It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why are Skeptics of the paranormal so obsessive.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 808Funk

If I can have my own two cents worth.

For some people the mere though of some subjects, such as (but not limited to) the paranormal, can create heightened levels of anxiety. This can lead to sleepless nights hiding under the bed covers in a cold sweat wondering if the bogey man is really going to jump out of the wardrobe to get them.

So to put themselves at ease these people will regularly reassure each other that it's all just crazy stories being made up by people with nothing better to do than try to fool everyone that the world is not a black and white than they've been made to believe.

The fear can be so profound that these skeptics can become incredibly noisy in their criticism and frustratingly stubborn in their dismissiveness. But what would you do if you needed a good nights sleep??? I'm sure you would do anything, so please try not to be too critical of these noisy and persistent deniers of everything that falls outside of the black and white spectrum or normality.

After all, one day this fear and anxiety may overtake your own mind in the same way





posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: skyblueworld
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, same rule applies to the UFO phenomenon. I've never seen one single shred of evidence of the paranormal that could hold up in a court of law.


Just fyi. A court of law accepts anecdotal evidence as legit evidence. Science doesn't. It's likely that there IS UFO evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


It's not that skeptics want to generally throw out anecdotal evidence and reject it outright, it's looking for other explanations for the reported phenomena aside from "aliens" or "ghosts" or "psychics".

It's the interpretation of the evidence that's important, of course, and, each case needs investigating in its own right.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: 808Funk

If I can have my own two cents worth.

For some people the mere though of some subjects, such as (but not limited to) the paranormal, can create heightened levels of anxiety. This can lead to sleepless nights hiding under the bed covers in a cold sweat wondering if the bogey man is really going to jump out of the wardrobe to get them.

So to put themselves at ease these people will regularly reassure each other that it's all just crazy stories being made up by people with nothing better to do than try to fool everyone that the world is not a black and white than they've been made to believe.


I don't think this is very common. I would absolutely LOVE there to be proof of the paranormal, or aliens. LOVE IT. Perhaps due to this desire for it to be real I take a microscope to the evidence and want to see real proof, before chasing a fantasy.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: humphreysjim




Look what's happening in America today, Donald Trump is president.


You just lost credibilty bringing Trump into your discussion. You do realize that people chose to vote for whoever they like?
I suspect you would rather a scientific ruling class with life long tenure and nepotism.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: humphreysjim

You'll have to define what you mean by real proof. I think for some people the only time they would believe a UFO sighting was real would be if the government confirmed it. Well this is never going to happen so those said people are basically accepting a lie while at the same time dismissing something that they couldn't possibly gauge the credibility of.

It's a sad state of affairs when witness testimonies are deemed adequate for our court systems but are dismissed outright when it comes to UFO or paranormal sightings. Are we saying we shouldn't believe anyone no matter how credible the witness when it comes to subjects that are deemed outside the box? Even in cases where military personnel have witnessed such things or in the case where a craft was recorded in Turkey, giving actual video evidence of Aliens?

You talk about fantasy, but aren't some of the explanations given to discredit those who speak up about the UFO phenomenon just as much fantasy as the topics in hand? Swamp gas anyone?

You can't demand real proof but at the same time dismiss everything and anyone on gut feelings. While there are plenty of fakers around these subjects I feel they're generally easy to spot if you do the proper research.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 808Funk

Perhaps it's just that some people are just obsessive. I see obsession on both sides of this story. The point is not what people believe though. I'm sure you are skeptical of a lot of claims. Would you accept the moniker "obsessive"? Probably not. But if you believe in things that you have no good reason to believe, and you claim that proof is not necessary for your beliefs to be rational, and then you ignore the skeptics and continue to spread your unfounded beliefs in the face of justifiable criticism, then i think you might be obsessed yourself.

This whole argument is about what can be proven. Passion and obsession about confirming claims and finding/interpreting evidence is called science. So far none of the paranormal claims i know of are supported by evidence. The most common argument for paranormal events is "i was there, and i know what i saw". Followed by a story of how they were super scared, heightened emotions, had just woke up, had just been in an accident, were super drunk or on drugs, was just about to kill themselves, etc, etc. these are all states where your prceptions can not be trusted, your mind is moving too fast to make accurate decisions and your imagination takes control. Not to mention that some people who make wild claims are actually crazy, or they are lying for personal gain, or for simple attention. A little skeptisism can tear down every paranormal claim i have ever run across so far. I want to believe in some things, sure. But i want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false ideas as possible. That takes a skeptical mind to even start this journey. Otherwise how do you decide what is real?


edit on 18-11-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: humphreysjim

You'll have to define what you mean by real proof. I think for some people the only time they would believe a UFO sighting was real would be if the government confirmed it. Well this is never going to happen so those said people are basically accepting a lie while at the same time dismissing something that they couldn't possibly gauge the credibility of.

It's a sad state of affairs when witness testimonies are deemed adequate for our court systems but are dismissed outright when it comes to UFO or paranormal sightings. Are we saying we shouldn't believe anyone no matter how credible the witness when it comes to subjects that are deemed outside the box? Even in cases where military personnel have witnessed such things or in the case where a craft was recorded in Turkey, giving actual video evidence of Aliens?

You talk about fantasy, but aren't some of the explanations given to discredit those who speak up about the UFO phenomenon just as much fantasy as the topics in hand? Swamp gas anyone?

You can't demand real proof but at the same time dismiss everything and anyone on gut feelings. While there are plenty of fakers around these subjects I feel they're generally easy to spot if you do the proper research.

How do you spot the true stories and confirm their authenticity?



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: 808Funk

Often it scare's them so they have to rationalize it away to make themselves feel safe, that feeling of someone looking over there shoulder is something they do not want to the extreme that they will simply go into denial and then force there opinion on all around them, it is not rational actually given the wealth of human experience and the number of otherwise exceptional witness and account's as well as photographic and other evidence and even quantum theory explaining that it may actually be probably not just possible for a formed consciousness to continue after death.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: skyblueworld
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, same rule applies to the UFO phenomenon. I've never seen one single shred of evidence of the paranormal that could hold up in a court of law.


Just fyi. A court of law accepts anecdotal evidence as legit evidence. Science doesn't. It's likely that there IS UFO evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


I never meant the UFO phenomenon, that's a different kettle of fish. I meant subjects like these:

Afterlife, Angels, Astral projection, Aura Clairvoyance, Deity, Demons, Demonic possession, Demonology, Devil, Ectoplasm Electronic voice phenomenon. Exorcism, Extrasensory perception, Fairys, Haunted house, Hypnosis, Magic, Mediumship Miracles, Near-death experience, Occult, Ouija, Poltergeist, Precognition Psychic, Psychic reading, Psychokinesis, Psychometry, Reincarnation, Remote viewing, Residual haunting, Shadow people, Soul, Spirit photography, Spirit possession Spirit world, Spiritualism, Telepathy.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: humphreysjim




Look what's happening in America today, Donald Trump is president.


You just lost credibilty bringing Trump into your discussion. You do realize that people chose to vote for whoever they like?
I suspect you would rather a scientific ruling class with life long tenure and nepotism.


Trump and his team being assembled are anti-science - right wing religious Christians, climate change deniers, young earth creationists, etc, etc. Of course that's relevant to the point I was making. You cannot be a science loving critical thinking Donald Trump fan, that's just a contradiction.

Like I said, what is being discussed here is the battle between science, and pseudo-science and anti-scientific view points. That's what it boils down to.
edit on 18-11-2016 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: humphreysjim

You'll have to define what you mean by real proof. I think for some people the only time they would believe a UFO sighting was real would be if the government confirmed it. Well this is never going to happen so those said people are basically accepting a lie while at the same time dismissing something that they couldn't possibly gauge the credibility of.

It's a sad state of affairs when witness testimonies are deemed adequate for our court systems but are dismissed outright when it comes to UFO or paranormal sightings. Are we saying we shouldn't believe anyone no matter how credible the witness when it comes to subjects that are deemed outside the box? Even in cases where military personnel have witnessed such things or in the case where a craft was recorded in Turkey, giving actual video evidence of Aliens?

You talk about fantasy, but aren't some of the explanations given to discredit those who speak up about the UFO phenomenon just as much fantasy as the topics in hand? Swamp gas anyone?

You can't demand real proof but at the same time dismiss everything and anyone on gut feelings. While there are plenty of fakers around these subjects I feel they're generally easy to spot if you do the proper research.



I'm not dismissing anything, that's not skepticism at all. I'm also not denying that very trustworthy and experienced people have witnessed some things that we can't explain given the available evidence. But that doesn't mean aliens were involved, it just means we don't have enough evidence to determine exactly what occurred.

I think silly explanations like swap gas are given because the public demand answers, they're not happy with "we don't know", or when they hear it, they jump to the conclusion that not knowing means aliens or something else extreme.

What is proof? That's taken on a case-by-case basis but I've never seen any case that was clearly and obviously aliens. Probably the best case I've seen was Rendlesham Forest, which ticked all the boxes due to the high profile caliber of persons involved and the recording of the event. It was either an event beyond anything we've ever experienced (aliens, or time control or amazing new tech), or...it was collective hysteria caused by a series of mundane events. Of the two, I know the latter can occur, we humans are very fallible, especially under stress, the former, seems even less likely.
edit on 18-11-2016 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2016 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

I understand. I'm just pointing out that courts and science have different standards of evidence and comparatively a court's threshold for acceptable evidence is less stringent than science's. So it's possible someone could put forth evidence for any of those things that a court of law would accept. People are proven guilty based solely on anecdotal evidence all the time. You get a particularly good narrator on the stand and he could convince a jury to believe anything.

Sorry. I don't mean to nitpick, but its differences like that that allow falsehoods like pseudo-sciences to continue to be perpetuated.
edit on 18-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I simply think such sceptics are actually IN FEAR OF BEING NOT IN CONTROL.....
"As if anybody is actually IN CONTROL OF ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE.....



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: 808Funk
Youtube is either fake, bollocks or easily explained but if a skeptic hasn't had an experience then why are they hell bent on proving your wrong ?

Yes, as previously indicated, a good skeptic would actually be pleased as can be if something "paranormal" actually turned out to be an new gateway into a whole new branch of science. But it has to be logically proven with good evidence. Big changes in the status quo require solid proof, and not just a lot of blind belief and wishful thinking.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It just comes down to personal experience. Most people won't believe something until they see it in front of them. Even then, a lot of people don't want to believe it.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Most people won't believe something until they see it in front of them. Even then, a lot of people don't want to believe it.

Of course not, because I know I can be fooled. Does David Blaine actually levitate? Sure looks like it!



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: 808Funk
Been reading a bit on various Skeptics like James Randi, Joe nickels, Micheal Shermer etc and from my view a lot of them come over as aggressive tunnel visioned "I'm right your wrong" type's in which you find you get in certain religious, argumentative, ideology and political types.I know a lot of the stuff out there in reports, book's, internet and film, Youtube is either fake, bollocks or easily explained but if a skeptic hasn't had an experience then why are they hell bent on proving your wrong ?


Personal experiences are not evidence of paranormal activity being real. Human beings are influenced by all sort of factors, such as their own mental perceptions and confirmation bias.



Ok but in order for your first statement to be true it would have to be demonstrated in every single case. Not to mention demonstrating to what degree a single person having a personal experience was indeed influenced by perception and bias. In other words harder to prove by 10 fold than the personal event to begin with.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: 808Funk
Youtube is either fake, bollocks or easily explained but if a skeptic hasn't had an experience then why are they hell bent on proving your wrong ?

Yes, as previously indicated, a good skeptic would actually be pleased as can be if something "paranormal" actually turned out to be an new gateway into a whole new branch of science. But it has to be logically proven with good evidence. Big changes in the status quo require solid proof, and not just a lot of blind belief and wishful thinking.



What you say is true or not at large. Vested interest have always been difficult to work around in any field. When it comes to the paranormal or extra normal just toss out what passes for qualifying evidence as demonstrable to the question. More than a few have been in situations, and some of these in a lab setting, that were presented with clear evidence and indeed work with the reality but its not going to make the news that evening.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: humphreysjim

You cant even cram extra natural, extra normal ect whatever into scientific strictures in any way.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
It's because deep down they are afraid it's true so they have to continue convincing themselves that they are right.

It's like with religious people trying to convince everyone that they are right.. it stems from insecurity about their own beliefs.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join