who is the 'believer'?

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 1:11am #1

This argument is framed between the serious paranormal researcher (along the lines of the TAPS Family as any groups in that are vetted by an outside collection of people) and the skeptic who frequents this forum.

I dont mean those people who believe everything paranormal they're told - we all know they arent being logical. It doesnt refer to mediums/psychics etc either - who if they do exist I believe they're as rare as hens teeth - as there are too many fakes around. Its way easier to find a fake than a real one and we all know that.

Ever see how its meant to be that 'paranormal researchers' 'believe' in something and the skeptics (as defined by this forum) don't?

Isnt it strange that in the real world, most paranormal researchers I know neither believe or disbelieve in 'ghosts' etc. It could go either way therefore they don't have a 'belief' as such. (considering we dont understand enough about the 'paranormal' now).

On the other hand, the skeptics 'believe' the paranormal is rubbish - they are convinced that the paranormal cant be real. Therefore, arent they the ones who 'believe' in something and the paranormal researchers don't?

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 1:32am

You should go for a nobel prize in blabber.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 1:36am

if i was you, i'd concentrate on boosting the skeptical argument. You arent that great at sarcasim.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 1:48am

I was serious, ud be deadly

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 11:38am

thank god there actually is an ignore button.

Oryx · 30-01-2009 11:49am

iamhunted wrote: »

thank god there actually is an ignore button.

You can always report a post you think is offensive or trollish.

I hope Im allowed to comment here, being as Im from the section that 'believes' in hens teeth.

I will qualify that by saying that I too think a hell of a lot of em are fake. But from what Ive seen, theres also a hell of a lot in that area that warrants research. Please dont diss an area you dont understand in the same way you complain of being dissed yourself.

I think there is no such thing (ideally anyway) as a clearly defined barrier between 'us' and 'them' as in sceptics and believers. We all exist in a kind of grey area where you accept some things, question others and leave certain things open to argument. Anyone who believes everything they are told is either certifiable or aged 3.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 12:08pm

im not dissing anything - im just saying that mediums and psychics are much much rarer than society gives a standard for.

Oryx · 30-01-2009 12:28pm

iamhunted wrote: »

im not dissing anything - im just saying that mediums and psychics are much much rarer than society gives a standard for.

I just think too many people see it as a licence to mug the vulnerable and print money, so it sucks in the fraudsters. Its when you work with genuine folk that you see that its an intriuging and widespread field, and not restricted to a few elevated 'special' people.

But not to hijack your thread. We have common ground, now back to your topic.

Lucas10101 · 30-01-2009 12:28pm

iamhunted wrote: »

Ever see how its meant to be that 'paranormal researchers' 'believe' in something and the skeptics (as defined by this forum) don't?

Isnt it strange that in the real world, most paranormal researchers I know neither believe or disbelieve in 'ghosts' etc. It could go either way therefore they don't have a 'belief' as such. (considering we dont understand enough about the 'paranormal' now).

On the other hand, the skeptics 'believe' the paranormal is rubbish - they are convinced that the paranormal cant be real. Therefore, arent they the ones who 'believe' in something and the paranormal researchers don't?

I am a skeptic.

You are the "believer" as belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not susceptible to rigorous proof. It refers to the faith that the actual believer has.

Don't confuse this with the other definition of believe- which would be trust & confidence. I'd say I don't believe, or I don't have trust in the methods, second-hand statements etc. of the believers.

So when I refer to you having belief, it refers to the absence of evidence you have, but YET still believe. Whereas I see the lack of evidence, and don't trust those who claim who do, and so would not believe.

I think you've created a question that was never asked nor requires an answer.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 12:46pm

quite on the contrary. I believe its a question you just cant answer.

Telling me you are the skeptic and I am the believer isnt anwsering my question. I dont 'believe' in the paranormal as I dont have the required information. I wont close myself off to the idea of it though as a) Im a skeptic at heart and not to be open would be cynical and b) i also dont have the information to say the paranormal cant exist. there fore, as I stated before, I cant be 'the believer'.

You on the other hand believe the paranormal cant exist - thats your belief. therefore you *are* a 'believer* as you have something you can say you 100% put your faith behind - ie you believe the paranormal doesnt exist.

So really, nothings changed - you are still the 'believer' and paranormal researchers are the ones without the belief.

I'll say it straight up though - you strike me more of a cynic than anything as all the 'proof' in the world wouldnt convince you so you arent really open minded enough to be properly called a skeptic.

Lucas10101 · 30-01-2009 2:06pm

Obviously you didn't grasp anything of post 9, so I won't repeat it.

I don't have "faith" that it doesn't exist. Based on logic, evidence, and accounts, I cannot bring myself to accept it as true. I am open minded that it exists in the same way I'm open minded that a chair can fly, but for me, both are equally as unlikely to occur.

I never and have always said this...I think this has to be the 10th time I've said this to you in boards.ie, I NEVER said Paranormal doesn't exist, I claim it's highly improbable, and there is of course a chance it could exist, I think it's small, and due to the lack of evidence, I can't bring myself to accept it.

Even on a logical and reason ground, I can't.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 2:23pm

is anyone asking you to say that the paranormal definitely exists? I dont think so. Do I say the paranormal defintely exists? i cant as i dont have any information to back that up.

In otherwords the same view point as yours outside the fact that you vary from 'it doesnt exist' to ' i didnt say it doesnt exist, but its unlikely to occur.'

I think you need to be much clearer here.

A) You are saying you are open to the (though its a very remote) chance that the paranormal may exist?

Or

are you saying it might exist but really you dont think so (I believe that was your stance the last time i check) - which means 'it doesnt exist'.

If it's A), then thats grand as its something we can neither say one way or another about - but stop with the cynicism of the paranormal then. You're basically saying what paranormal researchers say.

If its B then you're being contradictory.

Lucas10101 · 30-01-2009 2:30pm

Here is my answer, for the 11th time:

I am a skeptic. I don't believe the Paranormal exists. I am open to the idea that I could be wrong, however the believe the chances of it being true are incredibly small, on a galactic scale. In an analogy above, I'm in EXACTLY the same opinion as a chair flying over my head right now, or that a glass could fly itself to a tap and fill with water and come back for me to drink. That's the strength of feeling I have to say it's as unlikely.
That's my stance, not (a) or (b) above, or any other list you might create, this is my stance and that's that.

jim o doom · 30-01-2009 2:31pm

you have to be a troll, your logic is too twisted for it to be honestly held.

oeb · 30-01-2009 2:33pm

This is exactly like the 'Athiesm requires faith' argument that some fundies like to toss about, and it's just as irrelivant.

I doubt you will find one real skeptic that will not say 'Ohh look, I'm wrong' should anything paranormal be proved. Until then the evidence states that it is much more likely that it is all bunk.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 2:37pm

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Here is my answer, for the 11th time:

I am a skeptic. I don't believe the Paranormal exists. I am open to the idea that I could be wrong, however the believe the chances of it being true are incredibly small, on a galactic scale. In an analogy above, I'm in EXACTLY the same opinion as a chair flying over my head right now, or that a glass could fly itself to a tap and fill with water and come back for me to drink. That's the strength of feeling I have to say it's as unlikely.
That's my stance, not (a) or (b) above, or any other list you might create, this is my stance and that's that.

so its B then. "I don't believe the Paranormal exists" which is the same as "I believe the paranormal doesnt exist" henceforth you have do indeed 'believe'.

Seriously, **** or get off the pot here and stop running round in circles. You're fooling no-one.

oeb · 30-01-2009 2:39pm

iamhunted wrote: »

so its B then. "I don't believe the Paranormal exists" which is the same as "I believe the paranormal doesnt exist" henceforth you have do indeed 'believe'.

Seriously, **** or get off the pot here and stop running round in circles. You're fooling no-one.

You are confusing belief with lack of belief.

That's like calling bald a hair colour.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 2:39pm

oeb wrote: »

This is exactly like the 'Athiesm requires faith' argument that some fundies like to toss about, and it's just as irrelivant.

I asked a very basic question and all ive been getting is the runaround.

I doubt you will find one real skeptic that will not say 'Ohh look, I'm wrong' should anything paranormal be proved. Until then the evidence states that it is much more likely that it is all bunk.

Exactly. They wont think of it until its part of science and then they'll pretend they knew all along.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 2:41pm

oeb wrote: »

You are confusing belief with lack of belief.

That's like calling bald a hair colour.

cant see how you work that out. a belief can be negative or positive. You dont believe something, you do believe something .... its the same principle. lack of belief is a belief in itself as you have to believe you dont believe something.

oeb · 30-01-2009 2:44pm

iamhunted wrote: »

Exactly. They wont think of it until its part of science and then they'll pretend they knew all along.

In my opinion that is unlikely. The wonders of thinking scientificially is that we can adapt our position as more evidence becomes available to us. If I see a ghost will I start believing in ghosts? It's certainly possible, having more evidence would logicially require that I re-evaluate my position. Anyone who says they knew all along will be fooling nobody.

oeb · 30-01-2009 2:47pm

iamhunted wrote: »

cant see how you work that out. a belief can be negative or positive. You dont believe something, you do believe something .... its the same principle. lack of belief is a belief in itself as you have to believe you dont believe something.

Yes, a belief can be positive or negative. But it is also possible to lack belief entirely in the subject.

I can say:
I believe there are ghosts.
I believe there are no ghosts.
I do not believe in ghosts.

Think of it as more of a dismissal than a solid stance on something.

Oryx · 30-01-2009 2:47pm

Im not really getting the argument here either. Someone not believing in something is not a 'belief'. It is a stance taken based on evidence. Perfectly valid and rational thinking imo.

Are you trying to say sceptics are refusing to look at evidence, or refusing to look for evidence then? In which case simply means you think there is a something out there, they dont. Why should they seek for something that to them, is non existent? You look for it, and present it to them, make them change their minds.

jim o doom · 30-01-2009 2:48pm

iamhunted wrote: »

I asked a very basic question and all ive been getting is the runaround.

Exactly. They wont think of it until its part of science and then they'll pretend they knew all along.

You say you are being given the "run around" and then you presume that (a) it all exists and will become part of science & (b) that people who were skeptical about it ever existing, will pretend the opposite .

(a) shows that the only "believer" here is you, who seems to believe it exists and will become "modern science"
(b) making assumptions about people who are generally skeptical is so ridiculous, that shows it's really you attempting to give the skeptics a runaround. a very very pathetic run around that is.

Lucas10101 · 30-01-2009 2:55pm

I think iamhunted has lost every other argument rationally, and so has reduced himself to talking babble and try and have a valid view for once. Now THAT is an impossibility.

It's such a pointless question iamhunted...

Every point above me is a rational one, and you are hiding behind words, misinterpreting everything, twisting everything to suit yourself, but in reality, making a complete shambles and embarrassment of yourself.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:09pm

oeb - When someone says 'i believe the paranormal is bollocks' - are they stating a belief? Yes they are stating a belief.

Oryx - No, we arent talking about someone not believing in something, we're talking about people who believe something doesnt exist. if ye's are going to get pedantic, then so can I.

jim o doom - where the hell are you going?

(a) shows that the only "believer" here is you, who seems to believe it exists and will become "modern science"

guide me through how you work that out. I cant say the paranormal exists and I never have. stick to facts next time.

(b) making assumptions about people who are generally skeptical is so ridiculous, that shows it's really you attempting to give the skeptics a runaround. a very very pathetic run around that is.

skeptics? assumptions? Im going by the general observations ive made of the 'skeptics' on this forum. If the general 'i will only believe it if science says its true' vibe i've be given by most of them isnt an assumption as its basically what a lot of the skeptics on here have said.

Do me a favour fella and make a point, and dont be nitpicking things i say. Its easy to come on and slag me off but it isnt as easy to make an actual point as you seemed to have proved.

Lucas10101 what can i say to you that i havent already said.

You still sticking with your BELIEF that paranormal researchers BELIEVE things and you dont?

thats your argument?

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:12pm

oeb wrote: »

In my opinion that is unlikely. The wonders of thinking scientificially is that we can adapt our position as more evidence becomes available to us. If I see a ghost will I start believing in ghosts? It's certainly possible, having more evidence would logicially require that I re-evaluate my position. Anyone who says they knew all along will be fooling nobody.

hats off to you - thats much the same as what I think myself

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:13pm

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I think iamhunted has lost every other argument rationally, and so has reduced himself to talking babble and try and have a valid view for once. Now THAT is an impossibility.

It's such a pointless question iamhunted...

Every point above me is a rational one, and you are hiding behind words, misinterpreting everything, twisting everything to suit yourself, but in reality, making a complete shambles and embarrassment of yourself.

Plus. Please try and get your point across without trying your damned hardest to be an ignorant git. If you cant stand the heat, get out of the thread.

jim o doom · 30-01-2009 3:19pm

iamhunted wrote: »

You still sticking with your BELIEF that paranormal researchers BELIEVE things and you dont?

thats your argument?

No actually, that is your argument. You are the one continually deciding how you believe people in the forum, or skeptics in general are thinking. What your purpose in this is I surely don't understand

You are putting words in other posters mouths, and then making an argument against what you seem to think they feel.. other posters have made salient points, which you have ignored & continued on with your bizarre argument - once again continually making assumptions and broad sweeping generalisations to tar a group of people.

The whole argument is YOUR argument, everyone here is just trying to rationalise with a clearly IRRATIONAL person.

jim o doom · 30-01-2009 3:21pm

iamhunted wrote: »

Plus. Please try and get your point across without trying your damned hardest to be an ignorant git. If you cant stand the heat, get out of the thread.

lol you are totally hilarious man - you are constantly being ignorant yourself, which is illustrated in the post you accuse another poster of it! "ignorant git" is an insult right?

and then you seem to think you can decide who should or shouldn't be in the thread! You must be having a laugh altogether!

oeb · 30-01-2009 3:30pm

Back to my earlier question.

iamhunted, is bald a hair color?
Is hunger a food?
Is 'not playing guitar' a hobby?

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:31pm

we're all big boys here so lets clear some things up.

I've been quite polite in this thread. I could get ignorant but why bother.

Can someone argue the point here and stop trying to wind me up with wanker comments about how I am this, that or whatever. You;re wasting your time.

If you cant see my point or dont want to debate politely then please, **** off.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 3:32pm

Oh iamhunted... look what you got yourself into... i dont see any of these psychics that are winning the socalled "battle" against the sceptics on boards comin to help you out.... poor guy, all your beliefs melted before your very eyes. Haw haw haw i am so ****ing happy!!!!!!!!!!

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 3:33pm

iamhunted wrote: »

I could get ignorant but why bother.

Get checked out man.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:36pm

jim o doom wrote: »

No actually, that is your argument. You are the one continually deciding how you believe people in the forum, or skeptics in general are thinking. What your purpose in this is I surely don't understand

God .... where to begin.

Right so Im telling people what they beleive in now? I ask someone if they believe that paranormal researchers believe in something and you tell me "o actually, that is your argument." Christ, make some sense please.

You are putting words in other posters mouths, and then making an argument against what you seem to think they feel.. other posters have made salient points, which you have ignored & continued on with your bizarre argument - once again continually making assumptions and broad sweeping generalisations to tar a group of people.

The whole argument is YOUR argument, everyone here is just trying to rationalise with a clearly IRRATIONAL person.

Care to point out where Ive been doing all this? putting words in peoples mouths for example. Ignoring the points people have raised? where have I done these things? I asked a simple question - where have I been making "assumptions and broad sweeping generalisations to tar a group of people."

Are we reading the same thread or is it "i cant argue so I'll throw some mud around"?

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:37pm

Ryanzo wrote: »

Oh iamhunted... look what you got yourself into... i dont see any of these psychics that are winning the socalled "battle" against the sceptics on boards comin to help you out.... poor guy, all your beliefs melted before your very eyes. Haw haw haw i am so ****ing happy!!!!!!!!!!

good for you. beliefs melted? what beliefs and who melted them? Basically what are you talking about sir as you arent making much sense to me. I have yet to read one properly argued skeptic point on this forum. Its all 'oh noes mediumz are faked' - except for mr dev when he was on (he actually made sense).

Get checked out man.

why 'man'? because Im not guillible enough to join the gang?

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 3:41pm

iamhunted wrote: »

..why 'man'?...

If your not a man then what are you? A ghost?

What gang are you talking about?

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:43pm

you know, the cool 'lets try and slag iamhunted off on the skeptics board but fail miserably' gang. You're obviously the leader.

If your not a man then what are you? A ghost?

I was referring to you as in asking 'why, man?'

How am I meant to have an intelligent debate with you when I have to explain things like that?

Oryx · 30-01-2009 3:44pm

Ryanzo wrote: »

Oh iamhunted... look what you got yourself into... i dont see any of these psychics that are winning the socalled "battle" against the sceptics on boards comin to help you out.... poor guy, all your beliefs melted before your very eyes. Haw haw haw i am so ****ing happy!!!!!!!!!!

Youre easily pleased. Got anything constructive to add, or are you just here to heckle?

Oryx - No, we arent talking about someone not believing in something, we're talking about people who believe something doesnt exist. if ye's are going to get pedantic, then so can I.

I wasnt trying to be pedantic. I didnt understand what you were asking. I get you feel that sceptics in general, and the ones on this forum in particular, will not consider the even remotest possibility that anything paranormal exists. And I also am subject to the mocking tone inflicted here sometimes, so I sympathise with your frustration. But my point was, that the only way to change someones mind is to pick a specific area, test it, and produce results that can be replicated by these selfsame sceptics. Arguing the semantics of the word 'believe' on this forum will get you nowhere but angry.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 3:53pm

Go into the thread that started this one and come back an tell me if i have anything constructive to add. I believe you and iamhunted were the ones who began this whole arguement.

iamhunted:im not a leader of any gang.

get checked out 'man'.

Edit: thanks for the compliment about being cool and all.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 3:54pm

Skeptics per se are people who have an open mind - they wont back something but they wont block it either until they can get more definitive information. On here though, the skeptics are much more like cynics where indeed they dont seem to believe anything that science at present doesnt agree with.

This thread itself is all about the definition of the word believe as the skeptics (as defined by this forum) tend to say they dont 'believe' in anything, but they are quite adement that they believe the paranormal to be crap. I find that a contradiction and when i call it, i get this pedantic quiverings about how people cant believe when theres a lack of belief. I say people are just looking at one side of the mirror there - if you dont subscribe to a belief you still have a belief system as youve chosen something not to believe in ... its the other side of the coin.

Personally though I tire of wasting my time in here as the quality of debate is horrendus.

Ryanzo - you should try the ignore button, its amazing.

Oryx · 30-01-2009 4:03pm

Ryanzo wrote: »

Go into the thread that started this one and come back an tell me if i have anything constructive to add. I believe you and iamhunted were the ones who began this whole arguement.

I did? Really? First, which thread, second how did I start it with him? We disagree on most points.

Id have a lot more time for ya if you thought not to jeer.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 4:04pm

Ryanzo wrote: »

iamhunted were the ones who began this whole arguement.

i 'believe' thats a bit obvious as I started the thread. Im going to wait until someone makes an intelligent post before i reply again.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 5:54pm

Oryx: point taken and absorbed, i see where your coming from.

iamhunted: ...hmm... *coughs abruptly* .. LOS*R!!!

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 6:10pm

you may well be but you shouldnt be telling everyone.

Oryx · 30-01-2009 6:14pm

iamhunted wrote: »

you may well be but you shouldnt be telling everyone.

If ye both want to abuse each other, try Yahoo chat. Cos if I want to see b!tches, Ill go to a dog show. Id much rather see an actual discussion.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 6:16pm

Oh this is fun.

I know you are but what am I?

Thought i was on your ignore list? you must really enjoy me to have changed your mind.

iamhunted · 30-01-2009 6:55pm

touche - considering Im obviously not on your list either.

Anyway - back to the topic?

Lucas10101 · 30-01-2009 7:27pm

Yes - the discussion has slowly moved towards insults, and put-down comments. Even though I agree with every insult that iamhunted recieved, and hope he get's a lot more; Realistically, we should just debate the topic...which I "believe" to be a pointless one.

The claim that I am a skeptic and therefore have a belief system is laughable. The absence of evidence lies with the belief in something and not the belief it doesn't exist.

iamhunted; Even IF it were a belief system (which for not one second do I believe it is), who cares? It doesn't affect the idea that paranormal exists nor is it a point in your favour. What's the point in disputing a "WORD"...you know what we mean when we say it and that's that...get over it.

Ryanzo · 30-01-2009 9:18pm

iamhunted wrote: »

touche - considering Im obviously not on your list either.

Never said i was gona put u on mine little boy

who is the 'believer'?

Comments