Here's an 11 point guide as to what it is skeptics believe.
If you can match every belief then you truly are a skeptic supreme.
This guy has researched this by pulling the information from skeptics' websites; so it must be true.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_sk..._medicine.html
If you look really, really hard, you might spot a logical fallacy in there as well.
.
Oh for heaven's sake. This is exactly what we're up against. It's extreme, but it's pretty much how I've seen we're perceived.
We have a PR exercise and a half, and perhaps a name change, to change this sort of view.
I can't think of anyone here who would agree with any of those points.
I guess that means no one here is a true skeptic. Awww.
I would like to invite Mike Adams on this forum to debate these points.
Eh?Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
I prefer this one:
"Skepticism is not a position but a determination to use science and
reason in arriving at conclusions. Science is a methodology, not an
ideology. Evidence prevails." - Kendrick Frazier
You know what? It reminds me a little of the rants about 'believers' on RD forums.
I'm not sure I get the whole 'being' a skeptic, while I can happily describe myself as 'skeptical', to see myself as a skeptic I think would require a level of intellectual cleansing I've never achieved and am not certain I would want.
I'm comfortable with skepticism as a behaviour, just as irrationality is, less so for either one in describing people or groups of people.
My mind would hurt if I had one. More stupid in the follow up article
skb
That's no better than the first article. In his way Mike Adams is as bad as Kent Hovind.Originally Posted by skbuncks
Is he a liar or just incredibly ignorant? Probably a mixture of the two.
It may also be possible he is so stupid that he doesn't realise how ignorant he is.That's no better than the first article. In his way Mike Adams is as bad as Kent Hovind.
Is he a liar or just incredibly ignorant? Probably a mixture of the two.
skb
He comes across as crazy rather than stupid. Unlike most of the loonies we have contact with he can string a coherent sentence together. He either actually believes, in the face of evidence, that skeptics actually think all that crap he claims, or he is a bare faced idiot liar. I'll vote crazy.
Heretic! Burn the witch! (We do believe in witch burning don't we? I'll ask Mike Adams, he's the expert)
GAH! My bloody heretical tendencies have got me in trouble again...
Can I buy my freedom with a linky? It's a non heretical one, from a real skeptic - see I can conform (especially when my toes get too hot!).
http://www.theness.com/neurologicabl...1506#more-1506
His post is the equivalent of dropping a crudely fashioned incendiary device onto a strawman factory of his own making. One of the most useful measures of one’s intellectual honesty and rigor is the manner in which they portray the positions of their critics and ideological opponents.
If he's making money off his website, I'd vote for 'professional liar', the same as many of the profit-making creationism promoters.
Well, I suppose it's either that or politics...
I wouldn't waste oxygen on him let alone votes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks