Actually skeptics (correctly called pseudo skeptics) are far worse than that.
They even disbelieve things that can be explained by establishment dogma. I have heard that they disbelieved the effects of steroids initially despite evidence. And to this day vitamins and minerals are often ignored. But these are not fringe concepts. So what are these people really? Those who oppose any form of extraordinary or important information. Anything vital and wonderful is their target, they are actually cynics. And want to degrade the world. Actually this makes me think of the character of Gregory House (House MD), he is often skeptical, but also takes glee in dashing peoples illusions, even if they aren't illusions. It is an attempt to remove the joy and life and wonder, just a different form of dark age. And if it is true of not is not their concern. John On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:49 PM, *** Craig Brown *** <cr...@overunity.co>wrote: > I've dealt with these types for years. The actual term I prefer to use is > Pseudosceptics - due to the fact that they do not display any of the traits > of true sceptics, but rather that they are opposed to ANYTHING which cannot > be explained by establishment dogma. The term sceptic no longer means what > it used to but has been hijacked by these insects. > > Read my website for more details. > http://truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/ > > Craig > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013 4:08 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:skepticism versus Debunkers > > On Sun, 12 May 2013, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so > > obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than > > small 's' skeptic. > > Nah, because we become "debunkers" only if we start logging onto forums in > order to crusade against the sad muddled beliefs of their users. For > example, I don't subscribe to crazy Phrenologist belief systems, or even > UFO > stuff. Does that make me a Debunker? Nooo, I just disbelieve, yet I have > zero interest in those topics. And if a pro-N-rays thread takes off here, > that's no prob, even though I'm a complete Disbeliever. > > Again, everyone please read: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html, it's > basically the Rule II details. > > > >
