A Great Site here debunking the Skeptics! Lots of information, genuine and interesting. Read an excerpt from it, below.
The ‘Carlos’ affair: in 1988 closed minded skeptic J Randi planned a hoax to deceive the Australian people. He was able to get some guy José Alvarez to claim that he was channeling some spirit called ‘Carlos.’ What was not anticipated by the closed minded skeptic is that Australians are perhaps ten times more skeptical than any other race on earth. And journalists are perhaps twenty times more skeptical than the general population. Now this guy Randi thought he could deceive, fool and make idiots out of these highly skeptical Australians. What happened? After the show at the Opera House, this cheat Alvarez was cross-examined by tough Australian journalists, one of whom was George Negus who tore ‘Carlos’ apart and uncovered his fraud. So much so, that this Alvarez actually ran away from the interview to the huge embarrassment of his skeptical mentor. The end result was a huge failure for the closed minded skeptics, for Randi, for Alvarez and for the cheats and conmen of this world.
Statisticians will tell you ‘NO’ – ‘You can’t use ‘chance’ as a reasonable explanation for a cumulative succession of things, each with a one in a billion billion probability of coming by chance. Chance’ alone will not and cannot explain ‘intelligent effects.’
Rev. George Rodonaia underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not “return to life” until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist. Yet after the experience, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of spirituality, taking a second doctorate in the psychology of religion. He then became an ordained priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church. He served as a pastor at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Baytown, Texas.
Rev. George Rodonaia held an M.D. and a Ph.D. in neuropathology, and a Ph.D. in the psychology of religion. He delivered a keynote address to the United Nations on the “Emerging Global Spirituality.” Before emigrating to the United States from the Soviet Union in 1989, he worked as a research psychiatrist at the University of Moscow. The following is a Dr. Rodonaia’s experience in his own words from Philip Berman’s excellent book, The Journey Home.
Historically, closed-minded skeptics have opposed every invention and discovery and have made fools of themselves:
• Sir William Preece former chief engineer of Britain’s Post Office will be remembered for making one of the most ‘idiotic’ comments in history about Edison’s inventions. Sir William stated that Edison’s lamp (parallel circuit) was a ‘completely idiotic idea’!
• Professors, including Professor Henry Morton who knew Edison, stated, immediately before Edison demonstrated the electric light globe: ‘On behalf of science … Edison’s experiments are a … fraud upon the public.’
• The Scientific American, The New York Times, The New York Herald, the U.S. Army, academics — including Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy Simon Newcomb from John Hopkins University— and many other American scientists all heaped derision, ridicule and denigration onto the Wright brothers claiming that it was: ‘scientifically impossible for machines to fly’!
• One of the leading scientists from the French Academy of Sciences stated that hypnosis is a fraud and stated after seeing a hypnotized subject with a four inch needle in the top of his arm: ‘This subject has been paid for not showing he’s in pain’.
• Another scientist from the French Academy of Sciences, after listening to a record made by Edison, stated: ‘… clearly that is a case of ventriloquism’!
• John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, was attacked by closed-minded skeptics who stated it was: ‘absolute rubbish that television waves could produce a picture!
There are hundreds of other examples of how closed-minded skeptics refused to believe anything which was not consistent with their own entrenched cherished beliefs and their five senses. The above examples were taken from a most powerful book by Richard Milton called FORBIDDEN SCIENCE – SUPPRESSED RESEARCH THAT COULD CHANGE OUR LIVES
Copied from the Skeptics Debunked link.
“A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional.
They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science.
Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything.
This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members.
Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position.
Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind.
Anyone who has spent much time engaging members of Skeptics’ organizations knows about their strong inclination toward ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many members of PhACT have been rather offended by my position as someone who is skeptical of Skeptics. As the old adage states, “They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.”