Better to be a skeptic than a sucker (17)

1 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-08-23 00:03 ID:CD9bAH28

People have always disliked that I don't accept some facts that people consider truth beyond doubt. For example, I say Derren Brown cannot read peoples' minds and all his shows are staged, and I get a hostile response. Without going into this particular example, I find it surprising how easily people believe in almost supernatural feats when they are presented with the smallest amount of bullshit reasoning.

People who allow themselves to be convinced of something so easily make for prime suckers, because they never question anything. This is why I believe it's better to be a skeptic.

Someone may argue that I may end up believing in nothing. My answer is to believe in what you need to believe in to satisfy your desires while making damn sure you're taking the right course of action. If a certain fact is unimportant and you cannot be arsed to research it, then suspend your judgement.

Thoughts?

2 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-08-23 07:17 ID:Heaven

> then suspend your judgement

I firmly believe most decisions people make are emotional; they develop supporting arguments after the fact. It's impossible to suspend an emotional response, although you can do some bizarre things with it if you manipulate the perception.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it explains some things.

> satisfy your desires while making damn sure you're taking the right course of action.

I wish you'd left the "desires" and "course of action" part out.

3 Name: 3 2005-08-23 08:52 ID:MHdLKfxn

> I wish you'd left the "desires" and "course of action" part out.

Eh? Why?

4 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-08-23 10:16 ID:Heaven

Part of the definition is too board, the rest too narrow.

For example:
a) believe in what you need to believe in to satisfy your desires

People believe in Derren Brown to satisfy their desires. To use a tired cliché: I want to believe.

b) make damn sure you're taking the right course of action

Their belief in Derren Brown's perceived abilities probably results in no action.

5 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-08-23 11:26 ID:CD9bAH28

Good point. I was trying to make a specific point, but I am unsure how to articulate it. I mean desires on a larger sense, such as will to power and love, not smaller desires which cause little change in their general mood.

I agree with you... I should have left that bit out.

6 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-08-23 14:33 ID:dLwLYCoB

> Thoughts?

Get some better friends.

7 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-08-31 03:30 ID:4T7G5q8A

The Vulcans were right, we were wrong.

8 Name: DrLang 2005-09-10 08:56 ID:s/tL5Q83

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. A little skepticism of widely accepted scientific theories could do the scientific community a world of good.

9 Name: DrLang 2005-09-10 09:01 ID:s/tL5Q83

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. A little skepticism of widely accepted scientific theories could do the scientific community a world of good.

10 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-09 23:08 ID:6/qK+KGQ

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical every once in a while,but you should be aware(I think you are by now,lol) that most people will resent you for doing so.
I can't really tell you why but people often choose to believe that kind of gibberish...maybe they are just guillable.Whenever I see them being fooled by those shows you mentioned or religion I get mad and try to reason w/ them but they just won't listen.
We can't change the world...otherwise we wouldn't be here sitting in front of our computers looking for lolicon,right?

11 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-10 18:52 ID:aPO5PJ7G

Well, if the 2ch people can do it, why can't we?

12 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-10 21:09 ID:6/qK+KGQ

They can?They've done some pretty impressive things in the past alright,but that's far from changing the world.That's something very big,changing how people think and such.It's not something you can accomplish overnight,it takes time and skill...ost of us do not have.After all we,last time I checked,most of us lack social and oratory skills.

13 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-11 04:19 ID:/QtFsktf

14 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-12 18:17 ID:Heaven

Some us also lack the skill to press the space bar, it seems.

15 Name: omaemona 2005-10-12 19:19 ID:Heaven

> Some us

"Some of us"

16 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-10-13 03:28 ID:0MJmo8i3

>I can't really tell you why but people often choose to believe that kind of gibberish...maybe they are just guillable.Whenever I see them being fooled by those shows you mentioned or religion I get mad and try to reason w/ them but they just won't listen.

That's kind of arrogant and unreasonable. You're only trying to win them over to your own personal point of view.

Your post kind of reads as though it could have possibly been tongue-in-cheek. If that's the case, then... good.

17 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-03 20:14 ID:UHbtk+37

>I say Derren Brown cannot read peoples' minds

I say that too, mainly because at the start of each one of his programmes he EXPLICITLY STATES that he's not reading peoples' minds, and that he achieves all his results through psychological trickery. Jeez...

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: