Let me guess--this was too long for Geoff to sit through. :)
Geoff said 2 days later
you guessed it! Lost me about 2 minutes in... :)
Geoff said 2 days later
if he used aliens instead of ghosts, there may have been a chance :P
GJ said 3 days later
Aliens = ghosts. There. Now watch the rest of it.
Geoff said 3 days later
ugh that was painful. We need to do a better job if we are going to convince the world they are close-minded.
GJ said 3 days later
Painful in what way? Just curious. It's actually gotten a lot of kudos from skeptics of many varieties, but of course they'd find it appealing.
You're correct, however--folks that argue irrationally aren't likely to be swayed. A cute flash video isn't going to cure them of gullibility, or teach them to work at distinguishing fact and fiction, rather than taking things at face value if they line up with one's belief system.
Marc said 3 days later
One suggestion I have goes for all skeptics. Stop acting like you know everything and don't argue in a mocking fashion. :) It's not all skeptics, but many I have seen. I just recently watched Religilous (well done documentary in many respects) and also this video both share the same quality I've seen in all debates on these types of topics. Sure, when talking about evolution, the people who don't believe in it are absolutely ridiculous, but when you come off as mocking, there's no way it will work. It will simply lead the person on the other end to get into a defensive state.
It's not just the words you use to debate, but the tone of voice as well. If skeptics in general all acted in a more professional manner, their points would come across much better. You could spend all the time in the world coming up with irrefutable evidence, but being condescending about it won't help your cause.
One of the best parts of Religilous was when they described the story of Jesus' life as being written almost exactly the same by several other, older civilizations. That is good proof to show for your point and he did it in a very factual manner, but much of the rest was very mocking, as if people are flat out stupid who don't believe what you do. Now, I'm of the spiritual side, but I still enjoyed the movie because I'm not a nut case and can accept evidence when it's brought to me.
I think if the level of professionalism is brought up in these videos, articles, etc. you'll probably find you could sway more people to "the dark side." :)
Darcy said 3 days later
GJ--it is all a question of "framing". ;)
I think Marc is correct regarding mocking. There are definitely some in the skeptic community out there that come across this way. That is a big reason why I didn't care to see Religilous--what little I saw of it was mocking. It isn't going to win anyone over, but I also feel there is a level of frustration in the skeptical community(of a "how can you not see it" variety)whether it is alternative medicine woo, or vaccines cause autism, or creationism vs evolution. The frustration is there because even when facts are presented, in a calm manner, some are so deep into denial(I am thinking of vaccines=autism folks here) that they dismiss it automatically. What many skeptics forget is that many people are not ruled by their minds. They don't reason everything out, for lack of a better way to put it they are ruled by their heart, their emotions. I don't think you can change that.
GJ said 3 days later
Marc, can you point to a specific part of this video as being condescending or mocking? I know what you're referring to, and yes, it's a common complaint I hear, but all too often people read "mocking" and "know-it-all" into situations where they're being told their beliefs are based on fallacious truths. It'd be hard to think anything else of the skeptic if your core values are under attack.
Anyhow, point me to a specific example, so I can look at it from the "other side." I'm honestly curious--even thought I suspect the British accent is enough to make this sound snooty. LOL.
Marc said 3 days later
There's various examples throughout, nothing huge in this video, but it's the small things sometimes. Like saying "if you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs, than that's unfortunate for you." (Around 5 minutes in) It just seems like a childish way to say what is meant. Maybe that's just me, but it certainly was more predominant in Religilous. You are right, though, the British accent didn't help. ;) But to be honest, I never felt like my beliefs were being attacked, I felt like my maturity was. When a skeptic is arguing for the side of "We just don't know," I think that's a fair honest and honorable opinion, but there's ways to argue for your side without belittling others.
Darcy's point is valid too, I can imagine it sometimes feels like you're trying to teach a child when trying to convince people that things like evolution have irrefutable evidence.
I think there's a fine line between being passionate about a topic and being overly emotional and this point is often a case used by skeptics, which I agree, when you let emotions control you, you'll often ignore what's right in front of you. Skeptics need to watch out for the same problem though. I enjoy the passion and debate it brings up, but I'd hate to see Skepticism be a new "religion" involved in a holy war. We've got enough fundamentalists causing havoc. :)
If you'd like, I could attempt to bare that video looking for the specific examples, but...it's 9 minutes man...this is the 21st century, what kind of time do you think I have? :P
GJ said 3 days later
First, sorry, Darcy, you and I were posting simultaneously and I didn't see your post. I'm in agreement with most of what you and Marc are saying. However, I may have to beat you senseless for the framing pun. (Inside joke, folks, nothing to see here).
Second, Marc's point about skeptic "fundamentalists" is quite funny--that's precisely how many religious opponents paint us. However, there ARE skeptic fundamentalists out there--they are the "burn the damn bridges already" type. They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann. If your political beliefs line up with theirs, you'll probably find them amusing, and find they do occasionally say some really good things, but by and large they are a guilty pleasure. Unless, of course, you're a total nutjob and eat up everything that comes out of their mouth, but in that case you'd be a terrible skeptic. :) They don't do much to educate the opposition, rather, they serve the purpose of revving up the core supporters.
Back to the video. "If you have difficulty". I found that line amusing--but let's face it, it's true. Why should you be offended that other people don't agree with your point of view? Skeptic or believer, it matters not. If you take offense based on this difference of belief, you're a moron. Aw, crap, that's an ad hominem. :) Still, it's just too bad for you in that case. Nothing childish about that--it's simple a no-BS way to say what needs saying, isn't it? How would you go about covering this point? Maybe there is a better way.
Religilous was pretty bad in this sense--they went out of their way to be unfair to believers, and ridicule them. Again, guilty pleasure time for the atheists, but it was unfair and unethical. In fact, it was not so different than how Expelled was made, and atheists went ape-crap over that movie (rightfully so).
In any case, my point behind the video was to try to demonstrate how skeptics view the definition of open-mindedness. And yes, I think they did get a bit childish when referring to others' definition of open-mindedness--it harkens back to the saying, "be open minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out." All too often we're accused of being closed-minded...when the opposite is usually (but not always) true.
Marc said 3 days later
I will say that this video was not really that offensive in the sense that I constantly felt ridiculed, but it just reminded me a couple times and with Religilous recent in my head, this is something the skeptic community needs to keep in check. Overall the way things were phrased weren't all that bad, my example wasn't even that harsh, but it is a common theme I've seen and could make the process even harder for you "heathens." :)
GJ said 4 days later
Yeah, don't judge us by Bill Maher's masterpiece, Bill isn't a true skeptic (he believes some really FAR OUT crapola) and as I said before, Religious was a hatchet job on the faithful. Try reading Dawkins or Sagan to get an idea of how a real skeptic operates.
Anyhow, this was a pretty civil discussion with no name calling. See! It's possible to play nice in this area....sometimes. :)
Geoff said 4 days later
Sorry I'm late to the game...few things.
What I meant by "painful" is the way it was presented. This thing put me to freaking sleep. The quality of the content was good, but the presentation was...painful. I didn't see any explosions, spaceships, or aliens! Seriously though, a little background music would have helped just a little...and perhaps a more dynamic speaker. But that's a whole other topic.
As for the rest of this conversation...I totally agree that we can be condescending, and to tell you the truth, I find it hard not to with some of these folks. I often feel like beating them with a stick they make such nonsensical comments. My favorite part about Religulous was when Jesus described the three aspects of the Christian God...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...comparing it to the three states of water (gas, liquid, solid). Even Bill was impressed (and how couldn't he...it's a great analogy for something totally bonkers).
In any case, you can't reason with most of these folks and in the end, us skeptics are the Anti-Christ in their mind. Once we've opened the minds of enough people, they will have their Armageddon, and hopefully our Science will trump their God. Boom!
Amen, and merry Easter yo.
GJ said 4 days later
Well, we were playing nice....
Geoff said 4 days later
:) I'm sorry but some of the folks really are morons. There is no way around it. I just don't understand how somebody can honestly believe humans were playing fetch with T-Rex. It's despicable.
GJ said 4 days later
It's not despicable. It's sad, and it's why I get so worked up about the creobots trying to manipulate schools to "teach the controversy." But that's a separate topic, covered a few posts ago.
It does bring up a good point, though. Have you been watching anything on Fox News of late? They are selling the idea that Obama will be instituting a form of tyranny, citing various changes he's made and drawing them out to absurd and nonsensical conclusions, and practically coming right out and saying that it might not be a bad idea to stock up on weapons and ammo in order to "defend our freedom." These are, of course, outright lies, but it attracts viewers and that's all that matters. However, a fair number of people take this "news" as the truth--without applying an ounce of healthy skepticism to it--and guess what? It's getting pretty hard to find ammo at Wal-Mart these days...it sells so fast they can't keep it in stock.
Scary, isn't it? And all based on lies and half-truths.
So, I'm not trying to encourage the thought that everything a skeptic believes it (or doesn't believe in) is the absolute truth. Rather, I'm hoping that you can take some things you take for granted (like the existence of aliens) and put a critical eye towards it. Does it stand up to true scrutiny...or is it in the category of "unknown, and highly unlikely." Or perhaps, "unknown, but rather likely."
Geoff said 4 days later
Aliens are definitely unknown but likely....whether they are intelligent remains to be discovered...but I don't imagine it will take long to find "alien" organisms, if they haven't already done so.
In any case, I don't watch Faux News, or much news on TV in general.
GJ said 4 days later
Aliens -- separate post. Do educate me on the aliens unknown but likely. I'm not saying I totally disagree, but I'm interested to see what you base your opinion on. That "if they haven't already done so" bit leads me to think I'll find that source *very* interesting. :)
Geoff said 4 days later
I'm talking bacteria...found on a remote moon or something. That would be considered alien....and I can almost guarantee they will find some kind of foreign bacteria in the next few decades or so, ***if they haven't already done so***.
As for intelligent aliens, I find it hard not to believe that somewhere in the universe exists some form of creature. And no I don't have proof other than statistics which would indicate that the universe is so vast, that it would be darn near impossible for our planet to be the ONLY one to sustain intelligent life.
GJ said 4 days later
They haven't found any bacteria or viruses to date. They were thinking they found hallmarks of that on a Martian meteorite, but that wasn't proven conclusively and even the original researchers aren't quite so convinced of it these days. Will they find something, someday? Maybe--but probably not soon.
The galaxy is very, very big. However, we have but one planet teeming with life that we know about. Any equation (I'm looking at you, Drake equation) that attempts to come up with a figure for the number of intelligent species out there is based solely on guesswork, not science. We don't even know how life came about here on this planet. Not knowing that, how can we begin to approximate the likelihood of it occurring elsewhere? I don't think we can--at least, not in any meaningful way.
Finally, hope that there are no other intelligent species out there. If there are, I can promise you this--neither we nor they will ever "come in peace." Just look back to how humans spread out over this planet. Expansion is always tightly tied to war--because, let's face it, resources in any closed system are finite. To the winner goes the spoils...so if I were you, I'd want to be the ones finding other species first, not the other way around.
