Skepticism, evidence, etc.

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[DrTechnical]

What, did someone spike the damn Kool-aid again? Pass it this way  . It's cousin is the new cure for mental illness you know.

Oh, I agree with all of this MB. Even you have said that at least I am striving to collect evidence for things. We're in general agreement.

The only thing I ask that you consider is while the mind is susceptible to being fooled, believing what it wants to and so forth ... I also believe the mind is incredibly powerful and intrinsically capable of gathering insights and experience that far exceed our system of science and understanding.

Open minded skepticism. I think we can both agree to that.

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[mimic]

only a skeptic can bring meaning to the term supernatural or it's concept.
since the skeptic does not accept certain phenomenons as being any form of phenomenon at all without evidence, the skeptic settles it outbounds of nature.
skepticism has created the concept of rejection and therefor of the supernatural.

what has a human being experienced that cannot be detected by anything in the natural world,  if a human being has experienced it?

there is no use in believing without knowing, but what do you know when you cannot believe?

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[howitzer]

It seems to me that the words belief and skepticism are very good words to use to describe one side or the other when your basing your reasoning off of something that is not been scientifically proven. In both cases you are not willing to state it as fact, although many believers claim their belief to be factual.

A believer has to take a leap of faith that his/her notion is true without fact. The point is, that is all they need for it to work for them.

The skeptic seems to approach a notion with doubt in there mind unless fact is given from the onset. So to me you might as well be describing a believer and a non believer because it is just that, one believes, the other does not.
You could claim the skeptic believes when proof is given, however in the same token, as you pointed out,  they are always aware of the capacity of changing facts with new evidence.
So can a skeptic person ever truly believe?
The only reason someone of belief can doubt their faith and not be called a non believer is because facts are not often involved within their reasoning processes.

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[howitzer]

So it like the No Absolute Truth theory? There has to be some portion of truth in order for anything to be disproven.
Evidence, truth, all subject to change at any given second makes it not provable?
Sure deducing is a way of science but so is discovery.
So you can only get close to the truth but never pin it down?

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[howitzer]

I certainly understand where you're coming from.

You never know when you have all the evidence about any particular idea, right?  Because you never have all the information.  It's not just science, it's everything.  You can't prove anything, outside of systems with defined rules, like math.

Do you think everything could have defined rules, like math but we just fail to see the parameters?

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)

[mimic]

how do opinions relate to sanity?
is there any evidence that points to your sanity? or do you believe it irrationally?

skeptics live in constant doubt, yet they do not doubt their capacity to disprove other's understanding of the universe.
they do not need to know or believe anything since they can blindly follow evidence ( or the best evidence out on the market for the time being ) to create the structure and rules of their mind, a mind that is subject to change at any given time to accomodate the latest disprovings, a mind without truth.

is the foundation of the structure which is erected by science ever questioned, are there facts and evidence that can prove to a skeptic that the assumptions of science are truly based on anything?
is there actually a foundation, how do skeptics of the scientific order establish an original fact on which to build upon... is that foundation also subject to change at any given time?

science has created a system with defined rules and willingly or not has established a dominion over reality itself, this system will eventually be swallowed by knowledge.

skeptics ridicule their kin accompanied by the weight of science and it's wave of rejection, they are the disciples of a sect that governs their hearts and turns others away from their hearts.
skeptics question the sanity of their kin and bring unease at the table of living experience.

they shy their brothers and sisters away from their own experience, they take them to the pyre, they create the fog and claim to dissipate it.

[Sunshine]

(content removed by user request)