How does everyone feel about skeptics? Do you hate them or respect them? I consider myself a skeptical believer. One who is willing to believe but not going to join everything that comes my way. Some skeptics are comlete jerk offs who will dismiss everything without taking the time to study but some will also take the time to study and will conclude nothing paranormal or paranormal. Don't hate on those that question everything..respect them. Tunnel vison is a wrong way to go...some of us who are interested in knowing the truth will always be denied by those that have got outrageous claims and are not willing to except the fact that there maybe alternatives.

But without sceptics all you have is Dogma.
Questions need to be asked explanations are needed.

What one person sees may be remarkeable to him/her but be totally unremarkeable to someone else.

Healthy scepticism is the life blood of any discussion, without it all you have is dogmatic statements

i only like them when they're wrong...like you on the R.E.M. thread

I am not saying skeptics should not have a say...but telling everyone that we need healthy skeptism. Without it would anyone question anything? I have made posts that ridicule people but that is because they are so riduculus that an intelligent person could not and would not except these theories. Case in point...to name one of many.....the theory that the 9/11 plane were only digitally added to footage afterwards. This theory is too retarded to even comprehend....i was there on vacation during the whole episode and actually saw the plane( well it was from a distance) i did witness objects crashing into buildings and am certain nothing was digitally enhanced. Were they planes?...they sure as helll looked like planes.

Without skeptics, ATS would lose all of it's hard-earned credibility. We need members who ask the hard questions after they dig into a topic. But there's two types of skeptics...

There are those who will refuse to believe the 'official' line on anything, ( ie 9/11 or UFO swamp gas) without researching and testing all theories surrounding them

-and-

Those who refuse to believe the opposite ( ie theories about alien visitation or the 9/11 conspiracies).

Both types are what make ATS what it is. They pit their minds against each other with critical thinking and facts, not just derisive statements poo-pooing each other.

Originally posted by darkheartrising
i only like them when they're wrong...like you on the R.E.M. thread

Not wrong....just showing that if your willing to see messages in songs, books, and movies ...they will be there.

It depends on how you want to define a skeptic... I believe there are several misdefinitions wandering around. A skeptic is one who approaches a given theory/story "on the fence" - not opposed, just undecided for lack of evidence. A skeptic is an open-minded critical thinker who will remain undecided until a preponderance of evidence begins to sway him to one side or the other. They may never become convinced due to lack of evidence, but they end up "leaning" toward one side or the other. They may become totally convinced if the evidence reaches a critical mass required for them. By this definition I believe skeptics are required.

If you want to misdefine a skeptic as a close-minded nay-sayer I would say - no, they are not required nor wanted.

One should be able to intelligently argue -both- sides of a question.

It would be helpful if all the high school students here would take a course in logic and debating. That one thing would raise the level of discourse on ATS immensely.

The first defintion explains it the best for a true skeptic. The other definitions point to the fact that once one is proven fake or mistaken ...than all others must be too.


[edit on 4-8-2007 by soulstealer2099]