Philosophy Now Forum

For some time now, since I have been looking into alternative information within science, history, and what not, I have occasionally encountered many websites and groups on the Internet that call themselves "skeptics". These are people who of course are atheists, as in militant atheists. The things that they do is that they counter against those who are in alternative history and alternative science circles; they use the banner of science, as in the positivist modern form of science, to "debunk" things that fall out of the mainstream scientific paradigm (ie. critique of standard cosmological model, critique of mainstream medicine, research into psychic/paranormal phenomena, homeopathy). When it comes to historical and political manners, they attack people who question things in history and politics (September 11th, the World Wars, the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy, Globalization) and talk about things like the Federal Reserve, the bankers (ie. Rothschilds), and many other things.

The articles that I have read on these skeptic websites are horrible in content. It is often childish and immature; contains use of insults against people who fall outside the mainstream paradigm; often times, they do not address much of the claims that many in the alternative circles say. They often simply label them "conspiracy theorists", "denialists", "quacks", "cranks", and "charlatans". If they were to address any points, they would use weak information and other logical fallacies, such as selective reading, strawman, hasty generalization, and what not.

Just read some of the articles on these sites.

Illuminutti ~ http://illuminutti.com/
RationalWiki ~ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
The Arm Chair Pontificator ~ http://variouspontifications.com/
Skeptoid ~ http://skeptoid.com/

These "skeptics" are by no means really skeptics at all, as they are often times dogmatic and they also tend to promote their dogmas to whatever outlet in media that there is (internet, television, magazines). They also apparently have influence in the overall mass media; they even try to influence such media outlets to censor those who fall outside of the mainstream paradigm of academia. Here are some evidence for this.

Rupert Sheldrake on the TED controversy ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo
Science: Contemporary Censorship ~ http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01cescience.html
Censorship at the Physics Forums ~ http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathemati ... forums.htm
Academic Censorship: Physics Preprint Archive ~ http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-c ... ureate.htm
Physics Forums Encounter ~ http://www.alternativephysics.org/feedb ... ounter.htm

In reality, the "skeptics" are gatekeepers of the mainstream academia. They are really meant to uphold the status quo in the mass media, governmental and educational/academic institutions, against those who question these institutions that control and indoctrinate the masses.

These "skeptics" are anything but. They have adopted every current fad in science and philosophy and made it their own without any critical thought at all in many cases. They do tend to use insult and semantics in the first line of defense of the status quo. You can get through to very few of them but you can't affect their opinion.

I express their beliefs as "an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps".

It's ironic but I believe most are actually capable of critical thought but they are more afraid of being on the wrong side of an issue than they are actually being wrong. They figure there's strenght in numbers and they'd rather be wrong with the majority than correct with a few. It's better to serve in hell than be ridiculed in heaven.

On many sites they band together to keep out any but orthodox ideas.

cladking wrote:These "skeptics" are anything but. They have adopted every current fad in science and philosophy and made it their own without any critical thought at all in many cases. They do tend to use insult and semantics in the first line of defense of the status quo. You can get through to very few of them but you can't affect their opinion.

I express their beliefs as "an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps".

It's ironic but I believe most are actually capable of critical thought but they are more afraid of being on the wrong side of an issue than they are actually being wrong. They figure there's strenght in numbers and they'd rather be wrong with the majority than correct with a few. It's better to serve in hell than be ridiculed in heaven.

On many sites they band together to keep out any but orthodox ideas.

Yeah, it's definitely an irony that they are called "skeptics", when all they do is protect the establishment in attacking whoever actually does use critical thinking and does use skepticism. It's just insane that they are considered champions as intellectuals, when their arguments are childish and they use whatever label or insult to belittle others in defending their Atheist Gospel.

WanderingLands wrote:
Yeah, it's definitely an irony that they are called "skeptics", when all they do is protect the establishment in attacking whoever actually does use critical thinking and does use skepticism. It's just insane that they are considered champions as intellectuals, when their arguments are childish and they use whatever label or insult to belittle others in defending their Atheist Gospel.

Now that you mention it, it does seem a lot of religious people avoid being associated with them. They eat their own so any unorthodox thinking can result in a stream of insults. I do hesitate to put people into this category since each has their own motives but there does exist an apparent grouping and most call themselves "skeptics". I used to consider myself a skeptic but this has become a dirty word over the last decade or two.

They sure hate being caught saying things that aren't true or are unscientific. I usually try to point it out in an off hand sort of way. Most statements made by most people about nature are usually incorrect. Since these folk are self styled experts in everything catching the errors are at least humorous. I tend to be pretty hard to catch making mistakes because I don't really know anything at all.

Let's make an analogy, in order to provide some critical distance from the problem at hand. Imagine that your local community sponsored an oil painting contest, open to anyone who cared to submit an oil painting. Imagine that you want to participate. So you grab your digital camera, snap a picture of a sunset, print it out from your home PC, and submit it. “What’s this?” the contest organizers ask. “That’s my oil painting,” you say. “But that’s not an oil painting…that’s a photograph.” Do you think that given this scenario, it would be reasonable to claim that the contest is actively suppressing “dissident oil paintings” (i.e. digital photographs) in order to indoctrinate the masses and maintain the status quo? Hopefully you think that this would be unreasonable.

Something very similar holds for science. Science is the name for a very specific methodology, and the body of knowledge produced through that methodology. It is unreasonable to claim that you can use an entirely different methodology and still be doing science. If you are using a different methodology, then you are doing something different.

The question then becomes, why do these alternate practices want so desperately to be thought of as science? What is so special about science that they feel the need to be thought of in that way? And if they want to be thought of in that way, why do they not simply apply the rigor of the scientific method to their object of inquiry?

I think your focus is misplaced, and that you believe there is some scientific conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of these other practices. There is not. There is, however, an effor to protect the integrity of the methodology. I have no problem with the proposition that there are other ways of knowing things aside from the scientific. I do have a problem with the propsition that we can know something scientifically without having to actually engage with it using the scientific method.

the Hessian wrote:Let's make an analogy, in order to provide some critical distance from the problem at hand. Imagine that your local community sponsored an oil painting contest, open to anyone who cared to submit an oil painting. Imagine that you want to participate. So you grab your digital camera, snap a picture of a sunset, print it out from your home PC, and submit it. “What’s this?” the contest organizers ask. “That’s my oil painting,” you say. “But that’s not an oil painting…that’s a photograph.” Do you think that given this scenario, it would be reasonable to claim that the contest is actively suppressing “dissident oil paintings” (i.e. digital photographs) in order to indoctrinate the masses and maintain the status quo? Hopefully you think that this would be unreasonable.

Something very similar holds for science. Science is the name for a very specific methodology, and the body of knowledge produced through that methodology. It is unreasonable to claim that you can use an entirely different methodology and still be doing science. If you are using a different methodology, then you are doing something different.

The question then becomes, why do these alternate practices want so desperately to be thought of as science? What is so special about science that they feel the need to be thought of in that way? And if they want to be thought of in that way, why do they not simply apply the rigor of the scientific method to their object of inquiry?

I think your focus is misplaced, and that you believe there is some scientific conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of these other practices. There is not. There is, however, an effor to protect the integrity of the methodology. I have no problem with the proposition that there are other ways of knowing things aside from the scientific. I do have a problem with the propsition that we can know something scientifically without having to actually engage with it using the scientific method.

The reason why I am calling out the "skeptic" and "scientific" community is not because of their methodology, but their dishonesty and their betraying the empirical scientific method to promote their dogma. You see, they are not true to their methodology, nor are they true to separating what is true from what is false. For example, that RationalWiki article on Aetherometry, where I pointed out that the article was ridden with insults and ad hominems - denouncing the Aetherometry group without even actually debunking their whole points.

What I am saying is not just some "conspiracy theory", but actually is fact and has a lot of evidence. Along with the example where I pointed out the flaws of that RationalWiki article that you have sent me, there have been instances of use of censorship - that is, rejecting scientific works without peer review. Here's an example that you can access below.

Response to Martin Gardner's Attack on Reich and Orgone Research in the Skeptical Inquirer: http://www.orgonelab.org/gardner.htm

Excerpt:

This article was originally presented to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer in response to Martin Gardner's published article. Unfortunately, the editors of SI refused to publish it, nor even a shorter rebuttal letter. In fact, the editors of SI refused even to acknowledge that I had sent them a letter and article rebutting Gardner treating this author with additional silent contempt, as if they were the Bishops of Rome. A subsequent personal letter to CSICOP Fellows Carl Sagan, Steven Jay Gould, and Paul Macready, appealing for their help to have my rebuttal published in SI, elicited total silence also, confirming the existence of a vast academic mafia. Such a failure to acknowledge rebuttal and response to criticism is, of course, completely anti-scientific, undemocratic, and highly unethical.

-- the preface of the article

Other examples come from one of the sources that I have listed on the OP, entitled "Science: Contemporary Censorship", where the article goes into numerous examples of how the science academia, in conjunction with government, at times censor and defame those who question their paradigm.

the Hessian wrote:Let's make an analogy, in order to provide some critical distance from the problem at hand. Imagine that your local community sponsored an oil painting contest, open to anyone who cared to submit an oil painting. Imagine that you want to participate. So you grab your digital camera, snap a picture of a sunset, print it out from your home PC, and submit it. “What’s this?” the contest organizers ask. “That’s my oil painting,” you say. “But that’s not an oil painting…that’s a photograph.” Do you think that given this scenario, it would be reasonable to claim that the contest is actively suppressing “dissident oil paintings” (i.e. digital photographs) in order to indoctrinate the masses and maintain the status quo? Hopefully you think that this would be unreasonable.

Something very similar holds for science. Science is the name for a very specific methodology, and the body of knowledge produced through that methodology. It is unreasonable to claim that you can use an entirely different methodology and still be doing science. If you are using a different methodology, then you are doing something different.

The question then becomes, why do these alternate practices want so desperately to be thought of as science? What is so special about science that they feel the need to be thought of in that way? And if they want to be thought of in that way, why do they not simply apply the rigor of the scientific method to their object of inquiry?

I think your focus is misplaced, and that you believe there is some scientific conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of these other practices. There is not. There is, however, an effor to protect the integrity of the methodology. I have no problem with the proposition that there are other ways of knowing things aside from the scientific. I do have a problem with the propsition that we can know something scientifically without having to actually engage with it using the scientific method.

I have a great deal of respect for science and scientists. "Skeptics" in the true sense of the word have my undying respect as well. But "skepticism" is not the blind adherance to whatever cockamamy idea is popular at the moment. I can assure you that the likelyhood that there are an infinite number of worlds all with pyramids built with ramps is infintesimal. Building a computer and programming to model weather has no more bearing on the possibilty of global warming than the true cause of AGW is parrot flatulence. Skepticism is about doubting thingsa that are not established.

While science deserves a lot of respect but like all human endeavors it is practiced by men and is susceptible to the weaknesses and foibles of men. Even true sciences are run like old boys clubs with a set pecking order and each vies for position. Unpopular and untested hypotheses are not the way to get ahead in this age of political correctness and government that pays for results and anything with military applications. Much true research isn't even done any longer because it has no apparent military use and no basis in the status quo.

Much of this has always been true but perhaps never before as true. As bad as it is in the true sciences it is far worse in the derived/ extrapolated/ or pseudo sciences. Since little of this work has any firm scientific basis practitioners are allowed to believe what they will. It is largely built on language concepts and political correctness. It is in these areas that the "skeptics" are least able to listen or try to hear opposing argument.

In the last several years my eyes have really been opened as to just how bad this can be. It is not confined to the pseudo sciences but is rather just most pronounced in these areas. Science can't even be done if it conflicts with the status quo. Even simple measurements and 1970's technology isn't being employed to answer basic questions. Even though these measurements could prove the current paradigm they aren't done because of the fear they will disprove it. Ithas more in common with religion or an anti-science.

Scientific theory failed in the 1920's but no one wants to address the issue. It's better to continue to develop technology with military "benefits" than to consider the tool being used to invent them. Meanwhile we probably better fear that someone somewhere is working on pure research that will have military applications. They better be allies.

Just two questions:

1) Does this rant against skeptics apply to any of the following?:

People skeptical about the god Zeus.
People skeptical about the god Vishnu.
People skeptical about the visions of prophet Muhammad.
People skeptical about a race of giants roaming the Earth.
People skeptical about the revelations of Madame Blavatsky.
People skeptical about the teachings of Theosophy.
People skeptical about the virgin birth (Immaculate Conception doctrine) of the Virgin Mary.
People skeptical about the Virgin Mary not dying, but ascending to heaven like Jesus.
People skeptical about getting all the species of animals aboard Noah's ark.
People skeptical about the Earth being around 6,000 years old.
People skeptical about the Christian god being white-skinned, having a beard and a long white dress.
People skeptical about the angel Moroni.
People skeptical about the Pope being the direct appointment of God in Earth.
People skeptical about the Pope being infallible.

2) Can any of the circles of believers on the above be considered "alternatives" to "mainstream scientific paradigms"?

Conde Lucanor wrote: 1) Does this rant against skeptics apply to any of the following?:

People skeptical about the god Zeus.
People skeptical about the god Vishnu.
People skeptical about the visions of prophet Muhammad.
People skeptical about a race of giants roaming the Earth.
People skeptical about the revelations of Madame Blavatsky.
People skeptical about the teachings of Theosophy.
People skeptical about the virgin birth (Immaculate Conception doctrine) of the Virgin Mary.
People skeptical about the Virgin Mary not dying, but ascending to heaven like Jesus.
People skeptical about getting all the species of animals aboard Noah's ark.
People skeptical about the Earth being around 6,000 years old.
People skeptical about the Christian god being white-skinned, having a beard and a long white dress.
People skeptical about the angel Moroni.
People skeptical about the Pope being the direct appointment of God in Earth.
People skeptical about the Pope being infallible.

Not really so much about religion on this thread; I didn't really bring up religion as I was mainly talking about the 'skeptics' in politics and science. However, I do say that the skeptics portrayal and perception of religion and spirituality is quite oversimplified, as what you have said here exemplifies.

1) The so-called "gods" or "pantheon of gods", or the God of the Abrahamic faith (Judaism-Christianity-Islam) can be interpreted to be more so allegory and metaphors, given the mythological character of these "gods". You can surely look into people like Carl G. Jung, Manly P. Hall, and other such people and subjects within Esoteric teachings and also in Comparative Religion. Same would be for the stories in the Bible, Qur'an, and any religious text that we have in this world.

One thing I would like to point out, which I find very erroneous, is your belief that the Christian God is a white man with a white beard and white dress. Now, you should know that God in Christianity is by no means really pictures as that, and actually some denominations may forbid such engraving of an image to represent God. You can certainly see that principle when you look into the Old Testament, or Tenankh in Judaism, and it is quite clear in the Ten Commandments and other Torah teachings that God does not have an image. This goes back to that the stories within the Bible and all religious texts can be interpreted as esoteric allegory.

2) You make a lot of misconceptions concerning Christianity and Christians. Other than you say that they believe that God is a white man, you also say that they believe that the world is 6,000 years old, that they believe in the virgin birth, and that they follow the Pope. First of all, you are merely calling out Catholics, who are one of the many varying denominations within Christianity, and so are ignoring the other denominations (Protestantism, Hebrew Roots, Seventh Day Adventism, etc.), that do not follow the Pope (they even are against the Pope), and do not believe in the virgin birth. Second, not all Christians believe that the world is 6,000 years old. Maybe the religious fundamentalists do, but certainly not the majority of Christians.

3) As for Theosophy, you should know that it is much older than Blavatsky, and it is said to have gone back to antiquity and the middle ages. If you are using Blavatsky as the main dominance of esotericism, then you are mistaken because there are several schools of thought in esotericism, such as Hermeticism, Sufism, Cabbalah, Thelema, Gnosticism, Vedanta, Zen, Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, etc. Also, esotericism is not simply about belief, but it actually in fact an extra dimension to the sciences that are applied in the secular world.

Conde Lucanor wrote: 2) Can any of the circles of believers on the above be considered "alternatives" to "mainstream scientific paradigms"?

Like I said, I wasn't really talking about religion on this thread, but I would say that we can have a more holistic approach to it as an alternative to the pure secularism and materialism of this society.

People skeptical about getting all the species of animals aboard Noah's ark.

I can see him getting them all aboard (the Kangaroos and Koalas would have to be imported from Australia though). But what did they feed the lions and tigers? Spare antelope?

WanderingLands wrote:Not really so much about religion on this thread; I didn't really bring up religion as I was mainly talking about the 'skeptics' in politics and science. However, I do say that the skeptics portrayal and perception of religion and spirituality is quite oversimplified, as what you have said here exemplifies.

Thanks for answering my question.

I may agree that you didn't ellaborate much on the religion side, but you did start with this remark:

"These are people who of course are atheists, as in militant atheists...".

And as your last statement suggests, the accusation extends to the "skeptics portrayal and perception of religion and spirituality".

Anyway, I didn't offer the descriptions above to make a point about the people you call skeptics. I offered them to make a point about the people who, while being credulous and denouncing the skeptics, forget that they're skeptics, too. They just have chosen to be credulous about some things and skeptic about the others.

You see, for many people all the things listed above are as real as "psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy". It's not called religion because they think it's pure fantasy or haven't rationalized it. It really doesn't make much difference: you can also call the Virgin Mary ascending to heaven "paranormal phenomena" and Bible miracles "alternative medicine". Where's the line that separates these beliefs one from the other? All of them pretend to describe an aspect of reality which has physical, tangible manifestations, some of which could be potentially tested scientifically: the miracles of Vishnu cure people or change their fortune, Noah's boat saves millions of animals, the Virgin Mary is born without sex involved or remains suspended in the air, Blavatsky deals with "psychic manifestations", etc. With the same criteria that someone gives homeopathy a chance, he/she has to give Vishnu, Blavatsky and the infallible Pope a chance too, otherwise he/she would be a skeptic, unfairly denying these beliefs the right to be considered "alternatives to mainstream scientific paradigms".

WanderingLands wrote:1) The so-called "gods" or "pantheon of gods", or the God of the Abrahamic faith (Judaism-Christianity-Islam) can be interpreted to be more so allegory and metaphors, given the mythological character of these "gods".

Hmmm...that's sound too much like a skeptic. What proofs you have that these gods are mythological (not real)?

WanderingLands wrote:One thing I would like to point out, which I find very erroneous, is your belief that the Christian God is a white man with a white beard and white dress.

No, I actually have never said I believe in such a foolish thing, not even in the foolish idea that there's a god. I just described a common belief.

WanderingLands wrote:when you look into the Old Testament, or Tenankh in Judaism, and it is quite clear in the Ten Commandments and other Torah teachings that God does not have an image.

It seems it does, according to that same Bible that you say proves it doesn't:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...

There you have god having an image, the same as man (no wonder they put him a beard and a dress).

WanderingLands wrote:2) You make a lot of misconceptions concerning Christianity and Christians. Other than you say that they believe that God is a white man, you also say that they believe that the world is 6,000 years old, that they believe in the virgin birth, and that they follow the Pope. First of all, you are merely calling out Catholics, who are one of the many varying denominations within Christianity, and so are ignoring the other denominations (Protestantism, Hebrew Roots, Seventh Day Adventism, etc.), that do not follow the Pope (they even are against the Pope), and do not believe in the virgin birth. Second, not all Christians believe that the world is 6,000 years old. Maybe the religious fundamentalists do, but certainly not the majority of Christians.

That is kind of weird. First you say that I make a lot of misconceptions about Christianity and then you end up repeating them yourself. Just like you, I never said "all Christians believe this or that". In fact, leaving apart the white-skinned god, I didn't even mention the word "Christian" related to those beliefs. But even so, you cannot deny that those beliefs belong to Christianity because, like it or not, Catholics and fundamentalist Christians are...well, of course, Christians!!

WanderingLands wrote:As for Theosophy, you should know that it is much older than Blavatsky, and it is said to have gone back to antiquity and the middle ages. If you are using Blavatsky as the main dominance of esotericism, then you are mistaken because there are several schools of thought in esotericism, such as Hermeticism, Sufism, Cabbalah, Thelema, Gnosticism, Vedanta, Zen, Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, etc.

Did I ever say anything opposite to this? How could I be mistaken if I have said nothing?

WanderingLands wrote: Also, esotericism is not simply about belief, but it actually in fact an extra dimension to the sciences that are applied in the secular world.

It's just a fraud. It has as much science as a remedy of snake oil.

Wyman wrote:

People skeptical about getting all the species of animals aboard Noah's ark.

I can see him getting them all aboard (the Kangaroos and Koalas would have to be imported from Australia though). But what did they feed the lions and tigers? Spare antelope?

That was nothing. The real miracle was to keep the termites in check.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...[/i]

There you have god having an image, the same as man (no wonder they put him a beard and a dress).

I'm not going to make a habit of defending Bible stories even though numerous of these are highly defensible. They are defensible for a multitude of reasons and chief of which is that they probably all started out in reality and were accurately stated. Over the centuries they were misunderstood, miscommunicated, and mostly just confused in modern language.

Modern people have a perspective that is remote from what they are talking about and they didn't understand the ancient sources from which most of these stories originated. They came from an ancient language which saw things from the inside so everything became distorted in translation. I believe the ancient science was predicated on obervation and logic but it was remembered by the anthropomorphization of nature. The aspects of nature which were given human characteristics were what we mistranslate as "gods". In other words nature was given human characteristics so from our warped perspective "God was created in man's image" which is simply equivalent to "man was created in God's image" in language.

Religion arose because the ancient language failed. This language was the basis of ancient science. Religion arose as an attempt to preserve ancient science and it appears to have worked to some degree.

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thanks for answering my question.

I may agree that you didn't ellaborate much on the religion side, but you did start with this remark:

"These are people who of course are atheists, as in militant atheists...".

And as your last statement suggests, the accusation extends to the "skeptics portrayal and perception of religion and spirituality".

Alright then, fair enough.

Conde Lucanor wrote: Anyway, I didn't offer the descriptions above to make a point about the people you call skeptics. I offered them to make a point about the people who, while being credulous and denouncing the skeptics, forget that they're skeptics, too. They just have chosen to be credulous about some things and skeptic about the others.

I never really deny myself to be skeptical about things. However, unfortunately there are those in the Internet and mainstream media who call themselves skeptics, who really in fact parrot much of the things that the media, the institutions (ie. mainstream academia), and also government. In short words, they are defenders and gatekeepers of the status quo.

Conde Lucanor wrote: You see, for many people all the things listed above are as real as "psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy". It's not called religion because they think it's pure fantasy or haven't rationalized it. It really doesn't make much difference: you can also call the Virgin Mary ascending to heaven "paranormal phenomena" and Bible miracles "alternative medicine". Where's the line that separates these beliefs one from the other? All of them pretend to describe an aspect of reality which has physical, tangible manifestations, some of which could be potentially tested scientifically: the miracles of Vishnu cure people or change their fortune, Noah's boat saves millions of animals, the Virgin Mary is born without sex involved or remains suspended in the air, Blavatsky deals with "psychic manifestations", etc. With the same criteria that someone gives homeopathy a chance, he/she has to give Vishnu, Blavatsky and the infallible Pope a chance too, otherwise he/she would be a skeptic, unfairly denying these beliefs the right to be considered "alternatives to mainstream scientific paradigms".

I believe that looking deeper into these things ("psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy") may actually give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and how the world works. It's only because modern science relies too heavily on empiricism that they are simply dismissed as "quackery" or "crackpot", and instead relying too heavily on mechanistic science and mechanistic ways of life that are too limiting and very detrimental to the human being living in this modern society.

Conde Lucanor wrote: Hmmm...that's sound too much like a skeptic. What proofs you have that these gods are mythological (not real)?

What I meant by 'mythological character', is that I meant that these gods, and/or versions of God, have these elements of having non-human features (ex. of having animal like, or other-worldly physical features); of having other-worldly qualities such as supernatural powers of whatever kinds in religion. They may not be real in the sense that they're not physically real, but may have possibly have to do with the human mind, in relation to the symbolism and the rituals of these 'gods'.

Conde Lucanor wrote: No, I actually have never said I believe in such a foolish thing, not even in the foolish idea that there's a god. I just described a common belief.

I meant that you erroneously say that Christians believe in a white man with a beard and a dress, even though that is not really a real depiction or description of what God is according to many of the Christian populace.

Conde Lucanor wrote: It seems it does, according to that same Bible that you say proves it doesn't:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...

There you have god having an image, the same as man (no wonder they put him a beard and a dress).

That shows a very skewed understanding of the Bible and Theology. 'Image' in the Bible, I believe, should be meant more metaphorically, and not at all literal. The more esoteric approach would be simply that 'Man' is the archetype of God, or the Creator, in that 'Man' (whether man or woman) has the power to create, destroy, learn and understand the things in the Universe, and learn to harness it for the Universe's (as a whole) own benefit. The 'man in a dress with a beard' is simply satire that is used by Atheists and skeptics. Nonetheless, the elaboration on God is much more complex than what you seem to present (a man with a beard and a dress). You should probably study a bit of Theology before making this statement.

Conde Lucanor wrote: That is kind of weird. First you say that I make a lot of misconceptions about Christianity and then you end up repeating them yourself. Just like you, I never said "all Christians believe this or that". In fact, leaving apart the white-skinned god, I didn't even mention the word "Christian" related to those beliefs. But even so, you cannot deny that those beliefs belong to Christianity because, like it or not, Catholics and fundamentalist Christians are...well, of course, Christians!!

I didn't "repeat these misconceptions"; I was really saying that Christians have varying views and beliefs concerning the interpretation of scripture, God, and Jesus Christ, and how you seemed to have only described the Catholics. And I'm not denying that these beliefs belong to many Christians; however, those "beliefs" are merely interpretations of the Bible, in which there can be any interpretation that fits considering the allegorical nature of these stories.

Conde Lucanor wrote: Did I ever say anything opposite to this? How could I be mistaken if I have said nothing?

Fair enough.

Conde Lucanor wrote: It's just a fraud. It has as much science as a remedy of snake oil.

It is not a fraud by any means. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of truth into studying esotericism, especially when you get into different types of esotericism such as Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, etc., which have been applied to in psychology; particularly the psychology of Carl Jung and George Gurdjieff. You get a very deeper understanding of things such as music, psychology, philosophy, and medicine when you study the esoteric dimensions of these.

WanderingLands wrote:I never really deny myself to be skeptical about things. However, unfortunately there are those in the Internet and mainstream media who call themselves skeptics, who really in fact parrot much of the things that the media, the institutions (ie. mainstream academia), and also government. In short words, they are defenders and gatekeepers of the status quo.

I used to hang around skepticism sites many years ago and my impression was that they provided very useful, thoughtful information that allowed anyone with a fair unprejudiced attitude and sound reasoning, to have a good insight into each subject. I only opened a couple of the sites you provided in your first post and I didn't find in them anything out of place or excessive in form or content, as you have portrayed. I'm sure there will be, as in any text with a narrative style and a content, personal likes or dislikes from readers, but in a general sense, these remain within standard narrative styles. Even The Arm Chair Pontificator, which might be the exception because of its satirical style, has not really crossed the line. Let's be also reminded that they are not (nor they are intended to be) specialized scientific papers to be peer-reviewed by other specialists, but general knowledge articles for the general population with a particular standpoint on myths and science. Since I can easily guess, from what you have said in your last posts, what's your standpoint on these issues, I can understand that you will not like these sites. They're, figuratively speaking, your enemy.

Anyway, I must say you have made a useful contribution to the world by providing these links, which I didn't know before. I'm readily bookmarking them to be up to date in the latest news on hoaxes and myth busting. Thank you for that!!

WanderingLands wrote: I believe that looking deeper into these things ("psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy") may actually give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and how the world works. It's only because modern science relies too heavily on empiricism that they are simply dismissed as "quackery" or "crackpot", and instead relying too heavily on mechanistic science and mechanistic ways of life that are too limiting and very detrimental to the human being living in this modern society.

As you may have guessed yourself, I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in any of these things, I don't think they will give us any deeper understanding, but just the opposite, so most of the time I don't have any other option but dismiss it as quackery and crackpot. I do realize, however, that modern science relies too heavily on empiricism, not giving its proper place to Philosophy (it's the most unfortunate thing that an outstanding science figure as Neil deGrasse Tyson participates on this public slaying of Philosophy). But don't get me wrong, by philosophy I don't mean Woo-Woo, the popular name for different types of quackery and crackpot, disguised as something serious.

WanderingLands wrote:I meant that you erroneously say that Christians believe in a white man with a beard and a dress, even though that is not really a real depiction or description of what God is according to many of the Christian populace.

I disagree. Even though I may have oversimplified on purpose these man-like features to highlight the fact that is easy to be skeptical about this depiction, the truth is that a similar depiction is iconic in Christianity. I invite you to do a search on "god" in Google Images, you won't be disappointed. The bearded guy will appear all over, which is just a measure of how much an image has become popular because artists have made it succesful and sticks in people's minds.

WanderingLands wrote:That shows a very skewed understanding of the Bible and Theology. 'Image' in the Bible, I believe, should be meant more metaphorically, and not at all literal. The more esoteric approach would be simply that 'Man' is the archetype of God, or the Creator, in that 'Man' (whether man or woman) has the power to create, destroy, learn and understand the things in the Universe, and learn to harness it for the Universe's (as a whole) own benefit. The 'man in a dress with a beard' is simply satire that is used by Atheists and skeptics. Nonetheless, the elaboration on God is much more complex than what you seem to present (a man with a beard and a dress). You should probably study a bit of Theology before making this statement.

Theology is not a science, but just a method or trying to rationalize superstitions, so I don't think it will give me a good insight into what is really behind so called "sacred scriptures". I do know, however, real sciences that have studied the Bible, its authors, its sources, the actual dates when particular texts were written, and how it was composed in general. So I guess I have a decent understanding of how it should be interpreted, at least under the one criteria or approach that I find relevant: the historical one, because I really cannot give much weight to the different doctrinary, arbitrary and dogmatic interpretations found under the religious approach.

WanderingLands wrote:It is not a fraud by any means. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of truth into studying esotericism, especially when you get into different types of esotericism such as Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, etc., which have been applied to in psychology; particularly the psychology of Carl Jung and George Gurdjieff. You get a very deeper understanding of things such as music, psychology, philosophy, and medicine when you study the esoteric dimensions of these.

I'm sorry, but there's no truth in any of these claims. It's just plain superstition. It has no application in real life, other than misguiding people and replacing opiates. Sometimes it may turn complex and sophisticated, but that doesn't make it less naive. If I'm very doubtful of Freudian psychology, even much more of Jungian, tainted with all this absurd mysticism that brings it to the border of pure quackery.