Discussion History Main / SkepticismFailure

...

I think the Chris Mooney quote would be better suited for the SkepticNoLonger page. Though as a skeptic myself, I disagree with his assessment that we should be \\\"offended\\\" that the skeptic converts in the end. I want ghosts in ghost stories, and don\\\'t care if the skeptic is wrong in the universe the story takes place, as long as there are other qualities to it. And I\\\'d rather have a converted skeptic, than a character who goes in ready to believe anything, even if it\\\'s a cheap way to have some character development. Also one of the comments about the Polar Express on that article is embarrassing. I\\\'m sure most older kids are smart enough to know fiction when they see it.

I think the Chris Mooney quote would be better suited for the SkepticNoLonger page. Though as a skeptic myself, I disagree with his assessment that we should be \\\"offended\\\" that the skeptic converts in the end. I want ghosts in ghost stories. And I\\\'d rather have a converted skeptic, than a character who goes in ready to believe anything, even if it\\\'s a cheap way to have some character development. Also one of the comments about the Polar Express on that article is embarrassing. I\\\'m sure most older kids are smart enough to know fiction when they see it.

I consider myself a skeptic, but I disagree with the article and stuff like this in general. It\\\'s fiction. Most people would be skeptical about the possibility of encountering the supernatural, and in a story like that it shouldn\\\'t be a problem if the guy didn\\\'t go in expecting the supernatural to be real, only to be proved wrong. We don\\\'t go to see a ghost story, to have it revealed that it was all in his head the whole time. It can be done effectively sometimes, but it\\\'s not something people want to see every time. This isn\\\'t part of some conspiracy to convert audiences into believers, it\\\'s a ghost story. I haven\\\'t seen the film, but neither has he.

Pretty laughable comments on the article, btw (especially the Polar Express comment, which was on par with fundamentalist Christians complaining about Harry Potter).

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, I found the article to be very disagreeable and some of the comments to be laughable. It\\\'s fiction. The worst of it was the \\\"Think of the children!\\\" level of comment written by someone regarding ThePolarExpress). Just like heavy metal isn\\\'t going to turn everyone into Satan worshiping cultists, ThePolarExpress isn\\\'t going to make all kids (who already don\\\'t believe in him), start believing in Santa Claus. Its really as bad as people complaining about things like violent TV shows and video games. I can understand the frustration in having the character denounce his atheism or whatever at the end of certain films, but as a few people have mentioned in the comments, when we go to see fantasy or horror films, we expect and want the supernatural elements, and in that case having a skeptic character remain the same throughout the film wouldn\\\'t make sense. Its a cheap way to get some \\\"character development\\\", and a solution would be for writers to not make a big deal about the characters skepticism in the first place, but you\\\'d have to be really sensitive to be that bothered by a work of fiction. Judge whether a film is bad or good based on its own merits. I have\\\'t seen the film (so it could be bad), but neither has he.

That said, it would be interesting if there was a film where the main character starts as a \\\"believer\\\" and ends the film as a skeptic. If such a film exists, I\\\'d like to hear about it.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. Some of the comments in particular were laughable. It\\\'s fiction. Stop making all of us look as bad as people complaining about heavy metal or Pokemon (especially the \\\"Think of the children!\\\" level of comment written by someone regarding ThePolarExpress). Just like heavy metal isn\\\'t going to turn everyone into Satan worshiping cultists, ThePolarExpress isn\\\'t going to make all kids (who already don\\\'t believe in him), start believing in Santa Claus. I can understand the frustration in having the character denounce is atheism or whatever at the end of certain films, but as a few people have mentioned in the comments, when we go to see fantasy or horror films, we don\\\'t \\\'\\\'want\\\'\\\' the skeptic to be right. Judge whether a film is bad or good based on its own merits.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. It\\\'s fiction. Ghosts are allowed to exist in a story, and if it\\\'s the case, then a character insisting that the supernatural is impossible when he\\\'s already witnessed it is going to look stupid. If the article was only about the presence of treating skeptics the same as in other films (I haven\\\'t seen the film, but he\\\'s probably right that skeptics would probably be portrayed as wrong for his views in such a film, but he apparently hasn\\\'t seen the film either), it would be fine like in his review of Taken, but suggesting that people boycott the film is not really better than what religious fundies would do. Really makes us look overly sensitive. You don\\\'t have to agree with the films portrayal of skeptics (hell there\\\'s an article on Tolkien on that very site, where the one of the blog\\\'s authors says that even if Tolkien was a Luddite and Christian, it doesn\\\'t necessarily mean you can\\\'t enjoy The Lord of The Rings if you don\\\'t share his views), but as some people have commented, when I see a ghost story I expect to see ghosts, and anything else would be disappointing, so suggesting that its lazy for them to include the supernatural isn\\\'t something I can agree with. In this particular fiction the skeptic is wrong, and if a story is still good, then that shouldn\\\'t be a problem for the viewer. If a skeptic is portrayed as wrong in a more realistic world where there isn\\\'t any supernatural phenomena, then maybe I\\\'d be bothered (though not enough to completely hate a film that has strong characters or dialogue and an interesting plot). Now, this type of story \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be effectively done without any actual supernatural elements, but I wouldn\\\'t want that all the time. Some of the comments on that page were really laughable.

The comment about ThePolarExpress is just as bad as people complaining about heavy metal or violent video games (\\\"Think of the children!\\\"). Being a skeptic doesn\\\'t mean that you can\\\'t enjoy unrealistic fiction (not that you have to), and there are many who are fantasy/horror/\\\"sci-fi\\\" fans, including myself, which is why it\\\'s always such a shame to see a few fellow skeptics, who obviously possess at least \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' intelligence, show such poor logic when it comes to fiction. No, ThePolarExpress isn\\\'t going to make everyone believe in Santa Claus. If you can\\\'t personally take it, fine, but let others enjoy it in peace and judge whether a film is bad or good film based on things that actually matter.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. It\\\'s fiction. Ghosts are allowed to exist in a story, and if it\\\'s the case, then a character insisting that the supernatural is impossible when he\\\'s already witnessed it is going to look stupid. If the article was only about the presence of treating skeptics the same as in other films (I haven\\\'t seen the film, but he\\\'s probably right that skeptics would probably be portrayed as wrong for his views in such a film, but he apparently hasn\\\'t seen the film either), it would be fine like in his review of Taken, but suggesting that people boycott the film is not really better than what religious fundies would do. Really makes us look overly sensitive. You don\\\'t have to agree with the films portrayal of skeptics (hell there\\\'s an article on Tolkien on that very site, where the one of the blog\\\'s authors says that even if Tolkien was a Luddite and Christian, it doesn\\\'t necessarily mean you can\\\'t enjoy The Lord of The Rings if you don\\\'t share his views), but as some people have commented, when I see a ghost story I expect to see ghosts, and anything else would be disappointing, so suggesting that its lazy for them to include the supernatural isn\\\'t something I can agree with. In this particular fiction the skeptic is wrong, and if a story is still good, then that shouldn\\\'t be a problem for the viewer. If a skeptic is portrayed as wrong in a more realistic world where there isn\\\'t any supernatural phenomena, then maybe I\\\'d be bothered (though not enough to completely hate a film that has strong characters or dialogue and an interesting plot). Now, this type of story \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be effectively done without any actual supernatural elements, but I wouldn\\\'t want that all the time. Some of the comments on that page were really laughable. The comment about ThePolarExpress is just as bad as people complaining about heavy metal or violent video games (\\\"Think of the children!\\\"). Being a skeptic doesn\\\'t mean that you can\\\'t enjoy unrealistic fiction (not that you have to), and there are many who are fantasy/horror/\\\"sci-fi\\\" fans, including myself, which is why it\\\'s always such a shame to see a few fellow skeptics, who obviously possess at least \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' intelligence, show such poor logic when it comes to fiction. No, ThePolarExpress isn\\\'t going to make everyone believe in Santa Claus. If you can\\\'t personally take it, fine, but let others enjoy it in peace and judge whether a film is bad or good film based on things that actually matter.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. It\\\'s fiction. Ghosts are allowed to exist in a story, and if it\\\'s the case, then a character insisting that the supernatural is impossible when he\\\'s already witnessed it is going to look stupid. You don\\\'t have to agree with the films portrayal of skeptics (hell there\\\'s an article on Tolkien on that very site, where the one of the blog\\\'s authors says that even if Tolkien was a Luddite and Christian, it doesn\\\'t necessarily mean you can\\\'t enjoy The Lord of The Rings if you don\\\'t share his views), but as some people have commented, when I see a ghost story I expect to see ghosts, and anything else would be disappointing. Now, it \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be effectively done without any actual supernatural elements, but I wouldn\\\'t want that all the time. If the article was only about the presence of treating skeptics the same as in other films, it would be fine like in his review of Taken, but suggesting that people boycott the film is not really better than what religious fundies would do. The comments on that page are also hilarious, including one person\\\'s insistence that most people can really only enjoy supernatural horror if they actually believe in ghosts. Proof that even scientifically minded people can sometimes be less than bright.

I think the Chris Mooney quote would be better suited for the SkepticNoLonger page.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself, its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. It\\\'s fiction. Ghosts are allowed to exist in a story, and if it\\\'s the case, then a character insisting that the supernatural is impossible when he\\\'s already witnessed it is going to look stupid. You don\\\'t have to agree with the films portrayal of skeptics (hell there\\\'s an article on Tolkien on that very site, where the one of the blog\\\'s authors says that even if Tolkien was a Luddite and Christian, it doesn\\\'t necessarily mean you can\\\'t enjoy The Lord of The Rings if you don\\\'t share his views), but as some people have commented, when I see a ghost story I expect to see ghosts, and anything else would be disappointing. Now, it \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be effectively done without any actual supernatural elements, but I wouldn\\\'t want that all the time. The comments on that page are also hilarious, including one person\\\'s insistence that most people can really only enjoy supernatural horror if they actually believe in ghosts. Proof that even scientifically minded people can sometimes be less than bright.

Off topic, but as a strong skeptic myself its always irritating to see that some are so bothered by supernatural elements in fiction. It\\\'s fiction. Ghosts are allowed to exist in a story, and if so, then a character insisting that the supernatural is impossible is going to look stupid. The comments on that page are also hilarious, including one person\\\'s insistence that most people can really only enjoy supernatural horror if they actually believe in ghosts. Proof that even scientifically minded people can be stupid.