Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics Skeptics, cynics, and burden of proof

4 voices
3 replies
  • Author
  • #63081
    Sarah Marie

    I’ve been reading about the rather strong postings made by some of the skeptics here and other places, along with various responses to and about them.

    To me, most of those postings by skeptics are not postings by skeptics; they are postings by cynics. A skeptic, to me, is an individual who is willing to keep an open mine; process new information available to them and, if necessary, change their positions on an issue. Such, actually, is the Scientific Method, the process that all of science itself is based on.

    Cynics, on the other hand, do not have open minds. They would rather put people down for their beliefs then even attempt to look at things as objectively as possible.

    Skeptics I’m willing to listen to; cynics I could not possibly care less what they are saying.

    Someone did have a post, though, about skeptics needing to prove that life after death does not exist.

    The burden of proof lies on the side of those who say that something does exist. It’s not up to skeptics to prove the non-existence of something. It is up to skeptics to carefully examine the information presented to them, objectively and fairly, and to respond to that information in a constructive, even if critical, manner.

    It would be interesting to know how many of the skeptics/cynics would admit that they believe in God or some other diety. Can they, or anyone, prove(via the Scientific Method) the existence of a God/Goddess/diety/dieties? There are some things that are accepted on faith. I believe that life-after-death is one of those, and that proving it’s existence is not really required of anyone. It would be nice to have proof, yes, but we do not owe anyone proof of communicating with the dead/life after death any more than they owe us proof of the existence of a God/Goddess/diety/dieties.

    Pam B

    Very well said, and I agree 100%

    The burdon of proof is indeed upon us. When we provide our own evidence, in our opinion, it’s equates to proof. Often, cynics and some skeptics don’t come up with the same result, after considering what we provide as “proof”. It’s the cynics who will phrase it as “they have no proof” when the simple truth is, they just don’t accept it. It’s a matter of opinion.


    It’s a never-ending frustrating cycle. One I’ve pretty much chosen to ignore. I really don’t care whether they believe or not as long as they stay away from me. That may be a hard view, but after a few encounters with the blockheads, it’s not worth my patience or time.

    They give off a great amount of negativism and it spreads and washes over everyone. You’d have to say the white light prayer every 3 seconds or your blood pressure would become an “Old Faithful”.

    I don’t have to convince them. If they are meant to believe, they’ll get there. But, I’m not planning on being the catalyst. I think I’d need a crowbar or something just to make a dent.

    As JE said, he doesn’t need to prove what he knows to be so.



    I will second that opinion. I will also say…
    Take it from someone who was an active skeptic being vary vocal in my opinion of the fakery of it all in highs school. You feel incredibly stupid about your comments once you start to believe.

    Rebekah (who now considers her self a skeptical believer)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.