the world ''believer'' (again...) - a frustration

in a conversation with someone who is working with Blackmore (the former parapsychologists who is now a skeptic) said - when i mentioned my interest in parapsychology (though not my stance (i.e. that the evidence pro is stronger that the arguments against) - that ''she is interesting, since she used to be a believer...''

ok, nothing against the person i was talking with: he has far more education (though that might also be the problem) than i have; he might not disagree with the point i'm about to make; he is a nice guy.

what i stated (not literally, here i use more arguments and am more to the point) right away (after letting him finish his sentence of course):
there is a problem in the word ''believer'': it is not an objective term. The word believer makes it seem the ''believer'' accepts the phenomenon without proper proof; yet people like Dean Radin and Gertrude Schmeidler (just to name two) did not start out believing, they had to be convinced by experiments (read: proof).
the point is: the word ''believer'' is dishonest and rude: don't use it.

Thinking along this line:
it might be that Anselmus and Descartes did not believe in God: they had - in their own views - proven him to exist (even though i won't agree with their proofs). The point is: to evaluate whether someone is a ''believer'' or not, one has to know the motivations of the individual (almost from a 1st person perspective (?)) and NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT (in which ''he beliefs'').

oh btw: this :: http://www.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm :: is incredibly interesting! :D

stupid me - taking sides - judging - using CAPSLOCK - - thereby forgetting advice from both Prof. Hayes and dr. Sneller...
though - whatever the truth of psychic phenomena - the above considerations are valid (so i'm convinced (i almost said: ''so i believe'' - which is not strong enough))...

peace,
fedde