Joe Nickell- a skeptic and a naturalist

[TyBiggs85]

I heard Joe Nickell on an interview on coast 2 coast am tonight. Joe Nickell is a prominent skeptical investigator of the paranormal. He also works as an historical document consultant and has helped expose such famous forgeries as the purported diary of Jack the Ripper. His basic point on the paranormal, life after death, and the existence of the soul, was that they don't exist, they are just pure figments of the brains imagination. He said that once the body dies, "that's it, lights out" it's over and done with. The only thing that is immortal about life is the legacy that we leave, from his naturalistic point of view.

Has anyone heard this guys skeptical view everything paranormal? He claims to know for sure that all psychics, channelings, religious experiences are created in the brain. I keep an open mind about everything, but is this guy for real???!!! He should have a conversation with the C's, and see if can psychoanalyze them. But I guess wouldn't really matter, because they are all created by the mind too, right??

 

[TyBiggs85]

That was a little sarcasm at the end of my post, just to clarify. I was not bashing the C's in anyway, shape or form. They are nothing but an inspiration to me and a motivation to gain as much knowledge as I can from many numerous sources.

 

[PopHistorian]

A naturalist? But aren't we finding out all the time that there's more to nature than we thought? I think we ought to be careful about certainty, and to remember that there is always awareness that we are lacking. I knew a guy, a physician, with a 140 IQ (he said) who once remarked, "Isn't the UFO phenomenon amazing -- in all this time not a single piece of evidence has ever been found, but the myth continues." I think it's safe to say that a lack of awareness about this topic was revealed in that statement. I shrugged and didn't respond further, which was probably for the best.

 

[Average Joe]

Skeptics like this guy aren't trying to find the truth out about anything. They approach a phenomenon with a preconception, and then proceed to validate that preconception by ignoring or explaining away anything which doesn't support their point of view.
Healthy skepticism is an attitude of "I won't buy into this before I get all the facts and then see if they make any sense." This attitude is rare among the intellectual elite, and especially rare in the media.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Skeptics like this guy aren't trying to find the truth out about anything. They approach a phenomenon with a preconception, and then proceed to validate that preconception by ignoring or explaining away anything which doesn't support their point of view.

That is, if you ask me, not too far from a religious view in itself. That is plain supersticious skeptism and close-mindness. I can't even beleive they are even allowed to spread such ignorance and disinformation. They don't even respect their own mainstream scientific method. But hey, that's a rule of a crusader on a debunking quest. Always ask for evidence but never show any.

Healthy skepticism is an attitude of "I won't buy into this before I get all the facts and then see if they make any sense." This attitude is rare among the intellectual elite, and especially rare in the media.

That's indeed what we call objectivity. Whenever you can't prove that something exists but can't disprove it neither what do you do? You consider it a possibility.

Medias are simply a controled communication network spreading whatever they are told to. They aren't objective at all. They are propaganda tools. They know what to say and what not to say to keep their jobs.

Rare attitude indeed as far as mainstream scientific 'stars' are concerned. Stephen Hawking is a good example when he openely says: there is no God. How can you define something you don't even beleive in? Then how can you say without any doubt that something you can't even define does not exist? Makes no sense...

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Years and years ago I used to frequent "skeptic" forums and was absolutely gobsmacked at the level of sheer narrow-mindedness and ignorance I witnessed there. Back then I was so naive I thought I could at least get some of them to see the irrationality of their way of thinking, to get them to be open-minded and see things objectively. I must have wasted hours upon hours debating with them, sending emails back and forth, etc. But I did learn one valuable thing -- when it comes to "pseudo-skeptics", which is what these people really are, since they are part of the "cult of pseudoskepticism" -- no amount of evidence, no matter how plain it is, will EVER convince them to change their deeply cherished beliefs. And this proved to me that such people really are religious since they are brainwashed by the doctrine of materialism. And the more I thought about it, the less convinced I was that such people could ever break free of these belief systems, since the thought occurred to me that perhaps they are Organic Portals, who have no framework to work with concerning the non-material universe because they have nothing "non-material" within themselves.

And as for someone having the hide to call themselves a "naturalist" but at the same time refuses to look at ALL of nature objectively, not just those bits that they WANT to see, is laughable in the extreme.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Years and years ago I used to frequent "skeptic" forums and was absolutely gobsmacked at the level of sheer narrow-mindedness and ignorance I witnessed there. Back then I was so naive I thought I could at least get some of them to see the irrationality of their way of thinking, to get them to be open-minded and see things objectively. I must have wasted hours upon hours debating with them, sending emails back and forth, etc. But I did learn one valuable thing -- when it comes to "pseudo-skeptics", which is what these people really are, since they are part of the "cult of pseudoskepticism" -- no amount of evidence, no matter how plain it is, will EVER convince them to change their deeply cherished beliefs. And this proved to me that such people really are religious since they are brainwashed by the doctrine of materialism. And the more I thought about it, the less convinced I was that such people could ever break free of these belief systems, since the thought occurred to me that perhaps they are Organic Portals, who have no framework to work with concerning the non-material universe because they have nothing "non-material" within themselves.

And as for someone having the hide to call themselves a "naturalist" but at the same time refuses to look at ALL of nature objectively, not just those bits that they WANT to see, is laughable in the extreme.

Haha! I so hear ya!

I've been on these forums before. The one I went the most to was 'unexplained-mysteries'. Oh man did I argue with some people there. You had the Pseudo-Skeptic Group (as you refer to), the New Age Wishful Gang, the Religious Extremists and those who jut speak random nonsense. Very few objective people actually. I haven't logged since the day I came across the C's material.

Reminds me of some of those vegan people. They say they don't eat meat because it's bad to kill animals. They say they don't eat meat as a sign of respect for nature. They don't want to take out lifes... but wait a minute? The grass that you eat daily was a living entity no? It had to be killed in order for you to live no? Who are you to be in a position to tell others what lifeforms can be killed and what others have to be preserved? Do you actually know what your body really needs to be healthy? Hint: we aren't plants.

Laughable indeed.

 

[TyBiggs85]

Perhaps I was a little disgusted at first from what Mr. Nickell was saying on the show about his beliefs. Labeling him a naturalist was a preconceived judgement on my part and I don't think I used the term correctly. That was a mistake on my part after reviewing my post. I do try to have open-minded objectivity with every situation because there is always learning potential, even from skeptics that could be misconstruing the evidence in one way or another.