Things That Annoy Me - A Short List

Annoyance is common in the skeptical movement, so I'm not alone in feeling frustrated about certain things. But, some people have wanted to know about what really gets my goat, so here's a short list.

Feel free to tell the world about your skeptical irritations over at the Young Australian Skeptics website. In fact, it's recommended.

For more skepticism and youth-related things, feel free to check out two of my other websites, http://naontiotami.com (my personal evolution/creation-themed blog) and http://youngausskeptics.com (the Young Australian Skeptics, home of the Pseudo Scientists podcast).

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• annoyance
• skepticism
• science
• skeptical
• creationism
• evolution
• religion
• theism
• atheism
• agnosticism
• atheist

[JeanMichelAbrassart]

You can't avoid infighting in human groups...

[NaoTio]

Of course not, but it still annoys me. Most of the fighting is for such petty reasons... *sigh*

[FractaLove358]

"You either believe in God or you don't":

There are some that would say "I'm not sure whether a God exists or not". Where would you categorize them? Why is it that "agnostic atheism" or "weak atheism" has to be the default position rather than "agnostic theism" or "weak theism". Both of them are rejection of claims positions. Would you consider yourself both an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist? Would you conjunct the two term to "agnostic"? Why or why not?

[TheEfkk]

Of course it is possible; all it has to do is fail a single empirical test and god is disproven. In science, a theory means a well-supported explanation to some part of the natural world, not a random guess. For instance, the atomic theory and the cell theory are all theories, yet they are among the most well-established ideas in the history of humanity.

[codymchargue]

My preconcieved notions were that there is no God, and was taught that evolution was true. I'm not being guided by religious authorities, I'm making the choice all on my own, based on the evidence that I've seen. It is impossible to disprove an infinite being with finite tests, and EVEN IF God didn't exist, it would be impossible to prove it. Evolution is still just a theory after 150 years. I do apologize however for my sarcasum in my first comment, I think it was the "That easy" remark.

[TheEfkk]

Not really that much of a scientific breakthrough; it has been known to science for over 150 years. If anyone is "guided by preconcieved notions" it is creationism. In fact, that is the very definition of creationism.

Being open minded means assessing evidence, not believing everything you are told by religious authorities.

Science proves that no gods exists, independent of your personal religious beliefs.

[codymchargue]

That easy huh? You've just prooved evolution over creationism in a short youtube comment, I'm sure you're proud of yourself, it's a scientific break through. Try backing up what you say, and instead of siting a dozen biased sources, try doing real research that isn't guided by your preconcieved notions. What you've learned from your parents or other personal reason you have for not believing that God exists doesn't mean that he doesn't. Be open minded.

[TheEfkk]

That is because there is a massive amount of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Who could imagine that it was that easy?

[guitarplayercj2002]

it's not about teaching "religion" it's about giving equal oppertunity to different ideas of how we got here. Big Bang and evolution are both theorys and have no scientific proof. Creation is another possibility. Let me be clear, it is not just possible, but it's how we got here, but from a schools point of view, there is no more evidence for one than the other, so why not teach both?

[helloenemy]

are people really trying to get religion taught in public schools. Thats stupid, I got to leave my Private school because of religion =\

[lazyperfectionist1]

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said the one results from the other. Isn't this how we keep each other rational?

[RhunDraco]

Skeptical infighting does not equal the scientific process and peer review.

Skeptics, and scientists, being human, have egos and many people are reluctant to see their ideas shot down, no matter if they're shown evidence that is clearly overwhelming. It can take time for some people to accept that something they thought was correct is not (or maybe only partially correct).

I think what NaoTio is talking about is that clashing of egos. It happens in every area, not just skepticism & science.