Here is an example of what I might call the determined skeptic. In that, my opposition seems to be convinced that everything about the bible is "wrong" or disbelieves that I just want a discussion about morals mainly, and not the bible.
I propose that there are two kinds of skeptic:
1. The skeptic in search of the actual reality/truth to any given situation or Theory.
2. The skeptic who is the determined one. Who will disbelieve or try and use logic/refutations or anything possible, to try and show something as false, because of their discomfort with certain Theories/beliefs.
I would like to know which one you think you are. Would you be so brave as to accept a truth if it became highly probable and there was evidence?
I chose to show you that link because my honest intention was to simply discuss morality and have a bit of fun, but I seem to come across a lot of number twos.
Some people here I would say are number one though.
P.S. My link may not be the best example of skepticism, but hey, I was in a rush.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-08-2004 07:50 PM
Yeah, I see what you mean, that mike T.W. is one determined skeptic.
Seriously, a quick perusal of the thread was not revealing as to how it constitutes a good example of a determined skeptic. This topic seems pretty promising, but if you wouldn't mind, could you improve the writing just a bit, especially the characterizations in points 1 and 2 since they're key to the topic, and also describe what it is about that other thread that makes it a good example of a determined skeptic (notice that I use the correct spelling, the American one - seriously, I see so much informal writing now from the former British empire that a lot of the spelling is starting to look normal to me).
I also propose a title change to"What type of skeptic are you?"
I like to think of myself as extremely close-minded, but in my darkest moments I have to be honest with myself, and admit that I'm just seeking the truth.
I'm sorry, I just thought someone should give a different answer, since everyone's going to consider themselves to be number 1 no matter what.
"He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low. But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected." -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I think that it may be impossible to put oneself in either category. If you are determined enough, you can delude yourself into thinking that you are seeing both sides of an issue. I think of myself as a very open-minded, undetermined skeptic, but I could be wrong. The way I check myself is by comparing my views to reality. If my assertions are reflected by observations, then I no I am at least striving to be an accurate skeptic. In the end, I think it is society as a whole who decides which category a certain person falls into, not the skeptic themselves.
I seek more input from more members, but thanks to everyone so far.
Loudmouth has came close to the meat of this. How many of us here (evolutionists) would actually delude themselves into saying that they would give any creationist Theory the time of day? Be honest, you enjoy refuting that which you earnestly disagree with, YES -- disagree with. Is that your motivation?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even against the "e" anymore, I'm just Christian, so I see both sides a bit more clear. But I am confident in my mind, that some here are so against the other side that they would refute truths even if they knew it was truth. And don't lie, because I've done it myself. Go on, you know it, some issues you would go against as you are simply "for" them whether they are true or not.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-08-2004 09:10 PM
I doubt all things and I consider everything that I can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel to be suspect because I really have no way to know if I am experiencing reality or I am trapped in a delusional state of mind. To me, there is truth, but I can never get my hands on it. For all I know, I could currently tied to a bed in Elgin Mental Institute thinking that I am a college student who is studying physics and actively participate in athletic, philosophical, and many other fun events.
Since my senses are all that I could depend on to best evaluate reality (just for the sake of everyday life), I consider all spiritual thoughts that I have questionable enough to not be bothered with. This is the reason why I rejected all religious beliefs that I had.
Before my junior year in high school, I was a hard-core christian fundi that was always ready to argue with the biology teachers on evolution, history teachers on certain consistencies (or inconsistencies) with the bible, geology teacher on dates and datings, and my classmates (who I realized nowadays that they were way smarter than me) on religious issues. I actually went around and told my muslim friends that they were going to hell if they didn't convert.
Anyway, back to the subject. Since I can't actually know (meaning I have to be able to show at least 10 other people and all 10 of them come to the same conclusion as I did) about anything, I fail to see the point in trying to find "truth".
If I get abducted by aliens tonight, I absolutely will not expect or require anyone else to believe me. In fact, I will gracefully talk to an apropriate figure regarding this little experience I have. Unlike fundies, I consider personal evidence to be the worst kind of evidence. What's the point of evidence if you can't show it to anyone else?
With all the junk that I wrote above, I don't know how to classify myself between your 2 choices.
To me, there is truth, but I can never get my hands on it. For all I know, I could currently tied to a bed in Elgin Mental Institute thinking that I am a college student who is studying physics and actively participate in athletic, philosophical, and many other fun events.
Yet you probably are the latter, and would know so through the testimony of others, and independent verification. I myself, know that you are evolutionist and your opinions match with science. So, personally, I would say you are number 1 without realizing it. Because you do support that which is independently verified through scientific processes and logic. So, in a way - you are seeking truth/reality more than the number 2 skeptic, in that, you are not willing to take your own senses as valid in search of the actual reality. Your example of aliens also shows us that you wouldn't be willing to take that as true, in favour of reality/verification. I also would refuse to believe that this abduction was reality. But I would do so because of my disagreement with the whole ufo thing, making me the number 2 skeptic. Also, the fact that you are willing to rid what you yourself sense, rules out that you are a number 2. For number 2 skeptic is dedicated to his own opinion.