is billions of years previous--this provides credence to the fossil checklist--whether one believes in evolution or no longer--it does let us know that dinosaurs etc as quickly as roamed the earth thousands of thousands and thousands of years in the past. because of the fact taking the placement that they have confidence what's testable and verifiable--they had in the event that they have been intellectually truthful would desire to have confidence the bible is allegorical. If the bible is allegorical then for sure the introduction tale must be allegorical besides. on condition that--at a minimum via accepting difficult provable technological awareness they had would desire to have an open ideas on the certainly mechanism of how their deity positioned issues right here--and so ought to logically have an open ideas on evolution. As I stated the above positioned up for sure shows the psychological dishonesty of the believer--and the prospect of blind faith concept in bronze elderly mythology.

Answer 9

I am a skeptic who will try things out before I reject them. Believe me, I have been surprised many times that some things that seem hard to believe are real and true. I always laugh at myself.

Answer 10

Skeptics do not BELIEVE that something is NOT so.... they do NOT BELIEVE that something IS so.

There is a difference. Can you discern it?

Skeptics do not MAKE claims... they dismiss them.