- #36
- 8,142
- 1,756
First, I support arguments for many possibilities that I do not believe in myself.
I don't believe that ET is here but neither do I accept prosaic explanations as the source for all UFO phenomena; and I do understand why so many people believe ET is here. Still, until I see one or have definitive proof of such, no, I don't believe that ET is flying spaceships around Oregon. Still, it is possible. To simply argue for this undeniable possibility - and that we don’t have all of the answers - is what drives so many skeptics up the wall and must be what gives you the impressions of me that you seem to have.
What drives me nuts is when really smart people dismiss complex phenomena by using paper arguments that result from ignorance and/or ego; the need to dismiss anything they can’t explain. This attitude is like a kill shot to the very heart of science. I see one heck of a lot of debunking by people that know very little about the subject that they seek to debunk.
As for the rest, I really don't believe much of what we discuss here. Even so, subjects or claims that I have strongly defended, such as the possibility that Astrology might really somehow work, are claims that I don't believe are true but I can still imagine reasonable mechanisms by which they might be true. As long as I can imagine possibilities that have not been rule out I refuse to allow a closed mind be my guide.
Then there is the issue of testimonials. It is fine to say that a personal observation does not qualify as scientific evidence. What I strongly object to is the fallacious conclusion that we can therefore logically ignore all testimonials that are not supported with physical evidence. To me this is the height of silliness and arrogance. There may be no science to be done, but people often deserve to be heard and treated with respect even if I can’t explain their claim. It is really all about respect. Very few skeptics or debunkers ever bother to show respect. This is often my real objection: Many skeptical arguments effectively end with an unspoken “therefore you are either nuts, a liar, or even too stupid to give an accurate representation of the facts” To me, this is not logical to assume without proof.
As for my personal beliefs about an afterlife, since we are free to choose our beliefs I tend to go with Pascal’s approach. It is logical. I would be hard pressed to give any specific explanation of what I believe. I make the conscious choice to believe in a higher power and that I am accountable for my actions. I choose to adhere to a sort of "broad spectrum" Christian belief system that I am sure most churches would find objectionable in one way or another. I do fear the possibility of a hell more than the certainty of death.
I don't believe that ET is here but neither do I accept prosaic explanations as the source for all UFO phenomena; and I do understand why so many people believe ET is here. Still, until I see one or have definitive proof of such, no, I don't believe that ET is flying spaceships around Oregon. Still, it is possible. To simply argue for this undeniable possibility - and that we don’t have all of the answers - is what drives so many skeptics up the wall and must be what gives you the impressions of me that you seem to have.
What drives me nuts is when really smart people dismiss complex phenomena by using paper arguments that result from ignorance and/or ego; the need to dismiss anything they can’t explain. This attitude is like a kill shot to the very heart of science. I see one heck of a lot of debunking by people that know very little about the subject that they seek to debunk.
As for the rest, I really don't believe much of what we discuss here. Even so, subjects or claims that I have strongly defended, such as the possibility that Astrology might really somehow work, are claims that I don't believe are true but I can still imagine reasonable mechanisms by which they might be true. As long as I can imagine possibilities that have not been rule out I refuse to allow a closed mind be my guide.
Then there is the issue of testimonials. It is fine to say that a personal observation does not qualify as scientific evidence. What I strongly object to is the fallacious conclusion that we can therefore logically ignore all testimonials that are not supported with physical evidence. To me this is the height of silliness and arrogance. There may be no science to be done, but people often deserve to be heard and treated with respect even if I can’t explain their claim. It is really all about respect. Very few skeptics or debunkers ever bother to show respect. This is often my real objection: Many skeptical arguments effectively end with an unspoken “therefore you are either nuts, a liar, or even too stupid to give an accurate representation of the facts” To me, this is not logical to assume without proof.
As for my personal beliefs about an afterlife, since we are free to choose our beliefs I tend to go with Pascal’s approach. It is logical. I would be hard pressed to give any specific explanation of what I believe. I make the conscious choice to believe in a higher power and that I am accountable for my actions. I choose to adhere to a sort of "broad spectrum" Christian belief system that I am sure most churches would find objectionable in one way or another. I do fear the possibility of a hell more than the certainty of death.
Last edited: