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

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
adrenchrome: Precisely. They sound like squawking parrots and they fly from thread to thread actually thinking they are making a contribution.

You do realize that squawking parrots exist on both sides of the camp, the skeptics and the believers? I would hope that you realize that before making such blanket generalized comments.

chapter29: Good critical thinking and real skepticism is indeed motivational...forcing us to sharpen our argument.

It's one thing if you're trying to debate a mathematical theory, and quite another if you're trying to debate one person's fantasy-laden opinion. The latter is impossible, as the argument essentially goes "my personal opinion based upon nothing other than my own mind's fabrication disagrees with yours", and so on...

bruxfain: I agree its a security-blanket...and its also a sign that the poster in question lacks creativity. We see plenty of people post nothing other than that mantra.

Security blanket? It is time to do some mature growing up and realize that everyone has a security blanket, some place where each person feels comfortable and has a sense of reality. Don't be so preachy without realizing you have your own. To blanket "skeptics" as those seeking security blanket is nothing more than the same attack you personally are hurt over and trying to defend against.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by venividivici
Sorry, but as a skeptic I have no inclination to provide proof this "it isn't".

You have the burden of proving IT IS !

If I wanted to believe without proof then I'd be a clergyman.

I dont have any burden whatsoever. I have the joy of engaging in speculation with my fellow conspiracy-researchers without being interrupted every 5 seconds by someone requesting proof.

Dont squash the flowers before they´ve even grown.

You are asking the skeptics to ignore your posts, and yet you cannot ignore theirs? Wow!

If you really wanted to, you could just have a conversation in the same thread only with those who support your way of thinking. It's always a choice to ignore a skeptic or not.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Logic said that the sun revolved around the earth. Logic said that you would fall off the ends of the world. Logic says that the moon and the sun are the same size. Logic says we are solid.

A logical deduction is only the same as science when all the facts are in, and it can be reproduced.

And yet it took a skeptic to question the said commonly accepted logic, and he used his own logic to figure out that two identical items can be different in size just based on the distance. In fact, that was observation, and it took logic to apply it to heavenly bodies.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by cbass
You cannot even prove that YOU exist much less that there is an advaced alien race trying to take over our planet or anything else we so freely entertain here on ATS so don't worry.
[edit on 31-10-2008 by cbass]

This is exactly what i said to you in another thread - if there is nothing that you can base your reality on, then there is no purpose in you participating.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Offcourse but not all of em change and those that do,till they change they're still facts.

I don't know,we seem that we agree but we're playing with the words here.
I may be wrong but it seems a bit more like a contest to me.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM

Originally posted by americandingbat
Do we have to limit ourselves to only one troll in this situation? We're in a thread about people who respond to speculation by demanding proof, so that's the question I addressed.

Perhaps we do. It doesn't have to resort to a 'he started it!' type discourse, but I think where the issue actually starts has serious merit here. I don't think it is possibly to troll a 'troll' as that kind of undermines the actual definition of a troll.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Majorion

This is the same thing I tell people who look for conclusive evidence of any conspiracy... It wouldn't be a conspiracy or a secret if any real evidence of this was left behind. Certainly, if a very powerful group wished to keep something secret then they surely wouldn't leave behind the evidence concluding the reality of that secret.

[edit on 1/11/08 by Majorion]

There is a fallacy in your argument.

There is evidence that cannot be removed, no matter how big and secretive the group is. For example, they cannot remove the evidence that WTC7 collapsed onto itself in the same fashion as controlled demolition. Any video of the said collapse proves it. As much as they can limit the distribution of such videoclips, they cannot destroy all of them.

The Germans wanted to cover up concentration camps. The JFK murder was supposed to have been presented to the public as a simple case, and yet it is everything BUT simple and the public knows it. The US gov't, being an extremely powerful entity (having CIA at its disposal) couldn't even provide evidence of WMDs.

Bottom line, no one is capable of absolute authority.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Merriman Weir

I think of trolling as not being against an individual, but against ATS as a whole.

So Troll #2 isn't trolling Troll #1, they're both trolling the community at large, and in doing so, increasing the dichotomization of interested people and abetting the hegemony of ignorance.

Wow, I don't think I've used the word hegemony in a sentence since grad school

Unless we can get this back on topic, though, maybe we should switch to u2u or drop it? I wouldn't want to end up being a troll discussing trolling.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Dock6

For ... those who've been ridiculed, put-down, dismissed, etc. by 'sceptics' come back stronger --- if they truly believe their theory or experience has genuine merit and warrants better and further discussion/investigation.

That's exactly what skepticism should do - a theory either stands up or falls down.

And I've noted that very often, those with an 'unprovable yet still demonstrably valid' experience or theory to relate -- step up to the plate again .. and again. And each time they do so, they hone and refine their story so that it includes relevant detail which is often lacking in a first post.

A well polished lie? Because I hardly see anything (over which I'm skeptical) becoming more and more polished with greater evidence. What I see is more of the same, extremely subjective, often baseless personal opinion, which is supposed to support the original extremely subjective, often baseless personal opinion.

I am sorry, but this is neither proof nor evidence.

In doing so, they flesh out the experience or theory so that it can be more clearly grasped by those with an open mind. In this way, the theory or experience is rendered more understandable to others.

What generalities! In theory, theorizing works! In practice, the experience is often different. There is no polished up UFO story that is able to convince "evil, wicked" skeptics. The reason? There isn't any polishing with evidence done there.

This is particularly the case with paranormal type theories and experiences upon which -- as many know from hard experience -- the self-styled 'sceptics' really enjoy grinding their fangs.

How often have we seen a newby's post state blankly, ' I was abducted last night', or ' My house is haunted I think'. Followed by a very few lines about their experience ? And generally, they're ripped to bits by those posing as 'sceptics'. Being newbies, they retire, wounded and discredited and the 'sceptics' etch another notch on their belts.

Nothing wrong with feeling that your house is haunted, or talking about your dream. If you have a story of alien abduction, where aliens are not even evidenced to exist, I will say check your meds, it's as simple as that. And if you attempt to enlighten the rest of us here that there are fifty alien civilizations, and if you attempt to describe their society and how they work because you just happen to know, that they will visit us in 2012 because apparently tibetan monks keep in touch with them... Need i say more? What is so difficult about accepting all that as fantasy, really? Why does it need to be passed off as factual, truthful? There is no truth there.

If you want to seek the truth, then discover it, do not invent it.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Dock6

Therefore, the 'sceptics' are performing a service. They encourage us to greater effort.

YES, absolutely YES! I just hope that one day the "you" part of ATS will present it to the "us" part of ATS.

Not only do other's similar experiences serve as confirmation of the original poster's experience --- they also tend to balance out even the most determined 'sceptical' attack.

Absolutely not true. Loch Ness monster.

I do have an open mind to the existence of other intelligence (other than humans) in the entire universe, absolutely. But I do not believe we have been presented with any evidence of such intelligence visiting us.

And thanks to sceptics, we're much more likely to present an intelligent, articulate and valuable account

I cannot wait for the day when an alien story will be presented in an intelligent manner.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:56 PM

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

Thank you Skyfloating for making my existance totally pointless.
I guess I can pack up and leave now because as we all know now, I am just one cog in a machine of morons who question the questioners and seek to have at least some evidence when the absurd is posted.

How preposterous of me!

I see the light now, I really do. It is so freeing to believe everything on the board without one rational thought to hold me down.

I am now happy to say that I now believe every single theory that comes into play on this website now withut question.. I mean WHO AM I to question the random internet conspiracy theorist?!?

I now totally believe without question all of the posted theories (like GFL!!).. or the one about "The world will end on" [insert day here] at least I'll now be prepared fo the world ending tomorrow.. or the next day.. or the next day.. or the next day.

I am 100% down with the CIA, GWB, some disgruntled Aleins and the Jews personally planted charges in concert to blow up WTC, in a plot to create a global "Pax Americana". They killed the passengers and destroyed the planes beforehand and substituted holograms for those planes, while delivering parts of those destroyed planes secretly at night while everyone was sleeping to the WTC site to be found. I believe that all the relatives were paid off and also didn't exist to make fake recordings and that the recordings were computer generated. I now believe that a missile, a bomb and nothing destroyed the pentagon and that a missile, and a bomb brought down a plane load of nothing but not leaving real identifiable plane debris in a hole too small to be anything but a M80 wrapped with ductape.

I believe that Aliens have a secret base on the moon and mars.. and that there is a huge continent sized UFO over the south pole (and the north).. I believe that chupacabre and Bigfoot hang out and swap stories in the northwest and southern tip of china (on the weekends).

I now believe the world will end in 2012 but that there is a time traveler who has given us accurate info on the future after 2012. I also believe that we are both out of oil reserve and just scratching the surface of a huge trillion barrel find. I believe that cold fusion is a reality and is made with orange peelings and coffee grinds and that nuclear energy is a crock that doesn't actually work.. and oh, that CERN thing.. will kill us all in september 2008.

I believe all this now (and more every day) because now I am not saddled down by "evidence" or "proof"

Thanks for the freedom you have just given me.

Be honest, we need each other.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by gormly
I am now happy to say that I now believe every single theory that comes into play on this website now withut question.. I mean WHO AM I to question the random internet conspiracy theorist?!?

Did Skyfloating ask us to believe everything, or just not to batter posters senseless with demands for proof?

Ideas can be entertained without demanding proof of their reality, but without accepting them as the absolute all-time truth.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:26 AM

Originally posted by americandingbat
Did Skyfloating ask us to believe everything, or just not to batter posters senseless with demands for proof?

Ideas can be entertained without demanding proof of their reality, but without accepting them as the absolute all-time truth.

To be fair.. not exactly, but the recent drumbeat to offput, belittle or rail against skeptics has been disheartening.

Take a look at many of the new posts in recent weeks, they will post a theory and then a little dig at "skeptics" or "debunkers" along the way, dismissive up front so they can point to it later and say ... "see..."

In fact, there are quite a few "prove this debunker" threads recently and then when someone attempts to the get jumped on. Skeptics make up a small minority here and its what keeps ATS from tettering over into the "moronic" on a daily basis.

The thought of someone getting pissed because someone asks for "proof" or "evidence" tells me there are too many holes to fill in that persons particular haunting.

I ask for proof on a theory of hologramed planes flying into a building and that should alarm someone? I ask for proof when someone says an alien landed and stuck a probe into a nether region and panties get bunched?
I ask for proof when John Edwards says he can reach out to my dead relatives and someone gets miffed I ask him to prove it?

On and on.. without requests for evidence or proof where would we be?
What kind of world would we live in if no one ever requested proof or evidence?


I get it that there are jerks on the forum, who will pester, but just ignore them. To lump everyone into a group who requests some tangible evidence is the same as me lumping everyone posting a new boogeyman here each day an ignorant self absorbed moron.. but I won't do that.
Unlike Skyfloating (a mod no less) who called just about every skeptic a moron.

Ignore the people you feel are disingenuous or trollish, debate or converse with the others. It's the way of life and without it, we'd all be stuck in reverse.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:16 AM
I think it's in a some way funny that so many people tend to continue this debate always dividing so strongly the belivers from the skeptics.
IMO The belivers & the kind of blinded skeptics we are talking about, are not 2 distinct groups, but one only!
As far as i can see a blind skeptic that not acept nothing at all as proof , and never changes is mind no matter what, is in fact a beliver! He belives that nothing of the debated theme exists!!

[edit on 5/11/08 by Umbra Sideralis]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by gormly

"Unlike Skyfloating (a mod no less) who called just about every skeptic a moron."

Did he?

You must have only just read the title and skipped the OP - if that is the conclusion that you arrived at... and it would be your only truthful excuse.

If you had read Skyfloating's posts, I highly doubt you'd be making such unfounded accusations and contriving allegations of insinuations.

There is no need be so malicious - ever.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 05:42 AM
For certain things there is so much circumstantial evidence for certain events it makes proof almost concrete but people want to hear the politician say, "Yeah that's right, I did it! That isn't going to happen. For other things that offers little if any circumstantial evidence I just keep it on the back burner and just see how it all pans out.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:22 PM
a lot of the evidence presented around here is mediocre; and used to support extraordinary premises.

critical thinking is crucial for the advancement of humanity. evidence is important; without it we only have conjecture. and every imbecile and nutcase can have an opinion on anything; and they usually do.

so god forbid a person asks for an iota of evidence,

you're right. we should all believe what everyone tells long as it affirms us, that is.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by Threadfall

No, you should believe what you can prove to yourself, and realise that the process of proving it to yourself is fundamental to your own personal development. Skeptics often come from a holier than thou position as if they automatically know it all and if it dosen't fit their worldview it is to be shunned. Thats not how this works. First you look for plausability... then you prove it on your own time, either by verifying the sources given to you as proof, or finding sources of your own that prove the assertion you atributed plausability to. And thus your worldview grows and is more in tune with truth. And not not Truth(tm), real truth, source, reality.

Skeptics are usually left brain slaves, which means they know what they do know for sure, but they know little because they have no intuition and they always limit their thought process by castrating extrapolation. In the longterm they become closed minded and ignorant, although they could calculate the optimal route to the IRS in their head and probably know beforehand what their tax refund is. Yes, they are important for science. But so are the right brain types that actually push the boundaries forward and alow science to expand into new fields/theorys.

Just asking for proof as if you're entitled to it is childish, especially in conspiracy theory, where the supression of truth is part of the territory. And, in this sea of lies, good honest to god proof is very rare, very very rare. And usually brings in a horde of liars on it's coattails.


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Great topic.

The next thing should be to define what can be proven or disproven. My litmus test for a "useful theory" is that it can be disproven, and that it effects me.

There are a lot of alien theories out there -- and they cannot be disproven. They are merely interesting. What can be proven, however, is Alien contact or technologies -- so the idea of government involvement effects me.

I don't believe 99% of what people say on this blog -- but I like coming back because saying "THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE" is a useless thing in most instances. Very little in this universe is NOT possible. However, by the same token, the netting of fairies and unicorns is also, probably a waste of time.

But there really is a tyranny of the conspiracy in society in general. If you look back in history, for instance, most wars by democracies have been preceded by false flag events, because it is really hard to start wars of conquest without scaring free people. Today, when you bring up the idea that the war on drugs is a sham, or that the government might be behind an attack so that they could suspend civil liberties, get elected, or just make Beaucoup bucks -- people look at you as if you are insane.

Well, there is just too much documentation of real events, both in the US and abroad, that shows that governments can and do have conspiracies.

Look at every fascist government in history, and read the 12 steps to fascism. If you find a lot of useless, incompetent cronies getting promoted in a government, its so that somebody can commit a conspiracy. You don't need a lot of people to commit a major crime -- just a lot of dunces and people paid to look the other way. They will help you cover it up later by saving their own incompetent skin. In fact, the more desperate the act, the less likely it is to get revealed.

What if you were an air traffic controller after 9/11 and were told to destroy the Radar records? Well, that is exactly what happened when the head of security destroyed the tapes -- it is documented, and not part of any "theory." What can be proven? Nothing. This guy might have had a whim, or might be guilty of treason. Why would he do such a thing? How likely is this to occur on a whim? More likely, he was covering up his own incompetence, and thus covering up someone else's conspiracy that he probably did not know anything about.

Now, if you were a government that just betrayed the people, you would spend a lot of money on news pundits, people in law enforcement, and even bloggers -- not that they would know anything, but you would promote a jerk-off beyond his ability to earn money -- someone like Sean Hannity, who already loves the powerful, and supports every damn thing you do. Sean Hannity doesn't know anything -- he is an idiot. But he will be loyal, because he can't earn millions of dollars speaking falsehoods to the powerless, unless he has a great patron.

Look around at our media, at our current crop of government bureaucrats; the only persons you find with any modicum of intelligence, are either crooked, gone, or barely hanging on and called conspiracy theorists.

Who did everyone call reasonable" The guys who said there was no doubt about WMDs in Iraq. The people who said we need to NOT regulate financial institutions, because they know better. The people who said that we had to bail these companies out. The people who say we MUST have a war on drugs -- we must punish. The people who say we have to privatize our Gas Utility, and then are quiet after the prices quintuple. The people who say we've got to give tax breaks to inspire innovation, but then garnishing an executives bonus who had a company go bankrupt and dumped all the losses on the 401k plans -- oh, that goes too far!

Everybody "reasonable" I meet is either a fool or a liar. At least on ATS, we at lease have an idea that we can be wrong. But sometimes, we are closer to the truth.

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:51 PM
On a website like this I suggest talking in terms of

probable vs. improbable

instead of proven vs. unproven or "true and false".

top topics
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in