Quote:
|
Originally Posted by organic born
So here's the rub. "Everything" that crosses our mind is a "belief". So when we're comparing notes about the validity of one system of beliefs over another we are still tangled among images of projected uncertainty. We believe what we do in the hopes of attaining some effectiveness over the events that surround our day to day movements and interactions. But regardless of the content they are still wrapped in a cloud of speculation.
So a "skeptic" is being entertained by the stream of their own thinking, while the "believer" is doing similar but with a differing set of assumptions.
A skeptic and a believer are both in the same boat. They are guessing, using different words and different images to define what they "hope" to be valid at some level. If a bird were to land and watch the two slugging it out verbally this bird would only see two humans making noises with their mouths, but nothing around them, physically, would be any different than anything else. The argument is only in their heads.
|
All arguments are in the head. You could say that irrespective of any proof the skeptic refuses to believe, whilst for some believers even the flimsiest of evidence is acceptable.
Rationally most believes do not need a comfort zone as such. They tend not be hindered by previous thought. They are able to accept, usually if personally observed, a repeatable demonstration supported wherever possible with a plausible explanation.
The skeptic on the other hand tends to have a closed mind. He is comfortable with the existing knowledge that he has and may even fear the possibility of losing that safe heaven which he needs. he is less likely to explore the unknown.