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.

 

it's hard to believe what you don't believe...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

It is occurring to me that there is a common commotion contained within the pages of ATS forums. The most typical argument is: " I have seen no proof of the __________."

Well, that is what I call "The Nature Of The Beast". There is always going to be a question of proof, and this applies to both sides of the standard discussions about the NWO, and UFOs and Secret Societies. A post/member will ask for facts that seem very elusive.

The New World Order, if it really exists, has been engaged in misinformation and deception from its inception. Indeed, to have existed (if it does exist) for hundreds of years, and to still be regarded as a fabrication of paranoid individuals would seem to show that this organization is successful at controlling all sorts of 'information', and therefore opinions about them. It is a complex set-up, yet it is simply a matter of subterfuge.

UFOS and alien-beings, if they ARE amongst us, are also very difficult to validate. Perhaps it is not a matter of disinformation... but more a matter of THEM not providing US with the information we might need to prove their existence.

Even when 'evidence' is provided there is typically a resistance to what that 'information' claims as facts. A member will be directed to an article or a video, and told that contained therein is the proof. But true-to-form, the 'informed' person will typically view the material with as much skepticism as they can muster. The person providing the 'proof' will see what they regard as hard-evidence. The skeptic will view the 'information' as more paranoid rambling. One person will see a rocket fired from a plane one split-second before it crashes into the World Trade Center building. Another person will see that rocket as a flash of sunlight or some easily explainable anomaly.

I feel it is very important to stay in the middle-of-the-road on most of these topics. I have yet to see the 'PROOF' of ANY argument, inasmuch as I would find it irrefutable evidence that I am viewing. People tend to use this argument over and over again. " I have to yet to see proof of ___________."

What that argument entails is failure on the part of the skeptic to come up with some sort of information that DISPROVES it.

Dave Ravin

New Member on: 8/4/05







[edit on 5-8-2005 by Dave Ravin]




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   


What that argument entails is failure on the part of the skeptic to come up with some sort of information that DISPROVES it.

Hmm, in a sense I agree with you. I see this argument a lot and even use it myself. The problem I think lies in the fact that the skeptic has, generally speaking, not made the claim (whether that claim concerns the existence of aliens, government involvement in 9/11 or something else entirely) and so feels that the burden of proof lies with the person who has made the claim. It is not up to the skeptic to disprove something, it is up to the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for it.

Furthermore, I have seen a number of cases wherein skeptics readily offered theories to disprove a "believer's" claim, rather than simply saying "There's no evidence so I don't believe you". On this site more than anywhere else there are those individuals capable of offering alternative opinions or evidence against controversial theories. This often produces a backlash, with people claiming any skeptic to be a "disinformation agent" or some such.

I think the reason for the emergence of hard-lined skepticism comes from the emerging trend of people stating opinions as facts - "Aliens are here", "The Government was involved in 9/11" etc. When you state something as an opinion, fair enough, you are not required to offer any proof. But when you claim something to be a fact, there is a burden of proof imposed upon you.



I feel it is very important to stay in the middle-of-the-road on most of these topics. I have yet to see the 'PROOF' of ANY argument, inasmuch as I would find it irrefutable evidence that I am viewing.

I couldn't agree with you more here. Sometimes I feel that I am overly skeptical, but this stems from many years studying various "fringe" topics with little or no success, or even progress. I think that you and I may share similar feelings on this issue and enjoyed reading your post, which was well thought out and eloquently put.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
With all the available sources for "facts" and "evidence" these days, i feel it is watering these words down a little and people are, probably rightly so, a little more tentative to believe.
I agree it is a good strategy to stay in the middle of the road, and consider both sides, after all, this is a conspiracy site and wild theories are going to be mixed with solid ones. It is also becoming increasingly hard to get solid proof and evidence which is absolutely set in stone, therefore each person should be willing to consider all opinions and supposed facts, then make their own minds up on the matter.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
One other point I would like to make is the "gut feeling". This is something we have distanced ourselves from, I believe most people have a slight to heavy 6th sense. This feeling only lasts about ten seconds, after that your imagination and logic will talk you out of it. Both of these, logic and imagination or very important in making a decision. You also (especially during something extrordinary that is hard to grasp), need to use the "gut feeling" otherwise you are just breaking things down to just numbers and facts and not using the most extrordinary portion of the human mind, that 6th sense.


df1

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dave Ravin

..." I have to yet to see proof of ___________."

What that argument entails is failure on the part of the skeptic to come up with some sort of information that DISPROVES it.

Using that basis an individual can claim anything. "We have a NASA coverup, the moon is in fact made of swiss cheese. I know this is true because my uncle gave me a piece and it had an imprint Neil Armstrong's profile".


Originally posted by Jeremiah25
The problem I think lies in the fact that the skeptic has, generally speaking, not made the claim (whether that claim concerns the existence of aliens, government involvement in 9/11 or something else entirely) and so feels that the burden of proof lies with the person who has made the claim.


I think it is a reasonable expectation to put the burden of proof on the person making the claim.


Originally posted by PurityOfPeace
With all the available sources for "facts" and "evidence" these days...

So many sources exist on the internet that within a couple minutes I can find a myriad of sources to refute or support the most absurd claims. Perhaps some claims that I consider absurd are true, but I just do not the time to filter the fact from the fiction on the wide diversity of topics discussed on ATS.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
One other point I would like to make is the "gut feeling". This is something we have distanced ourselves from, I believe most people have a slight to heavy 6th sense.


I tend to agree with this also. I call it trusting myself. I tend to form an opinion pretty quickly as to whether a claim passes my "idiot test" or not.

And many times individuals present theories that are nothing but a rehash of things that have been posted and refuted repeatedly. I seldom post anything on the "secret societies" threads because whenever it is pointed out that the theory is a rerun the poster gets angry and feels you are raining their parade.
.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dave Ravin

..." I have to yet to see proof of ___________."

What that argument entails is failure on the part of the skeptic to come up with some sort of information that DISPROVES it.


But that is completely ridiculous! By that logic, I could accuse you of ANYTHING, and make you completely unable to prove me wrong. Does that mean that what I say is true?!? Absolutely not!!!

The burden of proof rests on the accuser. Our law is set up like that for a very logical reason, and this principle must be applied to investigation in ANY case. It is up to the person making the claim to PROVE his statements, it is not up to others to DISPROVE him.




top topics
 
0

log in

join