This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

[ciscop]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[LinzeeBinzee]

Thanks ciscop

I think the problem started when, in the 9th comment on that post on my blog I said this: "I’m being completely sincere in asking if you could show me one piece of good evidence for it." I shouldn't have said that because there was nothing specific that we were talking about. I was saying there's no evidence for anything supernatural, UFOs, etc. but that's so vague. I can't just go and say show me evidence for whatever claim, because then I'll get exactly what I got: links to all kinds of things.

I don't believe in a lot of the things you believe in, but I'm not interested in it either. I haven't seen a reason to believe in psychics, UFOs, fairies, unicorns, gods, but I'm not looking for a reason to believe either. It just doesn't interest me. If I happen upon the evidence then fine, I'll change my mind. But I'm not interested in actively looking for it. If I were actually looking for it then I think I would have been wrong to ignore everything you posted. It was just sheer disinterest in the topic that stopped me from reading a lot of what you posted.

I started my blog to post about things I learn and get excited about, and things that I'm interested in. I also post about things I recognize as bullshit. I enjoy just posting about things as I notice them, I'm not an investigator or anything, and when I see something, like my posts about bigfoot,it gives me a chance to work on my critical thinking skills.

I don't pretend that my critical thinking skills are developed, and when I started asking for evidence without specifying what I was looking for evidence for, I screwed up. The truth is that I wasn't looking for evidence for anything at all, I was trying unsuccessfully to convince you that you were wrong about people you call pseudo-skeptics.

And now my idiotic ramblings are in your treatise. Fantastic.

[ciscop]

personally i think that was awesome
i hope i screw it with winston sometime so i can be included too
hahahahaha i dont mind
maybe it should be called the ¨linzeebinzee syndrome¨
when the skeptic asks for information regardless if he/she cares for the information and has no desire of reading it


by the way eteponge
nice info you found there, i think we should start a thread about those

Last edited by ciscop on 11 Aug 2009, 13:57, edited 1 time in total.

[Purple Scissor]

linzeebinzee, That is a great reply. Very honest, which is unusual. I think you aroused our ire because you said bad stuff without investigating. Certainly, you could not have investigated, because that would be years of work (or at least quite a bit, to get a layman's overview). Only those who are willing to give the subject a chance at convincing them will put a lot of time into studying it. Thus, you have a bunch of ignorant skeptics. But it is refreshing that you are willing to admit that you just are not interested.

P.S. I take it you are not going to criticize without investigating again (;

[Eteponge]

[Eteponge]

[Scepcop]

Linzee, I congratulate your honesty too. But I wonder still, if you aren't interested in evidence then why did you ask for it? My theory is that when you asked for evidence, you believed that I could not give you any, so it was a sort of taunt. Then, if I was unable to point to any evidence, as you hoped, you would use that to support your case. That was your plan wasn't it? (or what you subconsciously planned)

[Scepcop]

Eteponge,
By the way, I wrote DragonCon and the organizers said that the debate between skeptics and believers this year was cancelled cause no one from the paranormal side wanted to participate. They invited us to register as guests next year to participate in debating people like Michael Shermer or James Randi or whoever shows up on their side. Would you be interested in registering with me to debate them? I think you and I would make a "dream team"

Does anyone know where DragonCon is held exactly?

[Eteponge]

[ProfWag]

[LinzeeBinzee]

[ciscop]

[LinzeeBinzee]