seedload wrote:Not sure what all that meant (you are too smart for me) but it should be noted by the classical Oxford definition of the word skeptic, the skeptic is on the minority side, doubting of the prevailing opinion. It has a negative connotation. Classically, 'skeptic' is more like what we call a 'denier' today.
Origin of SKEPTIC
Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider.
The word's etymology sums it up nicely...!
...this implies those who are not skeptical need neither to think nor consider.
What I am describing is that I am unable to hold, or reject, a 'belief system' because there is nothing to believe or reject. There is no substance for me to consider, just hearsay observations. This is not enough to object to!
I object to people accepting the total lack of facts and making comments and suppositions on hearsay.
If someone says "I believe this stuff because Rossi has a honest face" then I would accept that for what it is, just an acceptance of faith!
But we've had 100+ pages of 'oh, its blah-de-blah nuclear this and la-la-Wisdom-Lardarse that'. Fed up with this shyte. It's so anti-science it's making my heart bleed.