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.

 

The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd

page: 11
81
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The knee-jerk reaction to this thread seems to be that its directed against skeptics or people who question all the nonsense posted here.

Its not.

Its about something else.



You, me and our debate?



As much that as another, I suppose. I like debating you, Sky; you're conscious of the deliberate, illusory, and amusing nature of the rhetorical structures we build.


Edit: walls → structures

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Ian McLean]




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I think this could all be sorted with people just realising that no matter what they think is fact/fiction, they do not know it is fact/fiction. Too many times have I seen people outright dismiss a subject as there is a lack of 'proof' yet plenty of evidence. 'Evidence' and 'proof' are totally subjective to one's personal beliefs, some will see circumstantial evidence, others will see incontrivertable proof.

I'm sure Skyfloating isn't saying that presentation of evidence and/or proof shouldn't be asked, only that people shouldn't rely on this soley as the mitigating factor. Evidence can always be shown, regardless of whether it is truth, as we have seen around here with the many hoaxes and 'proof' will only be discovered once enough 'evidence' has been found. The saying 'for those who believe, no proof is required, for those who don't, no proof is sufficient', I myself, accept that I may never get conclusive proof for my beliefs and I'm sure there are many more like me, who believe that somethings, just can't be proven in our curent physical incarnation, that doesn't mean we are fools or delusional, we just have different beliefs to others.

If people around here and in the world in general, would use 'IMO' more and establish, that which they are trying to relate, is soley based on their observations and perceptions of the world, this would be a much friendlier and succesful place, at the moment, people take ages to work up the courage to reply on a thread for the first time, as they have seen how merciless some members can be in their 'search for truth' [Scoffing tone intended] and some who come here who maybe have a genuine account to tell, will more often than not never come back, after some of the treatment I have seen from certai members of this community.

I have some seriously weird views on life, universe, God, meaning of life etc, etc and I have some read some even weirder ones on here and it has all taught me one thing, if it feels right to them, it probably is right for them. One of our biggest downfalls in our history, is our inability to accept new and exotic ideas/ideals, religions warring over who is right, when they never stopped to ask if they could both be right, always focusing on the differences, rather than the similarities.

Fallacy can only be gauged in the light of Truth, anything else is merely an opinion, no matter how popular.

Sorry for the rant, had alot to say.


S+F

EMM

[edit on 2-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 2-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


There is absolutely no need to visit a mental health practictioner unless you have symptoms of a mental illness. Having sightings of ufos, often shared with others, and having flashes of memory or full memories of abductions is not a mental illness in itself. So if that is your contribution to someone on a thread that they're participating on, or have authored, when they themselves seem normal in every way, then you're not being a skeptic, but speaking from a bias.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seagrass
 


Yeah i was reffering to your post too (not to you,to your post.just making it clear).

Don't get me wrong,i don't think there's anything wrong finding those things interesting and fun but if someone is messing around in/with the forum and the users i find it kinda insulting.Sometimes i find it kinda frustrating reading a thread (especially if i like it too) and someone pops out of nowhere posting the first thing that comes to his/her mind just for the hell of it.
I wouldn't be in ATS if i wouldn't be feeling the same way you do though.

You know,one of the things i find interesting is weird/unusual animal/creatures.That's how i got in ATS in the first place.I was doing a mini meaningless research online about a few things and i ended up in the section of "mythical beasts" of ATS.I eventually stopped going there though because often enough there were posts so ridiculus that i couldn't stand it.


Anyway,i'll try to be short with a last thing so i wont get tiring.

I don't mind the beliefs anyone has but if they'll present em as facts then at least i'll ask em to back it up somehow (if not prove it.after all,if something is a fact,it can be proven).


To Skyfloating:



No. Every new discovery was first non-fact and there was at first, a lack of evidence for it. Talking about things that are not yet factual, allows us to expand our minds and create new things.


You didn't get me on that.
Offcourse i'm all about talking about things,reasearching them etc and you're right,that's how discoveries do happen.
I was talking about things that people reffer to as facts allthough they're not.


Sorry for the late replies!(better late than never,right?
)



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 



I don't mind the beliefs anyone has but if they'll present em as facts then at least i'll ask em to back it up somehow (if not prove it.after all,if something is a fact,it can be proven).

[SNIP]

I was talking about things that people reffer to as facts allthough they're not.


That is the point and both sides of the fence are guilty of doing it, I've been in threads where people are claiming facts on both sides and it is extremely frustrating, for example someone claiming Atlantis is nothing but a fabrication, a myth and someone else, that it is absolutely real, falling just short of actually being there.

I think progress would be made, if people spent less time arguing who is right and just accept someone's beliefs as a possibility, no matter how rediculous they may sound to you, each explore their own path, I'm sure alot more would be discovered.

And don't get me started on the indoctrination program we call our Education systems, look no further than UNESCO.


EMM



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The knee-jerk reaction to this thread seems to be that its directed against skeptics or people who question all the nonsense posted here.


Well, sorry, but I think you have only yourself to blame for that because an initial reading of your thread title appears to dismiss any nay-sayers as morons. If you changed that, the whole tenor of the thread would change. Earlier on, you refer to my 'skeptical posts'...in a positive manner, mind you..., but I don't view myself as a skeptic...merely a realist.

If somebody says "I was abducted by aliens", I'm not going to call you out, but I'm gonna want to know more if you want me to accept this as a certainty. But just the same, I'm not going to call you a liar, because I don't know that either, do I?

If you are going to tell me that Vikings came to Peterboro, Ontario because Barry Fell says so, I'm going to say no...because I know better.

If you want me to believe that the Cosmic Muffin is going to land a spaceship on Mt. Ranier on April 1'st, and if I want a seat on the Redemption Express I need to give away all my stuff, and wait there for a pick-up...well, you'd better be prepared to prove it.

Each one of those represents a rejection of the koolaid, and I stand by my reasoning. I...now...don't think you're calling that 'moronic tyranny'...but I had to read a bunch of pages to come to that conclusion.

"There's no proof" is a pretty reasonable response to an unreasonable assertion, so don't be frustrated by the responses you're getting. Nobody likes being called a moron, but quite frankly, most of those around here that I would collectively consider a moronic tyranny are those who who will battle into eye-rolling boredom some cool 'concept o' the day' that they read and assimilated without ANY proof whatsoever.

Cuz that, my friend, is just stoopid.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its never crowded at the Leading Edge.

There are two types of people in the world...the ones who create, and the ones who react.
Lacking ability to initiate, to pioneer, ask new and fresh questions, the only option the masses have is to smear, slander and ridicule the genius.


...further...professional debunkers are bores. I fully agree that it is not enough to call down somebody's pet theory. In this forum, a persistent nay-sayer has a responsibility to provide, instead, an alternative that has, if not a greater degree of truth, then a greater degree of elegance.

If they can't do that...well, they may not be morons, but they certainly ain't no fun.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by baburak
If people believed in everything what is written on this site we would become "mental pacients". I need the proof or at least the explanation why the person claims that the theory is correct. I can make a thread where i will claim that the santa claus is real - there's no evidence that he is or isn't.



To continue my metaphor of police and criminal: The police officer is not asked to "believe everything" he hears, but to investigate before drawing a conclusion.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


Thats right. This is about the idiots who draw conclusions about something before even examining it.

We dont have to examine everything, of course...but if we are not willing to look into something, its better to refrain from any conclusion. ("There´s no proof"...is a conclusion)

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
If you honestly think you've been abducted by aliens, yes, seeing a psychiatrist would be in your best interests for a variety of reasons.



In the middle ages, when a pioneer in thinking proposed a theory that was not accepted by the establishment, the gibbering imbeciles would gather round and hang or burn the guy, declaring him insane.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist
 


If you ignore people, you have nobody to blame but yourself for not being able to respond to their rhetoric.

It is not the responsibility of the person on ignore to give you carte blanche in your arguments. Just because you have them on ignore doesn't mean you can say whatever the heck you like and they shouldn't be allowed to respond.

When you put someone on ignore, you risk the fact that they will use your choice of pretending they don't exist against you in an argument. I feel that's appropriate, since you apparently aren't willing to hold a discussion with them or just gloss over any comments they may have.

I've long been against people using ignore functions throughout the internet, because in real life you don't have a convenient OFF button for people. The use of Ignore also tends to mean to me that a person is unwilling to think critically in response to someone whose views they disagree with vehemently.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


When you talk of "facts", you do acknowledge that what we see as "facts" changes over time, yes?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

to dismiss any nay-sayers as morons.

that, my friend, is just stoopid.


It is more than moronic to assume that the event of a deliberate cover-up and the accompanying eradication of evidence would easily cater to our desire for evidence.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
No, it's definitely more moronic to think such a monumental cover-up would not leave any evidence at all.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
No, it's definitely more moronic to think such a monumental cover-up would not leave any evidence at all.


In which way would...for example...dumping a corpse into a river, be "monumental"?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by philjwolf
reply to post by mystiq
 


I dont understand your thinking.. your trying to make us believe that you have been abducted.. or believe in it.. and I try to make you believe that it is all in your head.. what is the difference???. you happen to think your right.. and I happen to beleive Im right... its a 50/50.. pro .. con.. debate.. I just happen to believe that there is more evidence on my side of the argument.. and im sure you disagree with that.. so we can agree to disagree.. you dont have to be upset about it.. some day I might win you over.. or some day you might win me over.. (grin)..


The difference is, I'm sharing my experience (which has happened whether you believe in it or not) and while I'm participating on a thread, I am not personally attacking, insinuating rude things or responding less in an uncivil way with anyone. I would never imagine, for one, that I was the master of another's experience and if they happened to have something occur that was out of my understanding, that this would give me the right to begin to attack someone in a personal manner. That is bullying. Its not skepticism, because that would imply offering alternate points of view, and preferably without questioning another's sanity. And, its biased. People who persist in this line of reasoning choose one of many possibilities and run with that repeatedly. When peoples experiences don't fit into the parameters of their bias, then they start to attack personally. IE. sleep paralysis. (but it happened in the mid afternoon... or while awake...) You delusional fool. Actually when you're dealing with a relatively normal intelligent human being, I would never think I had the right to say such a thing to another on a post.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating



Originally posted by SuperViking
No, it's definitely more moronic to think such a monumental cover-up would not leave any evidence at all.


In which way would...for example...dumping a corpse into a river, be "monumental"?


Are we talking about a murder? Is that the conspiracy this site is about? Leopold and Loeb?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Murder is the metaphor used in the OP. In order to conduct a murder you also have to conduct a cover-up...unless you´re keen on getting jailed.

Yes, this site is also about cover-ups.

I thought that was obvious.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Of course, how very brilliant! The very fact that there is no evidence, no proof, is absolute proof that something exists.

That kind of an arguement only works with the demented, the illiterate, the unwashed, and those that are so inept that they have to blame anything and everything for their failures in life.

You can always "prove" anything by claiming that the actual proof was destroyed. But once again, you could also prove that the persons claiming this are wrong, because their "proofs" were also destroyed.

Just like a squirrel running around in a wheel, there is no beginning and no end in sight.

Sorry, but you can infer anything from nothing. And that's the real problem with you conspiracy frraks, you do infer all kinds of things from nothing.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Murder is the metaphor used in the OP. In order to conduct a murder you also have to conduct a cover-up...unless you´re keen on getting jailed.

Yes, this site is also about cover-ups.

I thought that was obvious.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

What I thought was obvious is the fact that even if a body is dumped in a river, about 99% of the time other evidence still exists. Or you didn't know that? You thought a body was the only type of evidence possible?

Now imagine most of the conspiracies talked about on this site are about a thousand times more complex, intricate, and larger and it becomes patently impossible for most of them to exist without evidence- which, of course, there is not.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join