Why might "Skeptics" join ATS

it seems a bit off to me that there are so many skeptics here

i am not referring to the person who occasionally disagree's with your view and says it is ridiculous, i am referring to the memeber who seem to have a few paticular areas of intrest (usually a sizable amount of points) and are well spoken and intent on debunking.

Does this appear odd to anyone? Why would a person with such beliefs or agenda? be drawn to a board that clearly is ant trusting of government and looks for answers outside the box. is it to surpress any kind of unity should something/someone actually piece together a real cover up despite the sea of misinformation/deflection abd quell any momentum before it gets rolling.

is it just a bunch of people who came hear searching for truth and then overtime developed a "nothing to see here, move along" beleif?

and then try to enforce this on others by persuasion (oblivous to the unique perspective that certain information in any structured society will always be kept from the public ) and by knowing this these same posters demand "credible mainstream accepted media" proof of these very things which if real, would be classified and real national security issues. is it odd that none of these brilliant affluent debunkers see this angle?

any thoughts

i mean how do you get to be a moderator on a conspiracy website that doesn't leave the door open to conspiracy but states things in an absolute matter of fact, nothing to see hear, move along attitude.

maybe there is a bigger agenda here (maybe not even from the top), and maybe the bigger the lie the tougher it is to believe angle keeps the lid on this one.



[edit on 6-7-2007 by cpdaman]

Every time I think about one of these obsessive skeptics, I get the impression of a morbidly obese, extremely insecure nerd whose only real pleasure in life is to piss people off and tell them that they're wrong.

On the other hand, some of them might be people who believed in something at one time and were let down and now think anything that can't be proven empirically must be wrong.

Though, I would like to hear the hardcore skeptics speak for themselves about their reasons for posting here.

Originally posted by cpdaman

is it just a bunch of people who came hear searching for truth and then overtime developed a "nothing to see here, move along" beleif?

I think it's more like a bunch of people who came here searching for truth, discovered the truth the hard way having fallen for various ideas, theories etc along the way, which proved to be based on misinformation, misinterpretation or deliberate avoidance of the facts, and now spend their time helping newcomers to avoid falling for the same nonsense

For example, I once (in pre-internet days btw) thought the idea of Atlantis in Antarctica, and of a Earth Crust Displacement being behind the ice ages, as a credible and highly persuasive idea. Until I started researching the whole issue in greater depth than the likes of Hancock ever had. But I still see people falling for this idea, because they rely only on the word of certain authors, and thus I try and set them right.

Which I think is what 'denying ignorance' is surely all about?

Admittedly, the correct way to go about this is not simply to tell people they are wrong, but point them in the direction of alternative information that they might otherwise be unaware of. And trust them to make their own minds up once they are aware of all the pertinent information.

I do wonder sometimes whether people only read what they want to hear though.

Essan, I don't think of you as a hardcore skeptic.

Here is a short list of people I do, however, consider hardcore skeptics:
Byrd, Marduk, and SuicideVirus

I would really like to know what's going on inside the minds of these individuals.

I think most are Disinfo Agents sent to cause chaos in that they will mudy all the waters. When something is incriminating to them or something they don't want out they send in the CLOWNS to make a mockery of anything including making up completely crazy ideas.

Some others are just brainwashed from kindergarten on and think they will show us where we have gone wrong.

While I think a fair amount of skeptisism is needed for most things on this board, there are some who won't accept no proof and won't allow anyone to conclude.

I think it just has to do with the natural balance of things.
For every positive, there has to be a negative, with the majority being of the middle ground. Everything has it's extremes, though. For every David Icke spouting baseless nonsense, there has to be a balancing force pushing the "You've got to be nuts" view.

All things come to balance eventually. In a closed system, entropy always increases.
This seems to be the way of everything.

As a skeptic myself, I wonder why everyone wants to censor us.

I get told to butt out of threads (usually in the faith forum) all the time.

Are we not entitled to our disbelief as much as believers are to their belief?

Who cares if we don't agree with you? If everyone thought the same, this world would be a boring place indeed.

In my life I've come around from believing in just about everything from aliens to demons, to thinking that unless I can see/touch/taste/smell it myself it does not exist.

Sometimes I think that people want skeptics on the board to butt out because we make so much sense it shakes people's beliefs in the unbelievable.

As long as people are posting stuff I think is nonsense, I'm going to say so, and explain why. No offense, but the rest of you are going to have to suck it up, just as much as I suck up some of the stuff that I find to be superstitious and nonsensical.

Everybody has an opinion, and skeptics are no exception, and we have as much right to be here debunking what we see as bunk as everyone else does in posting it.

Just my two cents.

i believe that the ones with most posts are the ones trying to convince skeptics by quoting all the time " accepted sources" . i don't wanna generalise , but this is what i've noticed in the last few weeks

but they forget that these sources are where they are on the media market because of money.
a regular citizen can not create newspaper or a television and be influencial on the market.
those who owns the media are people with money and power
believing these "sources " narrow " your thinking.

people in here should be incouraged to think for themselves and post thoughts, but instead everyone wants proof , and for them proof is only believeble if it's coming from a big media trust.

i've seen old members of this site, that constantly try to disagree with a skeptical post by quoting some government or big newspaper , or giving a link to a video from a big television.

but maybe this is their job..., so that's why they are so frenetic about it


[edit on 6-7-2007 by charlie_the_loafer]

I say, as long as skeptics don't knowingly misrepresent the facts (and I have, from time to time seen them do this) they can stay.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by uberarcanist]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Essan, I don't think of you as a hardcore skeptic.

I'm definitely a sceptic (I prefer the alternative spelling ) - but I hope I'm not blinded by dogma and remain always open to the possibilities that I may be wrong. And always reassess my position in the light of new evidence

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Here is a short list of people I do, however, consider hardcore skeptics:
Byrd, Marduk, and SuicideVirus

Maybe there are people here who have actually done the prerequisite and post-graduate academic work to have more than a basic, rudimentary understanding of the topic at hand?

Therefore, when someone says something "off the wall" that flies in the face of what is known (without having done the rigorous due diligence) they step in to interject some perspective?

Byrd and Marduk are two of my favorite posters here (don't know much about SuicideVirus). Besides, Marduk cracks me up.

One man's comedian is another man's pain-in-the-ass, yeahright.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
One man's comedian is another man's pain-in-the-ass, yeahright.

Well, that is quite true. And a choice to make. Personally, I prefer to laugh.

Shouldn't everyone be a "skeptic?" Shouldn't proof be the standard?

You use the word skeptic, as though it describes only one view point.

Some people are skeptical of blurry images which are claimed to be everything from sea monsters to alien aircraft.

Some people are skeptical of the government.

Some people are just delusional.

Healthy skepticism is certainly warranted, but being stubborn and rejecting everything other than the official story doesn't help.

ooh ooh
can I say something now ?
I promise it will be based on the evidence !!!

Skeptics are conservatives by nature if not by definition, and support and maintain the status quo.

And one of the best definitions I've ever read of a conservative is someone who is selfish, because that person likes things the way they are and fears the disruption to their own life that change may bring.

At the far end of the spectrum of conservatism is of course fascism, which relies on the subject bonding with the authority out of identification with vicarious power; so fragile, poorly developed egos also have a lot to do with it.

I don't mind healthy skepticism, I encourage it in everyone, but I think the point of the OP has to do with semi-pro debunkers who troll the boards on their chosen subjects simply to disrupt threads and generally throw a monkey wrench in the works.

You can tell them instantly by the hostility that drips off their posts, insulting avatars suited to the boards they troll, and by their generally insulting, know-it-all tone, constant appeals to the official version of events (as if we don't know them already), dubious spelling, and use of caps and multiple exclamation points.

Well, I always assume that these people, with such obvious agendas and narrow focus, are only here to disrupt and I believe many of them get their jollies from the anonymity and their power to disrupt, and that a few actually do have some ulterior motive or vested interest that leads them to become defacto disinfo agents.

They might have a web site, or be part of an organization dedicated to debunking whatever topic they curse with their presence.

That said, I've seen some surprises. A few members who came to a topic with these characteristics and who mellowed with time and shifted their views with exposure to alternate viewpoints and well-marshaled facts. But most are hopeless.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by cpdaman
it seems a bit off to me that there are so many skeptics here

Does this appear odd to anyone? Why would a person with such beliefs or agenda? be drawn to a board that clearly is ant trusting of government and looks for answers outside the box.

After reading another quick dismissively rude post in a thread regarding something unusual, I just thought the exact same thing.

I mean you have a board here called Aliens and UFO's for goodness sake.

Now it's not that a skeptic has to believe in such things but some of the quick reactionary/dismissive post responses to threads related to the subject seems to indicate that the skeptic in question is either shocked or annoyed that someone would post an "I saw a UFO" or "Grey outside my window" thread at all.

Hello? Where do you think you are?

Don't get me wrong we should all be relatively skeptical with all stories regarding unusual conspiracies and alien encounters but some seem consistently dismissive (perhaps even a bit hostile) about anything that falls into that realm yet this very site is designed around those concepts.

I recall writing about my own brush with the unknown and essentially being sarcastically asked when my book coming out among other things. As if to say I had an agenda and was using ATS to push it, instead of something with a bizarre encounter looking for answers.

p.s. Still no book in sight.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
As a skeptic myself, I wonder why everyone wants to censor us.
I get told to butt out of threads (usually in the faith forum) all the time.

As long as people are posting stuff I think is nonsense, I'm going to say so, and explain why.

Skeptics don't offend me so I could care less really. I'm skeptical at times of a lot of unusual bologna that I come across but I also believe in some of the concepts and ideas that the bologna pusher hi-jacked for a hoax. I've called hoax/rubbish on UFO threads a few times myself so does that make me a skeptic too?

I think the point that I myself was making is if a person emphatically does not believe in the possible existence of say...advanced alien life...why constantly stroll through the UFO boards/related threads at all? Chances are EVERYTHING (even the slightly mundane stories) one would come across is going to be nonsense in the individuals mind.

Unless its for some kind of strange self-gratification, that's what doesn't make sense to me.

Skeptics on a internet forum, well these are just the same guys n gals you would not talk to at school or even admit to your mates that you "accidently spoke to them" the one time.

Everyone has a voice and everyone deserves to be heard regardless of what they are saying, if it is BS then most will turn a deaf ear and carry on, it does not matter what rhetoric they are talking about.

You don't need a headache pill everyday ( well you shouldn't) but now and then you would like to take one, basically that is what Skeptics do for most of us, makes us think the other way for a while until we uncover the bogus untruths.

Skeptics are good for the soul

Wolfie