The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I read plenty of variations of " People fear what they do not know."

Is this used in context?

What is implied by this and the variations of this?

Does this mean people who are not subscribed to mystism, and occult are Scared, and those who do have overcome their fear?

Dabbs are you talking about knowns and unknowns.. Like the things we know we dont fear as much as the things we dont know so that is more scary?

It is implied by those who believe that those who opt not to subscribe to a belief are some how afraid to learn, or " be open minded to" what they believe.

So simply put they are saying, " Oh yea, I dare you to believe in X", if you say not interested, they say, " Your chicken."

Are you asking whether those who do not believe do so out of fear? Or whether their lack of belief is evidence of close-mindedness? Or is your question something else entirely?

Frankly, I feel there are many here who do actually believe that skeptics (non-believers) metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears, screw shut their eyes, and refuse to "look" (believe) for fear of what they might "see." This they perceive as close-mindedness.

However, in fact, just the opposite is the case!

Believers love to metaphorically run around inside darkened rooms with their eyes wide open while bumping and tripping over unseen objects in the dark and then letting their imaginations run wild as to what exactly they touched, heard, and/or bumped into. ("Oh my, it's a ghost, a vampire, a fairy, a [place name of preferred supernatural buggaboo here]!!!")

Skeptics, on the other hand, likewise keep our eyes wide open. The difference, however, is that before we try to discern and navigate through that same darkened room... we prefer to first turn on the friggin' lights!

Obviously for the purposes of this analogy, the "lights" referred to here is the wonderful Light of knowledge, reason and Logic. It is this glorious Light that finally took Humankind out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Renaissance and the Age of scientific enlightenment. It was this Light that finally redeemed us all from the squalor of ignorance, the brutality of religious oppression, and the inhumane horrors and genocidal atrocities committed in the name of imagined deities. And where today such still exist, in almost all cases it still is in belief and superstition that we find their root motivations.

And yet... despite these facts, too often it is the "believers" who, once the Light has been metaphorically turned on and the truth revealed, screw their eyes shut to the Light and refuse to have their supersititious beliefs and wild imaginings challenged. And, boy, is this so often evident in these forums! For all such insecure and superstitious believers, what they fear more than bruising their shins in the dark is to find that in the Light, all their imaginings were nothing more than childish dreams of self-aggrandizement, pretentious vanity, and silly nightmares.

For all such believers, better to shut their eyes to the Light of knowledge than to open them and have the darkness dispelled.... and their treasured beliefs with it.


- Upir'

Upir`

-Obviously for the purposes of this analogy, the "lights" referred to here is the wonderful Light of knowledge, reason and Logic. It is this glorious Light that finally took Humankind out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Renaissance and the Age of scientific enlightenment. It was this Light that finally redeemed us all from the squalor of ignorance, the brutality of religious oppression, and the inhumane horrors and genocidal atrocities committed in the name of imagined deities. And where today such still exist, in almost all cases it still is in belief and superstition that we find their root motivations.-

Hmm I couldn't agree more in the whole poetic idealization of expressing your view towards both worlds of skeptics and speculators/supersticious minders, but somehow i can't stop laughing at some points in your discussion, so far has being the most ignorant paragraph i've read in my short time here, "It is this glorious Light that finally took Humankind out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Renaissance and the Age of scientific enlightenment."- does this mean we came from dumb to more reasonable state of conciousness or enlightenment in terms of reasoning, so that means science have shed light to explain the "unknown" to pass to a "wait those people were irrational because of knowledge, but science have the answer"? if so, to what extent science is as authentic level to grasp on as something from unknown to known and "evidenced"?

and then: " It was this Light that finally redeemed us all from the squalor of ignorance, the brutality of religious oppression, and the inhumane horrors and genocidal atrocities committed in the name of imagined deities." I want to know under what rock you are living, I look out there and i think we haven't grew a day older if we set our maturity as a scale from here to then, and I think i read more ignorance there than hundrends of years ago like you say so; its almost like you knew EXACTLY what was going on there, or uhh! you read oh so many books by "reliable sources" that have reasonable conclusion for such assertions> I don't take that you read but that doesn't make anyone more "reasonable in judgement" than someone that relies on deities to make decisions; unless you actually walked in the times to talk in "words of wisdom" it is as much intrusive and irrational than those who say god is their because his grandmas, cousins, son, momma, grand uncle saw jesus .

As for the: "And where today such still exist, in almost all cases it still is in belief and superstition that we find their root motivations." Yes this might be some of the propulsion for such difference and destruction in dated times, but I think the belief of a deity isn't also making weapons of mass destruction, or genetically inducing viruses, or even killing innocent people in a forsaken dessert and stealing their stuff in present times, I think fundamentalist doesn't even have that many "brain cells" alone to come up with such extremities; it takes more than faith to actually pull through something of such magnitudes.... let me see if i can find the word.... maybe something to do with RATIONALITY to pull anything well strategized; yet we end up with an array of utensils that aren't root of superstition that managed to do the job at it quite well, your age of "scientific enlightenment"- isn't nothing more than a step of the ladder in human "progression" in regards of the scale- time, doesn't make any period more/less rational in terms of knowledge than other, neither does separate a group from another (the supersticious' vs the skeptics-rational) in any decision making; in a broad sense we are in the same boat because we don't revolve from any absolutist and arbitrary decision from either groups, if you were to separate the progression between both worlds then I want to see you not pumping gas to your car that is holding your conformity from a undesired war in your say: "rational" conclusion of a decision you don't support, or at least being an activist as a opposer to American mainstream beliefs system and implementation of rational act, but i guess is easy to talk when is just a "IMO" - that alone is ignorant in whole base of your assumption.

there things we know we know and then there are things we know that we do not know-Field Marshall Donald Rumsfeld.

Yes, the citizens of the United States, in particular, tend to be scared of their shadow!

IlLuminaria -

I... truly don't know how to respond to your rebuttal (I think it's a rebuttal given its mocking remarks and generally derisive tone) as I simply cannot understand a single point you make. Greater minds than mine will have to puzzle over what it is you are trying to say.

The two questions you seem to ask at one point are entirely unintelligible to me:

does this mean we came from dumb to more reasonable state of conciousness or enlightenment in terms of reasoning, so that means science have shed light to explain the "unknown" to pass to a "wait those people were irrational because of knowledge, but science have the answer"? if so, to what extent science is as authentic level to grasp on as something from unknown to known and "evidenced"?

The rest of the post is confusing, disjointed, and with little apparent knowledge of not only basic grammar but even of simple definitions (I don't believe "extremities," for example, means what you think it means).

You provide a perfect example of the importance of the point I attempted to make regarding the application first of knowledge prior to then attempting to discern what it is that is around us. Of course, to apply knowledge, one must first have taken the time to acquire it... a key step few actually take (your rebuttal a wonderful example of only one result of such failure).

Perhaps the points you attempt to make thereafter reflect exactly such failures on the part of others, on our leaders, etc.? If so, then this is simply yet another example of the importance of first acquiring knowledge before attempting to use the Light that such would otherwise provide so as to help us better discern the facts and the reality around us.

After all, preconceptions not supported by the facts can be just as destructive as those arrived at through belief and superstition. In BOTH cases, ignorance, personal prejudices and self-interests inevitably end up ruling the day to the great detriment of not only the Truth... but of Humankind, itself.


- Upir'

Fear of the unknown has of course kept people 'safe' for a number of generations....once upon a time it's what our instincts told us to do, simply to stay alive.

That aside I have never looked upon anyone who does not share my own beliefs as being more or less afraid of the unknown than myself, I don't think many people here do.

Some people claim to know the unknown, further, they even teach the unknown knowingly or unknowingly to those who don't know the unknown and then become knowing themselves....and now my head hurts.

As far as using that term I do use it but not necessarily about the occult or mysticism.

I use it in general for various reasons. I usually use that term for those who may not understand something or are prejudiced against others for whatever reason that may be.

For example, The Salem Witch Trials. Instead of trying to find out what caused those girls to be sick they tried to say it was witches and out of fear they killed innocent people.

Others will base their opinion on something they have heard rather than reading up on it. I myself was guilty of this regarding Satanism. I did not understand it and before finding out I had formed an opinion. But upon researching it and talking to others that follow that religion it opened my eyes and found it was not what I thought it was.

And what of the people who think they know the unknown?
Maybe they are just making up something that seems plausible rather than not knowing. Maybe they convince themselves of things that are not. Doesn't that put them back in the same boat?

Ahhh yes, you mean how to know the people who say they know the unknown but knowingly lie about it in order to enthrall the seekers of the unknown who don't know that the unknowing unknown teachers are fleecing them knowingly...wow that was a long sentence, but I do know the answer to that...sic Dabs on em...problem solved *smiles*.

People fear the unknown because they are not sure what will happen. So they tend to stay away to keep themselves safe

Deadly Desire, and Tep well summarized, Sinora Thank You.

Upir spot on, thank you for clarifying my thread.

You are quite welcome Dab! You always spark a good debate!

Those who seek to leverage their beliefs over others use the phrase, " you must be afraid to believe ( or be open minded to) what I believe in" are pretty much saying, ' I Dare you to Believe as I do.'


People entertain themselves with what others believe to be more then myth.

Haha! -Upir'- simply amusing, typical response for a conceited/stubborn mind, either you are to uneducated yourself to understand a response in counter of your assertions or simply lack of the reasoning itself to visualize the standpoint, keep believing in that BS you call "light" and knowledge in your authentic postures, the judgement still tainted by other agents perhaps not in supersticious terms, but still flawed by the side you deem in reliability. That notion of believing one knows that much is worst if not correlative to those fundamentalist.

You are aware Ilum.. That you are completly incoherant in your post.

Are you aware that you need a spell check as well. =)

when i hear the phrase fear the unknown I just think of it as people dont like to use their frontal lobes. the frontal lobe is used when making desicions with unforseen outcomes.

but now that you mention it i guess that phrase CAN be interpreted as people fear the unknown because their imaginations chalk things up to supernatural happenings/beings etc.

I find it interesting, and other people find it annoying, that I am fairly sceptical on a whole about the nature of reality.

Which is why I tend to take an agnostic stance in life.

I am quite sure that there are ways to explain many phenomena, from any field. And I am convinced really all it takes is a person with the right language tools to assimilate meaning into the minds of the other.

Humans tend to percieve their situation, and gauge their response accordingly. The more times we come across a similar if not the same situation (as percieved) the more easily we may flow into response.

Therefore ANY situation percieved as alien or varying from previous experience, threatens the pattern.

We can not foresee the outcome in relation to our pattern of response.

I think who we are, what we believe and are even capable of believing is a vast network. And some people are far more static than others.
Things deemed external to this system, or "unknown" to these rigid systems would pose a threat to its overall wellbeing.

Example: I have no idea what Iilum is saying in their post, and I am completely unthreatened by that.

Since when is presented as a threat to you? Is a push, I could always simplify it more if is required in a degree fit for your capabilities of assimilation, if is not required- then simply move on.

oh yes please clarify.

Please inquire specifically as for what you want a clearer explanation?

From start to finish.

Dabbler you just don't understand the implications involved here...this could mean...well....I don't know what this could mean!!!!!

*gasp*

Not sure what the debate is here myself?

If you are saying something like: I don't believe in the Devil because I have never seen him/her personnally, so you don't believe, then someone dares you to conjure him/her to you, so you can see,
would you really want the potential risk-just to believe?

Exsmple,

" You don't believe in demons?"

" You don't believe because you are afraid demons might exist."

An obvious Fallacy of Logic.

Many people that say that they don't believe, is because they want to erase from the mind the possibility of the truth. To have fear of the unknown and to recognize that it exist, make you a better candidate to face the outcome of a sudden situation.

Sinora makes a good point. Fear of the unknown is a survival technique. But overcoming that fear certainly causes a species to advance.

One can imagine early humans that feared the darkness of a cave, but once they overcame that fear they found that the cave could shelter them from the cold and rain.

Fearing what we don't know keeps can keep us safe. Overcoming that fear moves us forward.

I do see people claiming fear of the unknown is the real reason for skepticism of certain supernatural phenomena.

I think that many people just don't have a reason to believe some things. Most things can be explained in simple ways. Some things are unknown and can't be explained. We should look for the simplest explaination for unknown event.

If I hear a noise in the middle of the night, it could be ghost or the house is settling or a burgler breaking in or maybe its just the cat. I am not closed minded because I didn't believe it was a ghost.

We see many various faiths and beliefs on this site. All are valid in the eyes of their believers, but we can't really ask other to believe what we believe. Perhaps it is difficult to change our beliefs because of a fear of the unknown, but more than likely it is because we have our own beliefs and have no reason to change them.

In my opinion, and remember, this is only my opinion...this subject has so many branches, that it would be nearly impossible to touch on the whole of the matter.

Yes, SOME people refuse to listen or believe out of fear...fear that derives from environmental influences. But it's foolish to believe that everyone that refuses to believe the same as you is doing it out of fear. Some are doing it out of conviction of their own beliefs. And that's just one small aspect of what could become a HUGE debate LOL!

I am a witch. Do I believe that people fear me? Not necessarily...maybe some fear for me, but they are not fearful OF me. Do they fear what I believe? Some do, yes, others no, they just don't agree with the fundamentals of my beliefs. And the coin has both sides. There are people that believe things that I just don't agree with, but I do not fear their belief.

I was raised in a Christian home... and at one time, I WAS afraid of occultic belief. Scared to death...even looking upon a pentacle/pentagram sent a wave of fear though me as I thought demons from hell were going to reach through and snatch my soul.

Others, who haven't experienced such an upbringing, most likely aren't going to fear occultic belief, but maybe they feel that it's just foolishness or nonsense.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point lol.

I don't think it's fear of the unknown that holds people anymore. (just the minority for different reasons) I feel it's just personel choice. I think what people want, is proof. Proof of the unknown now because we have evolved from fear.

Or are you taking about the minority?

To imply that a person is afraid somehow to subscribe to a belief (in any degree) , is to implicate the believer as an intimidated convert.

In response to marksu666 and others here, and to follow up on the last post by Theban, just because the object we bumped into in the dark MIGHT possibly be a werewolf or a hobgoblin or a wookie doesn't mean that it is any of those imagined things, now does it? And it is not "fear of the unknown" that would cause a rational person to not let his/her imagination run wild into believing that the object was any of those fantastical creatures. Instead, to the rational person, the "unknown" is not something to be necessarily feared or believed to be anything in particular but instead to be... investigated.

Hence... as I stated before... the rational person (skeptic) does not waste time imagining all sorts of buggaboos and ghosties as do "believers," but instead... simply reaches for the metaphorical light switch.


- Upir'

Sorry was that for me!

Well sadly we do know there are cases through out the world where there has been, (intimidation) not quite, I would say cohered, brainwashed, conditioned with a little pinch of fear and then, intimidation thrown in for good measure! *Westboro Baptist Church* is one example. I know it has been brought up in the past.

The other example is the Masons Arrested for Witchcraft in Fiji.

A sceptic in my mind is some one who would like to see physical evidence, and a person who uses the mind creatively. So that makes me a septic sceptic, however I am human (honest) which is where my creative imagination starts working. I certainly don't think that I'm going to bump into a vampire or monster, demon, or werewolf, when I'm out at night. I actually have more chance of meeting Mr Blobby!

I stopped thinking that at a very early age. Although sometimes I may have occasion to feel unease, that's when I listen to my stomach, just before I head for the loo because the only fear I know is whether or not I'm going to make the pan!

I think that I have answered what I feel makes people fear/scared of the unknown. I like to keep an open mind as do some of us sceptis. To understand the others idea, is to understand what you think of your own.

Mr Blobby

As far as having an open mind that term I use for trying to understand and learn new things. It does not mean that I think someone who does not think like I do is closed minded. Those who show ignorance regarding stereotypes and of other cultures is what I consider as not having an open mind.

Thankyou DeadlyXDesire.

For those here who don't know the meaning of open and closed minded and maybe get a little confused with broad minded and narrow minded.

Open-minded - ready to entertain new ideas; "an open-minded curiosity"; "open-minded impartiality"

The key word here is *impartiality*

Broad-minded - inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own; "a judge who is broad-minded but even-handed

close-minded - not ready to receive to new ideas

Narrow-minded, narrow - lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view; "a brilliant but narrow-minded judge"; "narrow opinions

You are welcome Theban. I just wanted to clarify my explanation of the terms that I use.

Bane,

As open minded as some believers would have use believe they are, there are plenty of examples of how even when faced with evidence contrary to there " unexplained" conclusion, they still close their eyes to the obvious.
An example is James Van Pragg, his guessing game is old hat, yet believers still flock to his performances.

There are people who insist that Chris Angel is a Paranormalist, they close their mind even to his consistent account of his talent.

Yes Dab I have to agree, although for some it would be just for entertainment. There are people here on this site who are very closed minded who profuse to be open minded ^ ^

I feel that the unknown though it may be frighting should be welcomed with open arms and looked at as a new adventure, you might fail at first but if you keep trying you will get it , the only frighting Part of the unknown is not trying .

Some are entertained by the gullibility of others, this I have researched personally.

It is the way that once a person is scared by an effect, they cannot wait until they are " in on it" the next time.

No matter how many " psychics" are exposed for what they consistently are believers will always default with, " Well not all psychics are like that."

That lacks any critical thinking.

Believers, can be considered closed minded to the fact that not all skeptics never believed. That some unsubscribed to their beliefs.

Every time I mention this it is ignored.

“Some are entertained by the gullibility of others, this I have researched personally”

Just to open it up a little, what was it you researched?

That Million dollars is still up for grabs!

I'm ignoring your last post ; )

Can they though dabs? That would be narrow minded wouldn't it!!...

Correct, that million dollars is still there for the taking.

Did you know that James Randi had a show that showcased those who professed abilities based on metaphysic topics?

I will message you the key search words for Youtube.

While some resign to " it is just unexplained" they want to appear convicted, rather then just a believer. It is not at all in their interest to
allow for the fact that human perception can be fooled, and that not all who practice illusion tell their audience they are practicing a craft, that creates an appear that they have some mystic ability.

Excellent posts, Theban... my thoughts exactly. It was this mindset to which I referred in my earlier post when I stated that same was "follow(ing) up" on your post prior to that one.

Whereas "believers" so often consider skeptics to be close-minded for not simply letting their pre-conceived notions, beliefs, emotions and imaginations cloud the actual evidences and facts around them, the fact is that letting all such affect their interpretation of the facts is what makes people... close-minded.

When one's judgment is ruled or overly influenced by beleifs, emotions and imagination, such persons are incapable of objectively acquiring the facts and then impartially evaluating them and reaching logical conclusions therefrom. And without this capacity, no one is capable of being able to best reach the truth of any given situation.


- Upir'

A lot of this (not all) thread is simple, personal, opinion. As an old friend of mine has often said, "To each their own.".

Why does it matter to you, Dabbler, so much what other people think? If someone calls you close minded, or you turn around and label someone else as close minded, what does it matter, really?

I would think it shouldn't. Unless this is a person who truly matters to you, why would you care what their opinion of you happens to be? Or what their beliefs, religion, spirituality, and so forth, might be?

Seems like this is just more fodder for arguments, rather than a honest trading of information, ideas, and opinions.

Now that, folks, is my opinion.

Vespers -

That's what every forum topic solicits: opinions. Hopefully such opinions include with same the evidences and thought-provoking ideas that help to generate discussion, which so far I feel this topic most certainly has. And as you, yourself, stated at the end of your entry here... you offered your opinion, also, to this topic.

And that's what forums are all about, after all.


- Upir'

I certainly did not label anyone close minded, I mentioned some may fit believers with the label close minded.

Personal opinion leads to discussion and this is an open question, allowing our thoughts to merge and open up an exchange of ideas. That's my opinion.

Lol, I don't feel that this is an issue vesper it's certainly not fodder, we are discussing as we would inside a house or pub, however we are in a public forum and lots of people can see what we say! Dam this BB environment lol!

Let's not forget the actual question posed by Dabs here though guys:

I read plenty of variations of " People fear what they do not know."

Is this used in context?

What is implied by this and the variations of this?

“I find more and more that a closed mind is an enigma, nothing ever goes in -- but odd things are forever coming out.”Because we do know now that nothing limits achievement like small thinking and nothing expands possibilities like unleashed imagination, because without imagination we would still be in the dark ages...wouldn't we!”

Upir, just to address this :

When one's judgment is ruled or overly influenced by beleifs, emotions and imagination, such persons are incapable of objectively acquiring the facts and then impartially evaluating them and reaching logical conclusions therefrom. And without this capacity, no one is capable of being able to best reach the truth of any given situation.

Why is emotion and imagination owned primarily by those who profess to believe in the unknown ?

That label could equally be worn by some who would consider themselves to be skeptics.

It could be argued that imagination is one of the driving forces of our species.

We all of us have emotions.

In the search for our own personal enlightenment I fail to see any logic in not using emotion and imagination, I know you used the words ruled and overly influenced but let us not label those who have certain beliefs as people who cannot be objective.

Dabs > When all is said and done, fakery is not something new, it's been going on for as long as humans have been walking upright.

Power mongers and control freaks have and will continue to use all kinds of 'tricks' to furthere their own ends.

Each of us has a mind of our own, it is our responsibility to think for ourselves, make our own decisions based on the knowledge both within and without.

Just the facts...yeah once one has thought in an objective way, only then can a conclusion be drawn. The issue that I have with objective thinking is that it's flawed.

You see the point that I'm making is as an investative skeptic, we do need emotion, imagination, being able to think out side of the norm. I don't know the unknown...But I'm not scared of it! How can you be scared of something that isn't known! It also depends on what context the word unknown is being used for!

I think that I said “To understand the others idea, is to understand what you think of your own” You can only do this by thinking as a whole...limitations are set by objective thinking.

Sinora -

"Why is emotion and imagination owned primarily by those who profess to believe in the unknown ?"

I never said that "emotion and imagination (is) owned primarily by those who profess to believe in the unknown" nor anything like that.

What I said, as you correctly quoted yet apparently were unable to understand was that "When one's judgment is ruled or overly influenced by beliefs, emotions and imagination..." that such persons are too compromised to impartially evaluate the facts... and the fact that you apparently permitted your own emotions to rule your sense of reason might well have been what kept you from reaching the correct conclusion regarding the truthfulness and logic of my words. This was exactly my point and it appears you provided a good object lesson of that very point.

Skeptics can be and often are quite highly imaginative and emotional (I know I am). But when considering any question or issue, one cannot allow emotion and imagination to ... again ... "rule or overly influence" one's views as such will make it highly unlikely that facts and evidences will be properly observed and understood, which will seriously compromise one's capacity to interpret and reach correct conclusions therefrom. And that was precisely my point.


- Upir'

Oh Upir....really, if you re-read my post you will see that I was aware of what you were saying, have a care or this emotional ole lady will put you in the naughty corner for patronising her.