Dear believer in materialism, what makes you use this forum?

#1
I get why Craig Weiler stated that he won't spend his time on discussions in the CD sub-forum - it's the same discussion over and over. Different flavors sure but it amounts to the same thing. So I'm putting this out there - if you are committed to your materialist beliefs what motivates you to participate in this forum?
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#2
I'll defend the house Skeptics here. They've answered this question time and time again. I'll doubt they'll feel like they have to justify their presence in this sub-forum, which is set up explicitly for them.
 
#4
I cant find the post anymore, but i asked some of those guys the same a while ago (malf and arouet i guess?). They wrote that they are interested in such phenomena and that is why they are here. Atleast some of those people that call themselves sceptics in this forum seem to be not comitting as much as it seems. I guess everyone seeks answers, even them.

Edit:

I was asking:

Are you? Your posts certainly dont indicate that. It seems to me more like that you already decided to believe in a more "materialistic" opinion on those things since you promote those ideas in some of your posts. Of course, you can discuss all day and night here, im not saying anything against that - i just dont see what you expect to get out of that. I assume that you are not here to get magically convinced of the proponents view on various things. If you just want to know about consciousness, well, scientific american is propably closer to your belief, isnt it? Wouldnt that be easier?
I mean, i personally want to find more information from the proponents viewpoint here since i can not decide for myself whats right and whats wrong. But for a person who already decided that for him or herself i see no reason to be here, except propably proponents who like to hear alex's podcast. Call me a ignorant fool because of that, but i cant understand that. I'd like to though if its possible.
Arouet's post to that:

You seem to find some value in not being part of an echo chamber where diverse views are presented - why be surprised that others feel the same- particularly on a topic as fascinating as this one? Personally, to me, part of being a skeptic means to submit my views and beliefs to scrutiny. Also part of being a skeptic is exposing myself to multiple viewpoints and constantly challenging my own views.

Is there another forum you know of that discusses topics related to psi/parapsychology from various (pro and con) perspectives? If there is one that does so more than this site I'd certainly be interested in that! When I joined Skeptiko that was the focus - it is less so these days. Unfortunately I don't know of any good alternative at present. Skeptiko still seems like the best place to go to to discuss issues related to parapsychology.

Also - I wouldn't assume there's as much certainty going on as you suggest. I'm always surprised when people suggest it of me, for example (funny thing is, I've also been criticised as a middle of the road waffler - so it's kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.) Anyhow- I think if you pay attention, there's more subtlety to a lot of posts that get missed in the quick reads that can occur when reading a forum on breaks from other tasks (from all sides, not just skeptics). We are prone to putting people in little boxes - but generally people's views are more subtle than that, imo. It is often difficult to adequately express such subtlety over a medium such as this.
I imagine i should also post malf's answer. I hated the snarky stuff btw. But that seems to be rather normal for malf. No offense.

Supporters club it is then... I honestly thought it was more than that.

{Disclosure: I'm interested in the psi effect, and consciousness studies. I appreciate that our universe and our place in it is utterly bizarre. I remain agnostic over a "god" or prime mover (but don't expect such an entity knows that I exist, let alone judges me). I see minimal evidence for an afterlife, and don't expect one. I enjoy talking bollocks}
Idk about the others though. I could speculate, but that propably isnt worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

#6
Atleast some of those people that call themselves sceptics in this forum seem to be not comitting as much as it seems. .
Conversely, there seem to be quite a few proponents here who are only too quick to denounce anyone who doesn't share every article of their particular creed as "know-all atheists" and "skeptic trolls".

One might equally ask why they would participate in a discussion forum if they can't bear to hear opinions they disagree with!
 
#7
Conversely, there seem to be quite a few proponents here who are only too quick to denounce anyone who doesn't share every article of their particular creed as "know-all atheists" and "skeptic trolls".

One might equally ask why they would participate in a discussion forum if they can't bear to hear opinions they disagree with!
I actually know who you are talking about - in that special case i dont really believe that you guys are disagreeing, its more like a misunderstanding(but idk, im not judging there). Well, there are all sorts of people out there on both sides, sceptics and proponents. We have to remind ourselves that we are not discussing dishwashers here. I tend to react quite emotional to stuff like that aswell from time to time since we are talking about things that concern our existence and the meaning behind that. That means that everyone here is concerned, if he or she wants to or not.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

#8
in that special case i dont really believe that you guys are disagreeing, its more like a misunderstanding(but idk, im not judging there).
I had a couple of people in mind, and I suspect misunderstanding may indeed have played a part. The trouble is, misunderstandings can only be resolved if people are willing to discuss things.
 
#9
I had a couple of people in mind, and I suspect misunderstanding may indeed have played a part. The trouble is, misunderstandings can only be resolved if people are willing to discuss things.
Oh okay. I just was reminded of a certain recent discussion between you and someone else here in this forum. But true, you can only solve something like if both stay calm and are willing to do things.
 
#10
I'll defend the house Skeptics here. They've answered this question time and time again. I'll doubt they'll feel like they have to justify their presence in this sub-forum, which is set up explicitly for them.
Almost by definition a staunch materialist is not a genuine skeptic. That's a rewrite that they've pulled off successfully. So successfully that almost everyone who has replied has used the term "skeptics" which is nowhere in the OP. I welcome skeptics, I disdain naysayers.
 
#11
Almost by definition a staunch materialist is not a genuine skeptic. That's a rewrite that they've pulled off successfully. So successfully that almost everyone who has replied has used the term "skeptics" which is nowhere in the OP. I welcome skeptics, I disdain naysayers.
I'm not sure who you are referring to then. You were talking about the CD forum. For myself, I don't identify myself as a "materialist", let alone a staunch one. (Doesn't stop others from labelling me as one though...)

Frankly, I think we do a disservice by putting too much emphasis on these isms. I've said this before, doing so encourages loyalty (ie: enhances bias) towards one's preferred "ism". These terms should ideally be just general categories allowing us to quickly refer to some general positions.

I don't try and put myself in the framework of defending an "ism". Rather, I just think of myself of trying to figure out what's going on. This doesn't eliminate my biases of course, but I think it at least helps not to increase it!
 
#12
I'm not sure who you are referring to then. You were talking about the CD forum. For myself, I don't identify myself as a "materialist", let alone a staunch one. (Doesn't stop others from labelling me as one though...)
I was referring to all of Skeptiko. That said, I see your point on identification. Boxing people into a group is IMO always dubious. Which is in part why I styled the thread on an individual basis so that people can respond (if they choose to) for themselves.

IMO if you are genuinely trying to figure out what's going on - you will not find yourself advocating the tenets of materialism.
 
#13
I was referring to all of Skeptiko. That said, I see your point on identification. Boxing people into a group is IMO always dubious. Which is in part why I styled the thread on an individual basis so that people can respond (if they choose to) for themselves.

IMO if you are genuinely trying to figure out what's going on - you will not find yourself advocating the tenets of materialism.
Be careful not to confuse bias with disingenuity or bad faith. One can be both genuinely interested in finding out what is going on, and also biased towards one position or another. Also take care not to confuse open mindedness with particular beliefs.

Being open minded should not mean being without bias. Defining it that way would make the term useless as everyone is biased to one extent or another. Rather, being open minded should mean recognizing that one's current beliefs could be wrong and should be open to change. Being skeptically open minded means, in my opinion, to seek to have opinions that are based on sufficient, reliable evidence and to being willing to put oneself in a position to test one's own beliefs, and discover new evidence that my justify changing those beliefs. Being skeptically open minded, I would suggest, means recognising that one is biased, and making specific efforts to evaluate current beliefs and new information in a manner that controls one's biases as much as possible.

This is what I try to do, and what I've tried to do with my time on this forum.
 
#14
I get why Craig Weiler stated that he won't spend his time on discussions in the CD sub-forum - it's the same discussion over and over. Different flavors sure but it amounts to the same thing. So I'm putting this out there - if you are committed to your materialist beliefs what motivates you to participate in this forum?
He's probably a masochist : he likes to be tortured by all the overwhelming evidence against his cherished materialism, i guess ,maybe.
 
#15
Be careful not to confuse bias with disingenuity or bad faith. One can be both genuinely interested in finding out what is going on, and also biased towards one position or another. Also take care not to confuse open mindedness with particular beliefs.
You keep altering what I post and then replying to that alteration. I have not stated anything about bias, I stated something about "believing." There is a difference. So if you're going to argue against something then please - argue against something I've posted.
 
#17
You keep altering what I post and then replying to that alteration. I have not stated anything about bias, I stated something about "believing." There is a difference. So if you're going to argue against something then please - argue against something I've posted.
I was replying there to your use of the word "genuinely". It seemed to me that you were saying that someone could not both be genuinely interested in finding out what is going on, while also believing in materialism.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#18
I get why Craig Weiler stated that he won't spend his time on discussions in the CD sub-forum - it's the same discussion over and over. Different flavors sure but it amounts to the same thing. So I'm putting this out there - if you are committed to your materialist beliefs what motivates you to participate in this forum?
Going beyond this forum -> for some it's curiosity, for others a paranoid Chaoskampf where any immaterialist notion is dangerous stuff that must lead to religious fundamentalism. The latter seems to drive materialist evangelical groups.
 
#19
Going beyond this forum -> for some it's curiosity, for others a paranoid Chaoskampf where any immaterialist notion is dangerous stuff that must lead to religious fundamentalism. The latter seems to drive materialist evangelical groups.
Yes, they are fighting the "good fight." (Necessary, I guess, to say, I am not talking about skeptics on this forum, though one does fit that stereotype.)
 
Top