• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptic given a negitive review

Richard

Muse
Richard
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
960
This reporter never called me about this....

---------------------
To believe or not to believe?

By Brendan Shanahan

March 30, 2007 12:00
Article from: The Daily Telegraph

On ACA the spokesman for the organisation, Richard Saunders, was eager to reassure viewers that he regarded the family in Guildford as merely misguided, not bad.

"I have no doubt that someone with very good intentions has done this,'' he said.

It must have broken Mr Saunders' heart, therefore, when he found himself duty bound to point out that "there's never been one authenticated miracle in the history of the world, ever.''

He tells us this not - supposedly - because he likes to crush the faith of a grieving family, but because "unfortunately, the ramifications are often very serious and people will believe all sorts of things.''

It is interesting to note that the sceptics here are happy to credit themselves with a gift they decry as fraudulent in others: the ability to see into the future.

More at:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21468991-5001031,00.html
 
I remember my the first critical review I read of my band....It hurt!

Remember though, thats the business, if you are going to create anything, people are going to critique and critsize it...


Speaking of which, what a horrible job, being a critic. There should be more critics of critics.
 
Richard said:
This reporter never called me about this....

---------------------
To believe or not to believe?

By Brendan Shanahan

March 30, 2007 12:00
Article from: The Daily Telegraph

On ACA the spokesman for the organisation, Richard Saunders, was eager to reassure viewers that he regarded the family in Guildford as merely misguided, not bad.

"I have no doubt that someone with very good intentions has done this,'' he said.

It must have broken Mr Saunders' heart, therefore, when he found himself duty bound to point out that "there's never been one authenticated miracle in the history of the world, ever.''

He tells us this not - supposedly - because he likes to crush the faith of a grieving family, but because "unfortunately, the ramifications are often very serious and people will believe all sorts of things.''

It is interesting to note that the sceptics here are happy to credit themselves with a gift they decry as fraudulent in others: the ability to see into the future.

More at:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21468991-5001031,00.html
Click to expand...
When I saw Daily Telegraph, I assumed Brit. newspaper which I was under the impression had a good reputation then find out Australian (not a problem) associated with Faux Pnews (so what did you really expect from an org that stomps its' feet on and rakes in its' money from sorrow, ugliness and stupidity - not that there is anything wrong with that:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: !!)
 
Last edited:
I sent this:

Dear Brendan,

I have read your article several times, and I have to admit I am left feeling a bit confused.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you think that it is better to leave a person with a false belief that a miracle has occurred, than to tell the person that his beliefs are not grounded in reality.

I really hope this is not the case. Because then, you would be advocating that any con man should be allowed to trick people into believing all kinds of falsehoods, as long as it made them feel good.

Is that really your stance?

Sincerely,
Claus Larsen
Editor, SkepticReport.com
Click to expand...

Let's see if it gets published.

(Incidentally, they write that "Location" is optional, but you have to fill in the field.... :rolleyes:)
 
Richard said:
This reporter never called me about this....


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21468991-5001031,00.html
Click to expand...


They're the God-is-dead-botherers...

One wonders who the real zealots are here: the family who believe they see evidence for their son's existence in the afterlife, or those who feel the need to contradict them on national television.
What never seems to occur to sceptics is that many who believe in miracles and the like - not to mention those eccentrics who can't accept a barren, mechanistic universe - are quite aware that the existence of these phenomena is illogical and goes against everything they know to be true about the natural world.

They just don't care.

Being a professional sceptic is like paying for a ticket to the wrestling only to go around telling everyone that it's rigged.

The smugness of sceptics, their certainty in their own rightness, more closely resembles the religious fanaticism they claim to despise than the "concern'' for the community they espouse.

There's no doubt belief can lead to terrible consequences.

But, from what I've seen, not believing can be just as tragic.
Click to expand...

We don't believe god is dead; he never existed. :confused:

I just happen to be listening to Eleanor Rigby as I'm writing this. Whoever wrote this I bet wouldn't knock the Beatles despite the contradiction. The same thought given in a popular format would not be challenged. I don't fully understand the wrestling metaphor. It seems the person who wrote this believes that some lies are best left unexposed for entertainment purposes. I guess this is the Montel Williams and Larry King kind of person who would put Sylvia Browne on their show knowing darn well they are spewing crap out of their mouth.

I'd love to hear what the "terrible consequences" are. I'm not smug. I'm sad perhaps.

Keep fighting the good battle :)
 
Last edited:
Why is a lack of belief "tragic"?

Oh, right, because we'll go around killing everyone. That's right.
 
It's there, Claus.

I wish I could say I'm shocked by this, but hell, Daily Telegraph? It's the newspaper equivalent of ACA and TT.

Athon
 
The wrestling comment is weird as hell. Wrestling only continued to be popular because it was touted as genuine - if people had known from the start it was rigged then it wouldn't have lasted five minutes. But once they're hooked, they stay hooked. It's the whole package that makes wrestling popular: the girls, the costumes, the music, the beer. If you put two guys in a ring and say to the audience "it's fixed but watch them pretend to push each other around" and don't have any of the trappings, you don't have much of a product. So the only reason it's bad to tell folk it's fixed is because some promoters won't make any money.

Anyway, believing wrestling isn't fixed doesn't actually affect your real life. You don't live by the wrestling moral code. You don't lie awake at nights crying because you will never see your favourite wrestler again.

Weird, weird argument.
 
I hardly think of the world as barren and mechanistic... I think the understanding brought by science is unendingly fascinating. Aren't the religious folks the one waiting for some next life while trying not to "bite from the tree of knowledge" in this one? And which skeptics are smug and "certain of their rightness". I'd say, they have no claims of "higher knowledge", and don't think anyone else does either--though actual evidence wouldn't be discarded. It would be refined, honed, and maybe even exploited.

I think it's disturbing to be pondering magical realms and what ifs when the facts are so much more interesting. Sure, souls sound like a cool idea--but they just make no sense. Life is precious because it is not eternal. And the truth is precious because it's the same for everyone no matter what you believe. The earth was spherical long before humans started walking upon it...and will be afterwards too. Just as 2+2=4 long before humans defined the terms and figured out math.

I blame religion for making "belief" something good...and "doubt" something bad. What's wrong with not wanting to fool yourself? If nothing else, science has shown we humans are rather good at that. I don't like the idea that humans are encouraged to prop up others misguided beliefs. I want no part of the lie--or even a part of the notion that "faith" is something good. I sure don't see what it's good for. Facts are much more useful.
 
Great responses.

I'm sorry that "anti-skeptic" prejudice is infesting Australia in addition to the United states. Claus, we're depending upon you to keep the woo at bay in Scandinavia.
 
Overman said:
Remember though, thats the business, if you are going to create anything, people are going to critique and critsize it...


Speaking of which, what a horrible job, being a critic. There should be more critics of critics.
Click to expand...

Remember, noone ever erected a monument to a critic.
 
LOL... I even got in a reply !

"The saddest thing about this article is how truly it reflects what a lot of people think about sceptics. We are generally seen as curmudgeon spoilsports. It is so sad that critical and logical thinking are so demeaned in our society. Humans are amazingly clever and do and invent the most wonderful things, it’s a pity the most inane of these inventions, superstitions, paranormal phenomena and religions are so revered. I long for the day Brendan (or his like) write an article lamenting why people are so gullible."

Not one reply supporting his inane comments !
 
articulett said:
Great responses.

I'm sorry that "anti-skeptic" prejudice is infesting Australia in addition to the United states. Claus, we're depending upon you to keep the woo at bay in Scandinavia.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I'm not alone. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom