I guess I hide it well, then.

I do have beliefs, and I will be the first to admit they are not based on any cold hard rational solid scientific fact. But I still believe them. Call it gut instinct.

I was raised Catholic, and if asked, still state that I am, even though I don't go to church anymore. But on my bookshelf next to my various Bibles is a (very) condensed version of the Mahabharata, the Book of the Hopi, and the Popol Vuh. I have several books on things like crytal energies, ufos, legends of Glastonbury, St. Joseph of Arimathea, Nostradamus, about a dozen books by Charles Berlitz, several by Zecheria Sitchin, and even a book by Stan Deyo.

Needless to say I have not always been as skeptical as I am now. But after a while, some things started "not clicking", and I began to question much of what I was reading. After all, they can't ALL be right, can they?

Now, it's not that I don't "believe" in these things anymore. Rather, I don't take them for granted. I still feel many of hese phenomena and legends have some sort of basis in reality. I just feel that 99.9% of the proponents of these things are letting their "belief" get in the way of figuring out the facts.

Speaking of facts, I personally draw a distinction between "facts" and "truths", even though the dictionary will disagree. To me, facts are things that indisputable. Truths are derived from facts, and depending on one's biases and beliefs, those truths can and often do become distortions of the facts to varying degrees. And because different people have different life experiences and beliefs, they are going to take the same set of facts and derive different truths from them, and they will disagree with each other.

I feel that many of the legends and myths are distortions of the facts. The legend may be "true", but is it "fact"? For many, we may never know. Does Atlantis really exist? Is it like Plato described? Or was he smoking happy weed when he wrote all that. Each is a truth, but I think the facts lie somewhere in between.

Petra, I honestly feel you still do not understand what the scientific method is. Skeptics do not "believe in nothing". I think that's too extreme. But as the saying goes, one should not be so open minded their brains fall out. Just because I am skeptical of something and start quoting from those 25 Fallacies like I'm Bible thimping does not necessarily mean I don't think the idea has no merit.

The tools of skepticism (critical thinking, logic, scientific method) are designed to keep one on course for the facts and to not let any truths get in the way.

As for a path to enlightenment, we are all on one. It's a matter of what "enlightenment" we each seek, or need. For me, enlightment entails striving for an understanding of how the world and universe around me works. The more I learn, the more I am amazed, and the more I realize how little I know. My chosen path is through science. Others may have other goals in "enlightenment" and will take different paths to get there. Are any paths and goals intrinsically right or wrong? In general, I'd say no.

And from all that, I often times fail to see why people make conflict between ideas when none should exist.

But yes, I do have beliefs, but I tend not to discuss them as I find it rare that people can discuss them without it turning into a conflict. I can agree to disagree, but I think that's a rare quality in people as I've found few others in my 37 years of life that can do the same.

Brian

p.s. You got your brain halves reversed. :)

p.p.s. I would feel very enlightened if I could even understand 10% of human behaviour.