Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

ODD: Obsessive Debunking Disorder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ODD: Obsessive Debunking Disorder

    Originally seen from M.Prescott's website:
    Thomas Sheridan Arts - Articles: Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

    and:
    Michael Prescott's Blog: Meat puppet madness

    Cheers

  • #2
    ODD... I like it LOL. I did like this bit.

    Sheridan makes it clear that he's not talking about moderate skeptics who are at least somewhat open to debate. Rather, his focus is on:

    The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma ... The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and 'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard". Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned 'hard science' which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific 'idiots' ...
    Never a truer word spoken Last night I did something I never usually do... I blocked someone on twitter because myself (along with a few 1000 others from what I could see) were getting sick and tired of Ricky Gervais's anti-religious taunts. It was Atheist terrorism at it's worst.

    I'd always loved the guy because he is a comic genius and generally seemed like a good bloke... but my views have changed now. For the last 6 months at least it seemed like every 2nd tweet was something to do with Atheism and in particular a chance for him to have a crack at religion.

    Last night it came to a head by the looks of it... because some of the rubbish he was posting was antagonistic and demeaning and people were calling him out on it. I looked this morning and I can't seem to find a lot of his tweets so no idea if it's just me not finding them or if he deleted them... but these ones were up there.

    Gives you a fair idea of how much of a tosser he is... and I don't even like religions myself. And Atheists try and tell you they don't have a belief system... I also see the irony in him playing the leading role in Ghosttown... a movie where he suddenly starts seeing and talking to dead people. I guess if the $$$ is right the morals can go out the door!

    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 21 Apr
    Telling me to stop tweeting about religion is as pointless as praying.
    No one is listening.

    Enjoy following or enjoy unfollowing
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 21 Apr
    No one can prove you can't fly.
    But if you assert that you can, & you expect rational people to believe it, the burden of proof is with you.
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 20 Apr
    You have the right to believe anything you want.
    You don't have the right to have that belief automatically respected.
    Big difference.
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 20 Apr
    Labelling a ****ing stupid belief "religious" does not make it any less ****ing ridiculous.
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 20 Apr
    "Honestly, you've sent more than enough prayers now. How about sending some cash, blankets & medicine?"-
    Every victim of a disaster ever.
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 12 Apr
    #ff @RichardDawkins @SamHarrisOrg @secularbloke @adrianbriggs @Atheist_Tweeter @MrOzAtheist @TheTweetOfGod for unapologetic merciless sanity
    Ricky Gervais ‏@rickygervais 9 Apr
    Isn't it comforting to know that after we die we will feel and know nothing? Be no one. Nowhere. Atoms dispersed in a universe. Memories.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm in the same boat, Ricky is one of my favorite comedians at the moment, but his tirade is getting on my nerves.

      At times I wondered if he's simply playing a role as he sometimes seem to do so effortlessly and authentically in his shows, but this level of enthusiasm seems unlikely to be manufactured. He is a very smart guy though, so I guess I'll never know.

      Now the question is, if I still enjoy his comedy, and just ignore his irrational attitude towards all things "unscientific", am I practicing pragmatism, or cognitive dissonance?

      Comment


      • #4
        silentrage: I initially thought the same thing which is why I let it slide... but it has gone beyond that. He regularly talks about and promotes Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris... as if he idolizes them. That's not the actions of a comic it's the actions of a radical militant atheist.

        Also you only have to google "Ricky Gervais Atheist" to see how often he is in the media talking about Atheism... he promotes it and brings it up at every opportunity.

        As for his comedy... he was my favourite but now I can't stand to watch any of his stuff anymore... knowing what a wanker he is.

        This image says it all really.

        Last edited by Frankmat; April 22nd, 2013, 04:29 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, I'm not a follower of Ricky Gervais, so his comments and behaviour had escaped my attention.

          But one of the things here in the UK which has made the subject of religion more topical is the law on blasphemy. For years this was an obscure, little known law which was fading into the dustbin of history. But in recent years it has been brought back to the forefront, with calls for the law to be strengthened. Now that is something which I don't support, and I don't see it as helpful. In my opinion, this could be one factor which is firing up a lot of atheist activism.

          Comment


          • #6
            The corpus callosum, he writes,

            acts more like a buffer, with the left brain in Western people having a desire to literally switch off the neural activity in the right hemisphere.... [T]he left hemisphere is a bully. In overly logical and analytical individuals, fMRI scans have shown the left brain actually inhibits the right brain—via the corpus callosum nerve fibers—from offering its contribution to the entire cognitive process. This state of right hemisphere nullification is where the debunker and the hardcore skeptics are trapped and can never leave—in their intolerant and highly narcissistic left hemisphere—using the two percent of neural wiring into their right hemisphere in order to shut it off. ... their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished.
            Interesting ...

            Sheridan observes that better educated people are actually easier to hypnotize than the less educated, and suggests that people who have concentrated on developing their intellectual (left-brain) faculties may end up in a state resembling permanent self-hypnosis, mesmerized by their own inner chatter, lacking common sense and intuitive skills. "The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere," Sheridan notes.
            Last edited by EthanT; April 22nd, 2013, 09:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bucky View Post
              That was a good article. Thanks for sharing ;-)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bucky View Post
                I was about to start a thread about "Obsessive Debunking Disorder" and Michael Prescott's blogpost myself... but I am too late.

                Anyway, a great post! Skeptics always fail to understand that "sophisticated" ad hominems (neurobabble, psychobabble, sociobabble etc.) may be easily reversed and used against them as well!

                I, however, prefer good old forms of scientific arguments when debating scientific controversies: experimental, experiential, logical and mathematical. And, then we pass beyond the limits of scientific method, I can also easily use anagogical (metaphorical) descriptions and comparisons to point to something which cannot be fully described with contemporary language. Methaphor is the language that directs beyond itself: it shows one the path beyond the limits of "talkable" with artistic usage of associations.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Either the article is serious and those who believe it should no longer blame those skeptics for their behaviour and should defend them against those who attack them, or the article is tongue in cheek and those who are applauding it are no better than the skeptics who call proponents deluded.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                    Either ...... , or .....
                    How do you reach the conclusion that there are only two possible interpretations of this article? On what basis do you reject all other possible interpretations?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                      Either the article is serious and those who believe it should no longer blame those skeptics for their behaviour and should defend them against those who attack them, or the article is tongue in cheek and those who are applauding it are no better than the skeptics who call proponents deluded.
                      Yup we're just going to pat you on your heads... say "there there" and tell you it's not because you are gullible and stupid... you truly believe there is nothing to see here... but you're simply not capable of understanding why your brain is tricking you into believing there is nothing to PSI.

                      I might send the article to Ricky Gervais and tell him I have an explanation for why he thinks it's perfectly reasonable to say to another human being:

                      "You have the right to believe anything you want. You don't have the right to have that belief automatically respected"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by typoz View Post
                        How do you reach the conclusion that there are only two possible interpretations of this article? On what basis do you reject all other possible interpretations?
                        The dichotomy I meant to set up was that he's either serious or not serious.



                        Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
                        Yup we're just going to pat you on your heads... say "there there" and tell you it's not because you are gullible and stupid... you truly believe there is nothing to see here... but you're simply not capable of understanding why your brain is tricking you into believing there is nothing to PSI.
                        If you believe it is their brain chemistry that is causing them to think a certain way, then lambasting them would be inappropriate wouldn't it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                          If you believe it is their brain chemistry that is causing them to think a certain way, then lambasting them would be inappropriate wouldn't it?

                          I think for many of those guys a good portion of condolence would be even worse than lambasting, lol...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think the neatest thing about the article is it shows how we can get into habitual thinking patterns (from upbringing, environment, culture etc) and due to the plasticity of the brain it will actually re-wire itself, which enforces the habit. And, nobody is immune to it.

                            The good news is: with effort you can free yourself and "rewire" things.

                            Here's another example that was interesting. Very different, but more plasticity of the brain at play.

                            This Is What Happens When Kids Grow Up On Unlimited Access To Pornography
                            Last edited by EthanT; April 22nd, 2013, 01:55 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              @Arouet

                              I'm with you on this one. If you think the article is probably true, then you can't reasonably hate/dislike militant atheists/materialists any more, since you should really feel sympathetic with their condition.

                              At least that's what I think.
                              Extreme opinions are comparatively rare and it seems best to just not engage with extremists, and only talk to moderates.

                              With extremists, even if you win, you lose, because you end up using the same language and attitude they employ, and you don't convince them in the end.

                              With moderates, even if you lose, you win, because you'll have been offered some evidence or logic that refutes your belief, and thereby gain a degree of modesty and knowledge.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X