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.

 

SKEPTICS.Dont just sit and say no.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


Since this is your first post, I have to ask if you have spent time examining the viewpoints and activities of skeptics on this board, or if your knowledge of skeptics and skepticism comes from the caricature of skeptics that exists only in the minds of the believers.

You won't find a skeptic on this board, outside of cynics, that dismiss anything out of hand. Skeptics here will present you with a cogent argument and evidence to back up their view. There is brilliant work done by both sides. You will also find that many of the behaviors attribute to skeptics can be found among the believers themselves. For instace, you ask us:



5.If you do see something still be skeptical but think about first before dismissing.


The accusation here being that a skeptic will dismiss it out-of-hand. The same accusation can be made of believers, that they will accept it out-of-hand as being extraterrestrial. We could ask you the same; if you see something strange, think about it first before assuming it is extraterrestrial. But I assume you already do this. Just like believers, skeptics are not as entrenched in their thinking as you assume.

This is the third topic in as many weeks that does focuses on skeptics. Instead, we should be focusing on the evidence, arguments for and against extraterrestrial visitation. Making the subject about personalities only serves to distract. It does not get us closer to the truth, whatever it may be. Attacking skeptics is not a substitute for proving extraterrestrial visitation. We should always concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. The evidence will stand on its own merits.

I think we have built a false dichotomy around the terms of skeptic and believer. We have come to invest in them meanings than lend themselves to conflict. I suggest we at ATS throw out these terms, and instead employ new terms that do not carry the emotional baggage. I suggest Convinced and Unconvinced.




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

The accusation here being that a skeptic will dismiss it out-of-hand. The same accusation can be made of believers, that they will accept it out-of-hand as being extraterrestrial. We could ask you the same; if you see something strange, think about it first before assuming it is extraterrestrial. But I assume you already do this. Just like believers, skeptics are not as entrenched in their thinking as you assume.

This is the third topic in as many weeks that does focuses on skeptics. Instead, we should be focusing on the evidence, arguments for and against extraterrestrial visitation. Making the subject about personalities only serves to distract. It does not get us closer to the truth, whatever it may be. Attacking skeptics is not a substitute for proving extraterrestrial visitation. We should always concentrate on the evidence and the arguments. The evidence will stand on its own merits.




Very nice spin, but unfortunately as we both know, its still spin.

Once again i'll raise to the fore the solemn spectre of what the nay sayer calling themselves a "skeptic" uses as the baseline for their response to anything outside their immediate framing of reality.

"Proof" they cry! "Evidence" they cry!

Yet, despite my constant raising of the point, they seem unable to stand on solid ground when challenged to define those words.

"Statements by credible people" they cry! Great, now define credible. Is that "buddy of George Bush" credible? Ivy League credible? CNN rent an expert credible?

"Respected people" they cry! Respected by who? By the people they are trying to expose? By people who are respected and paid by the people they are trying to expose? CNN rent an expert respected?

"Undeniable proof" (one of my personal favorites). Undeniable by whom? What exactly is undeniable proof? Thats a laugh a minute that one.

"Official footage" (another fav!)....hmmm ok so everything from "officialdom" (the ones against you knowing) is real...and everyone who was kicked out of the loop for speaking about it, is bunk, false, CGI, hoax and incredible, right?

I could go on all day here, but you see theres little real point. As usual will just come right back to the point, the only "proof" you count as "proof" is decided by YOU in the credibility and heres the beautiful irony, anyone who says ANYTHING about Aliens or Spaceships being real, no matter how prestigious they are, to you is incredible due to YOUR unwillingness to accept the possibility of their words being true.

The reality here is simple, you will not accept reality until your reality feeder feeds it to you, and that means getting up one day, turning on the propaganda box and having it pumped into your ears by the very same people who have lied to you all your lives. Skeptics wont believe until EVERYONE believes....and then people wonder where the term "sheep" actual came from.

People in denial of everything move with the pack, when CNN, ABD, FOX, The President and a handful of hand picked experts say "This is now reality" thats the exact moment all the sheep of the world bleat loudly and start talking about something which all the non sheep knew ten years ago


So again, maybe you can define a better definition of proof because any proof you can find against a conspiracy, I can find for it, anyone can. Ignorance doesnt count as evidence, global ignorance doesnt count as reality.


PS when I say "you" its not you individually, its you as the masses because really thats what it boils down to and has for a long time, global mass stupidity (maybe more aptly passive lazy thinking and self induced ignorance).

[edit on 1-11-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


If having read through the thread so far you will have seen answers to some of what you have written.Maybe I could have written the thread better but it was mainly done in the hope that more skeptics would do more than just armchair quoting of evidence against.Actually go out and prove there side as believers do for there side.You're now going to say you dont need to because blah blah blah.
Proof isnt just belief either way it is by self doing in finding out.If may take along time it may not but to truely have that belief it has to be done.I have had my proof and I have been honoured and lucky to have witnessed the real thing(Not plane,Heli,etc) on 3 occasions.
So it is for skeptics to go out and find the proof I did not see what I and others did see.Doing as I described in the beginning of my thread I feel though a simple thing to do not many skeptics would as it is easier to just say no not true so i wont bother.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Another point I would like to make is that alot of people who call themselves skeptics shouldnt even do so.The word skeptic is not a word for non believing but of questioning or doubt of.Which both are fine and fit very well with the genuine skeptic.But that is not the line many so called skeptics take.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


Also its worth bearing in mind you just dont know who you are dealing with online


People often talk about information, disinformation, CIA, FBI, NSA, people paid to give out "bunk" information, people who monitor, collate, contaminate.

If we assume any of the conspiracy is true to even the smallest % then of course we know by simple deduction that the counter measures and disinformation tactics are most likely true. Hell, half the "spook" population could be reading what I write, its an interesting thought, in fact id be certain someones read a word or two at the very least somewhere along the line.

Well, while we are on the subject of that particular theory I might prod a little at their own minds. You see theres something fascinating in compartmentalised items, you are either 100% in, or 100% out.

Might seem strange that someone with access to classified items could be called 100% out, right? Not really since what we would be talking about, in theory, is an ideological agenda. If you arent privy to the highest level ideology, the highest level of the true agenda, then you arent actually "in" anything, you are just another cog in the very same wheel, another species of mushroom if you like.

Interesting that if the ideology is bad, meaning nasty greedy and destructive, then its lower level enforcers and their families will be in the # with the rest of us


I have the comfort of knowing that while I might be a mushroom, im at least not helping to pour the manure onto my own head. That makes me just that little more fortunate.

So remeber, any "spook" (where does that term come from anyway) who happens to read this, today you might be important, but id be pretty sure that in the true scale of things, you will all be in the dungpile with the rest of humanity, welcome to the real world friends.


In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is King, and im pretty sure the "ratchet men" have more than one eye.....


That might beg the question to these fine folks, whose side are you really on?


[edit on 1-11-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
If having read through the thread so far you will have seen answers to some of what you have written.Maybe I could have written the thread better but it was mainly done in the hope that more skeptics would do more than just armchair quoting of evidence against.Actually go out and prove there side as believers do for there side.


How often do believers go out and prove their side? Encounters with high-strangness is a rare event. There is just as much "armchair quoting of evidence" on the Convinced as there is on the Unconvinced. As I said earlier, many of the negative attributes you attribute to skeptics are shared by believers.


Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
If may take along time it may not but to truely have that belief it has to be done.I have had my proof and I have been honoured and lucky to have witnessed the real thing(Not plane,Heli,etc) on 3 occasions.


What would be the point of this exercise? It would not prove to anyone that extraterrestrials are visiting the planet. All it would prove is that on occasion, people witness things in the sky that they do not understand or explain. That is not a synonym for alien.

I have had two sightings myself. It does not mean I saw something alien, but just that it defied explanation.


Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
...many skeptics would as it is easier to just say no not true so i wont bother.



You are exercising one of the worst traits of the fundamentalist believer. Despite pleas to look at what the skeptics have to say, you ignore this, and characterize the whole of skepticism as dismissing every bit of evidence out of hand. This is not born out in reality. You will not find a skeptic here that dismisses anything out of hand; they may be unconvinced, but they back up their viewpoints with cogent arguments.

Please, do not fall into this trap of skeptic vs. believers. Do not make this about personalities or the supposed evils of skeptics. Skeptics are not standing in the way of proving the existence of extraterrestrial visitation. Subscribing to such a belief will not get us a step closer to the truth. The evidence will stand on its own merits. If the evidence cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is not the fault of the skeptics, but a failing of the evidence.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Through out history it has been believers of a so called way out idea that are the minority and non believers(Scientists included) the majority.But as history has showed the believers of way out have been right.Science then conveniently forgets its prior stance with a we did know but that was in theory.Now we have the proof it confirms what we didnt,sorry I mean what we did know.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Hi silver6ix.You do better than I can in the face of the self enforced blindness of the skeptic.
Thank you for your input on this thread.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


Well, its a pleasure to contribute.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


So you havent read what I have written in this thread.I have taken time to to reply to all on this thread with answers and views which would have saved you writing some of what you have written.Is it a comman thing for a skeptic do this?If so then maybe that is why you do not see the evidence that is out there.Again thats why I say of getting out and doing.Surely as a skeptic you can agree that if you didand the more you did,the chances of seeing something unusual is increased.Not necessarily meaning a ufo,possibly something else.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
Hi silver6ix.You do better than I can in the face of the self enforced blindness of the skeptic.


Please do not be so arrogant as to believe that you are the only one who knows the truth, and that everyone else is blind and ignorant. We can have disagreement without being disagreeable, or believing the other side is blind and ignorant.

May I ask why you would rather concentrate on insulting and attacking skeptics, and less on discussing evidence and arguments?

[edit on 1-11-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
So you havent read what I have written in this thread.I have taken time to to reply to all on this thread with answers and views which would have saved you writing some of what you have written.Is it a comman thing for a skeptic do this?If so then maybe that is why you do not see the evidence that is out there.


Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you have issue with. What do you believe I ignored?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


First of all I am not taking the bait.
Secondly I am not attacking anyone.Re read your last posts to see who is doing the attacking.
Thirdly if you want to show yourself as someone with respect for others despite there belief.Then please show it by reading what the OP has written throughout the thread.Then you will maybe know abit more of that persons stance by his/her comments and answers.As I have tried to point out.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
First of all I am not taking the bait.


What bait are you talking about? You say I have ignored what you wrote, and I am asking what do you think I have ignored.


Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
Secondly I am not attacking anyone.Re read your last posts to see who is doing the attacking.


Saying skeptics are blind is an attack. And I am asking you to not fall into that line of thinking. That is not an attack on you.


Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
Thirdly if you want to show yourself as someone with respect for others despite there belief.Then please show it by reading what the OP has written throughout the thread.Then you will maybe know abit more of that persons stance by his/her comments and answers.As I have tried to point out.


Again, what do you feel I have ignored?

This is why I have urged you and others to not make the discussion about personality. It invariably leads down this road, and serves only as a distraction.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Being the time it is in the UK.I am now off to bed.I will reply properly to your post later.
Goodnight to you.
Take care to you and all who may see or write upon this thread.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I would like to point that we should not confuse sceptics with deniers or with people that ignore what is presented to them, a real sceptic should accept any information that is presented and should not make a stand in favour of any side before having enough evidence for that, and when he/she reaches that position he/she should explain why he/she thinks that that conclusion is the right one (or more accurately, the most close to the right one).

A real sceptic does not say "no", once more, what we are talking about here is not sceptics, is what some people (from both sides, believers and unbelievers) think about sceptics.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 

I agree, and living in a country that had censorship and political police, I can confirm (as far as someone who was only 11 years old when the regime was changed) that the people that work for the "big fish" that common people meet are also common people who try to keep in a good light to the "big fish" but that are as ignorant of things as the common people, sometimes even more.


In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is King, and im pretty sure the "ratchet men" have more than one eye.....
I suggest you read "The Country of the Blind", things may not be as we expect.



That might beg the question to these fine folks, whose side are you really on?
I think that most of the disinformation is being spread on the side of the believers, a false believer would be more effective than a non-believer trying to convince the believers, and that is one of the reasons I take all believer accounts with care.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I agree, and living in a country that had censorship and political police, I can confirm (as far as someone who was only 11 years old when the regime was changed) that the people that work for the "big fish" that common people meet are also common people who try to keep in a good light to the "big fish" but that are as ignorant of things as the common people, sometimes even more.


Of couse, those are the ones who are easily used, easily abused, and in the end easily blamed for anything.
In this case I imagine compartmentalisation like a submarine....then the officers decide to flood the compartments, the ship sink froms view and all the lackies are jettisoned to the surface to fulfill the feeding frenzy.


I suggest you read "The Country of the Blind", things may not be as we expect.


Orwelian dystopian translation, doesnt really get to the crux of the issue. Orwell was abig reader of Nietzsche himself, im sure Nietzsche had a clearer concept of that meaning, although sometimes the answer comes between its words.


I think that most of the disinformation is being spread on the side of the believers, a false believer would be more effective than a non-believer trying to convince the believers, and that is one of the reasons I take all believer accounts with care.


Well, sure but then if you were actively spreading disinformation and purposely contaminating truths, you would say that

Its like asking an undercover MIB "hey dude, how does it feel to be an MIB?", you wouldnt really expect them to come out and admit it


Some truths arent even truths, they are perceptions of truth which show shadows of counter truth against them when presented as possiblities and from there become newborn truths


Yes, im feeling rather cryptic today, hehe



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


HI SaviourComplex

Having read through the whole thread and analyzing what you have written.It is clear of what your position is and of what you are trying to get from me.An argument not a debate.
You're quoting only certain parts without cross-referencing with other things I have said in replies.Which would answer some of what you want to know.
Therefore I think it is becoming a tit for tat conversation between you and me on this thread.Not a debate.I hope on another thread we may come across each other again and debate a topic.But as for on here I will not be replying to you again.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hi silver6ix and ArMap

Hope your sunday is going well for you.
Im following your conversation with interest.Both putting across your views well.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join