SkyFloating Thank you!
Though I have a bit of a scientific slant myself, from studying when younger, and have fallen into this trap sometimes myself where I feel the
evidence if overwhelming.
However I have noticed this has become more of an issue on ATS and thread after thread seems to being derailed and killed without any intelligent
discussion of the opposing views.
What has really got my goat recently for want of a better description is the trolling done by some Skeptics on threads, when they have not even
evaluated or looked at the OP or sources information first.
Just blatantly politician like, telling their belief long enough and loud enough to ridicule the information forwarded originally with no "Proof" of
their own, just their words and beliefs on it, without considering the opposing view or information.
Recently on a few threads and 2 today I have come across this situation and I feel it really takes away from any chance of people coming to a real
understanding of the topic.
Infact I just posted on a thread today:New Planet X Video
a position something similar to your OP,
Also just now seconds before finding this thread I posted an opposition to that sort of Skeptical View:
Shambala Inner Earth City Protected by Tibetan Monks
And a week or so ago also How To Create PSI Balls
Trying to convey that it is impossible for us really, in reality to "prove" anything except from our own subjective experience of this world, and
the limitations of our awareness within this Body.
I am finding more and more the people who SHOUT THAT THERE IS NO PROOF to this, actually have no sources or solid arguments to support their stance,
no supporting evidence, or explanation to their view to contrast against the OP and other posters than such a statement.
Even when such Proof is called for if it is then given to the Skeptic often they will ignore it and move on, or again just use layer upon layer of
conventional understanding of an issue, without actually looking at the new evidence or proof proposed by the Op or other posters.
The lack of evidence is not proof of the lack of existence of evidence eh?
Wiki On It
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" ) or argument by lack of imagination, is a
logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that
because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred
but unproven premise is true instead.
I feel this well known form of Greek debating and modern politics is becoming the norm unfortunately on ATS.
As anyone who has ever witnessed a good barrister, or in the US attorney in court, ridicule factual events by mocking and wagging their finger at the
proposer it can be very effective, though does not get to the truth in any way.
It is an ancient and formidable weapon in the debaters and especially Skeptics arsenal, and can be seen used daily in social interactions from our
formative years where we all adhere to the "norm" no matter how bizarre strange or untrue due to the mockery of the group, and we only have to
switch on Fox or Sky or watch Palin in front of one of her crowds to see it in action.
ATS is above not only secret, but that type of interaction.
As one of the things that drew me to ATS was the motto "Deny Ignorance" these sorts of tactics can sometimes only create more layers of ignorance
upon already non accepted truths.
Of course sometimes they are right, but if one truth is supressed we are encouraging Ignorance.
Thank you so much for this thread
Edit for link & spelling
[edit on 31-10-2008 by MischeviousElf]