Do skeptics really exist? How can they function in a world where we just have to accept unprovable axioms? Are they just not 'later adopters'. For example, people who buy into the stock or property market when it tops, because they wanted to be really, really, really sure that they were good investments.

How can you say that God doesn't exist, when you can't prove either way whether She exists or not? Whether there is life after death or not? All you can sensibly say is that you don't know or you don't think so.

If you were an uneducated skeptic in the time of Gallileo or Copernicus, would you not have condemned them to death... How useful is that?

Sometimes, you just have to choose beliefs which help you lead a productive and positive life, even though you have no idea (or care) whether they are true or not. For example, belief in reincarnation banishes the concept of failure and the urgency of achieving your goals because you get to come back and keep trying. You become a better person because you don't want to soil your karma. Good for you and good for the people around you.

Will we humans ever be able to discover what truth really is? I doubt it, that is why I think, we have to create our own illusion of reality and modify it as we go along. Even if it means that you have to admit you are wrong later on. Who cares!

I hope you can come along to the meeting on the 14th.

There will be lots of people interested in your ideas and prepared to share their own, but don't expect to come away without having most of what you're espousing challenged. Of course you're free to believe what you want, but when those beliefs affect others that's when we skeptics become interested.

Anyway, hope to see you at the next meeting.

Cheers...

Craig

Sounds like the standard spiritualist "how can we really know anything" schpiel. To paraphrase Tim Minchin, is it easier to leave the house via the front door or the second story window? My guess is that you will know that answer.

And like Craig said, would be great to see you at the meeting, just need to remember it's not a philosophy class.

SkeptiCol

"Standard spiritualist"? By what standard? Isn't skepticism not a philosophy? Of course everyone is free to believe what they want, at least in this country.

My view (belief) is that beliefs are tools, they are a means to an end and not the end itself. If they lead to impotent outcomes then replace them. Is that not also the scientific process?

(I don't think) it is not possible to be a total skeptic. You need to balance it with a bit of gullibility in order to function in a world where so much is unknown and unpredictable.

Would Columbus have discovered the West Indies if Queen Isabella was a skeptic? Etc, etc. What does it say that about Kiwi society that this meetup has such a large number of members? But I really don't believe you have that many members ...

I guess the world needs a healthy mix of risk taking, risk neutral and risk averse people to ensure a certain order. I am sure that you can work out into which group 'skeptics' fit.

NZ was voted the most peaceful country of 2009 and the least corrupt in 2009, possibly because we have so many skeptics here. "What weapons of mass destruction? Where's the proof?" etc, etc.

Happy bantering guys, I will pass on your invitation to a meeting. I find trying to hold a conversation with a 'skeptic' extremely frustrating. It is like talking to a child who always asks, "Why?" ... One step forward and two steps back.

Ok, don't come, so you won't have your preconceptions and straw men challenged, which might lead you to discomfort and, possibly, growth...

Don't you realise that opposing beliefs and alcohol are an explosive mixture? Besides, I know I can't defend my beliefs, just like I know you can't defend yours.

I have decided that I like living in a country that has a high percentage of skeptical and risk averse people because it tends to be more stable. orderly and peaceful than a country that has a high crime rate (criminals are good examples of risk takers) and a high percentage of religious fanatics (the opposite of skeptics). No prizes for guessing which was the least peaceful country in 2009.

So, please keep meeting guys.

Clay, it seems to me that your focus on 'belief' seems to show that you have a load of pre-conceptions as to what scientific skepticism is about. To the best of my knowledge, the skeptics have no axe to grind with respect to the 'faith' type of believing [e.g. reincarnation as in your example] and some of them do practice religion.
If anything, the skeptics are far more tolerant of of 'faith' type beliefs than most so-called religious people, especially when believers in one group have contradictory beliefs to another [the Pope is probably far more skeptical of reincarnation than I am].
From what i understand, there is nothing in the aims and objectives of the skeptics that is about attacking people' s faith.

Your comment regarding heated debate and alcohol also seems to be very prejudiced as well. I've attended the earlier meetings and the atmosphere was pretty convivial, and, as far as I could see the alcohol consumption was pretty much light to moderate.

Finally, many of the issues that the skeptics tackle are out of genuine concern about the harm done by bogus alternative medical methodologies, and exploitation of people's gullibility by so-called "psychics and mediums" who peddle simple cold-reading techniques as though they have mystical powers.

So what's really going on with this 'skeptical about skeptics' line, are you simply a religious proponent irked by the fact that many skeptics are openly non-religious? So far, your reason for being skeptical of skeptics is bogus, and your reason for not coming is bogus. What else, maybe you're scared that your 'beliefs' that provide relief from failure are also bogus.

For me, skepticism is 'scientific' which by definition is testable, falsifyable and observable. Science provides facts through observation, that you can either accept or not.

Arguing over stuff that is untestable and open to personal beliefs is a waste of oxygen. We gather, as we all accept the same sort of things, there are some differing world views due to different personal experiences. And we are partial to beer.

So what am I skeptical of, anything that is not backed up with actual proof, or where the proof is so tenuously thin and does not have any possible mechanism for working.

On the 'we can't know whether or not it really does exist' point, that leaves the gate open for anything to be postulated without any requirement for proof or mechanism. The tooth fairy for example, there is no proof that it exists, but your belief is that we can't discount it, because we can't know that it doesn't 100% not exist.

Colin

If Queen Isabella was not a skeptic would she have not invested her money in a voyage of what was then a sort of scientific discovery to prove that something may or may not exist?

Come on get your head out of your own mist of belief and be open to what can be proven and don't believe in the things that simply cannot, especially when Occam's Razor says that it probably doesn't!

Here is a very nice piece from Terry Pratchett about the subject
http://www.guardian.c...