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.

 

To All Those Members Complaining About Skeptics

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Get it right will you!!!

Consider the above quote. It describes who a skeptic REALLY is perfectly. Notice the words "systematic investigation", meaning that skeptics go out to disprove a theory using different methodologies in order to prove their view point

True Skeptics do not (DO NOT)

- Go onto threads suggesting that people are on drugs or mentally ill

- Assume that they are right without investigating or researching the topic at hand

- Act like children sledging other members for having a differentiating view point

I dont know if its just assumption or anger of being challenged/ abused, but please stop putting skeptics in the same group as these members that feel the need to post immature remarks.



I'm quoting this for the simple notion that half of the people presenting theories follow the same methods and rules. Research, use RELIABLE resources, saying anyone who doesn't 'see' their somehow fresh outlook on things are stupid, on an agenda, or brainwashed, and take criticism with the ability to counter it, not invoke the dreaded word "DEBUNKER!" and let their herd of blind accepters shut the person out.

These things work both ways. Neither side of purely innocent or guilty, but they both are at fault.




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Oh just drop it already. Whoever is naive enough to believe it is a cookie-cutter decision between believers and skeptics has not been denying ignorance. I'm skeptical about NWO power grabs, but I'm a believer in ET's. I'm not a 'skeptic'. I'm not a 'believer'. I'm a human being, with my own thoughts and judgments. Trying to split people because of differing opinions is collectivism, and no different that splitting people because of race or religion.

This needs to stop. Sorry, no S & F here.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tgautier13
Oh just drop it already. Whoever is naive enough to believe it is a cookie-cutter decision between believers and skeptics has not been denying ignorance. I'm skeptical about NWO power grabs, but I'm a believer in ET's. I'm not a 'skeptic'. I'm not a 'believer'. I'm a human being, with my own thoughts and judgments. Trying to split people because of differing opinions is collectivism, and no different that splitting people because of race or religion.



Im not trying to split people. If you bothered to read properly, im trying to define the word skeptic, and stop having that word applied to people that posts stupid, immature, off topics posts on threads that they disagree with.

Like I said, I believe in some stuff and am skeptical on other things, just like lots of other members. But it appears as though you missed the couple of paragraphs on that in the opening post too



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thank you for this thread Weatherman, trying to define the terms that are thrown about, often in semi-ignorance of the actual meaning of them.

Tgautier13: As explained, you are not a skeptic, you have a skeptic view-point on certain subjects. This is not about defining you or anyone else, but defining terms.

While we're on the subject of clarification and definition, I think that some other terms may need to be defined. I'll leave the actual definition to someone that knows how to do those funky blue external link things, but here are my suggestions for some terms that are in desperate need of explanation to some people: Patriotism, Nationalism, Communism, Socialism, Responsibilities and Rights.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Get it right will you!!!

In explanation, a skeptic will try to disprove every theory, while someone with a skeptical view point may only try to disprove one topic, instead of all of them.


I see you have spoken in the negative.Which is how the skeptic is in his/her thinking.Shouldnt it have been written to prove the theory wrong?

In my view if its a "yes it is" in any subject then the path of proving it isnt ,is what should be done so as to be true in getting the answer to your belief.And with the "No it isnt" to try proving that it is.
What I mean by that is that you will come to a more honest a conclusion when all areas of your search are exhausted so to speak..

Seems backwards?When thinking about it.Seems more sense to do it that way.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I fully believe a lot of the conspiracy theories and similar subjects. Skeptics have never bothered me. I see it simply as people who are uninformed. I was once a skeptic about many such things, that is until I did enough research to prove to myself otherwise. It really shouldn't matter what others believe, you should take it upon yourself to learn what is and isn't, but that also requires an open mind, and no preconceived notions.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Finally! Thank you for posting this. Although it is a shame that few of the 'muppets' that should read this, probably ever will.

Perhaps it should be obligatory reading for those people every six days. That way ATS might have a better level of discussion/debate.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Good thread OP

Very true, that just because we are skeptical of one thing, doesn't mean we feel this way about everything. We fully understand that many things can't be proven, and this works both ways.

Skeptics are often called "close-minded" or not able "to think outside the box", or they're a troll or disinfo agent, when they don't agree with a theory being presented. I'm usually on the skeptical side. I require more information to change my views and in turn I want to post any information that I think may be useful in challenging the theory. I study and consider all information pertaining to both sides, and am always open to to have my views changed or challenged. I can't just read something, watch it's accompanying video or photograph of not much to see and accept it as truth that easily, but some do just this, and so a skeptic can't help but feel the other side is being too gullible, not taking time to do research, look at any facts.

Believers are naturally more passionate about what they believe, and become overly offended when someone questions their ideas. They continuously tell skeptics they haven't awokened yet, or just haven't had an experience that would change their views, which is an assumption on their part. Once they believe in a theory, it is they who cannot be brought out of the fog, the open mind they claim they have is in my opinion closed off to any rational thinking or reasoning.

As much as someone has the right to express their beliefs, skeptics have the same right to say they don't believe and here is why.



[edit on 3-11-2008 by violet]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I have nothing against skeptics, everything needs a balance, like light needs dark, Ford needs Nissan etc...

I do however, have a problem with "skeptics" coming and and claiming it's bunk purely because it's "stupid".

We all can't all share the same belief, how lame would that be?




Peace,
FK



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Are people reading the OP?
Or are they reading the title, inventing the rest of the post in their heads, according to some deluded semi-definition of a word they think might mean skeptic and then posting?
I thought OzWeatherman's OP was as concise and clear a definition of the term skeptic as could be wished for, however it seems that it may have been beyond some posters.

I understand that some of the posters on these forums may not have English as their first language, but I believe that the major difference in the correct useage of terms is between Britain, the former commonwealth and colony countries, and the USA.

American English, does not seem to carry the same precision of language as English when describing abstract or semi-abstract terms. This is the only explanation I can think of (except for a rather derogatory theory on the relative levels of education), which adequately describes the difference in conceptual language between the two groups of English speakers.

To elucidate, explain or educate (you may choose your own term) for our confused cousins, skepticism is a state of mind; a personality trait that can be cultivated, but which does not include dogmaticism, reactionary repudiation, or personal revilement.

Feel free to consult the dictionary of your choice should any of these terms be unfamiliar to you.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I think people generally believe what they want to hear and deny what they do not want to hear.

That pretty much covers it.

Members on ATS are no exception. Most are still tenacious about their own beliefs taught by their parents and public education. This is because these knowledge were received from people who they cared about and trusted.

A random person with two to three facts coming up to shoving in your face the cold and cruel reality would be deemed as a nut buy your or people from a society like yours. This is usually what happens. (I've had some psychology XD)

But if they have a whole strand of tangible facts then you would start to become skeptics of your own beliefs and eventually you might believe in the alternate perspective.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Oz

I have to forward that when I first come to this board as a lurker I was a "believer" of sorts and thanks to the lunacy of preposterous claims here I have become a total skeptic.

I now require more than the obligatory " you have to trust me on this" and a cursory " I can't divulge my source " before I will even read a topic now. So I guess in essence I have to thank threads like Planet X, Titor and Aussie Bob for my sanity and rediscovered reasoning to understand humans have this trait to "Story Tell" for what ever personal gain they see fit.

Having said all that the Skeptics are the means to filter out the rubbish and without them gullible people will just blindly believe.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Nice one Oz.
The problem with what we believe or choose not to is not ourselves but the other folks who choose to belittle, condone, flame or otherwise hang in public ridicule. The mass majority of members and guests that make up the intelligent community of our home here, know the etiquette that the true believer or skeptic lives by. We demand proof of one's posts or claims and then reserve the right to believe or not.

I proudly wear the badge of a Skeptic on some issues and a Believer on others. And unless I have missed something along the way since the summer of 2006 when I became a member, THAT is exactly why I personally have dedicated myself to insuring that everyone who comes here has a place to state their case and allow others to embrace or be skeptical.

I cannot imagine this place being what it is today without Skeptics.


My Dos Cents!

Dave



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Get it right will you!!!

None of you seem to have any idea about what you are going on about anymore


A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation


Consider the above quote. It describes who a skeptic REALLY is perfectly. Notice the words "systematic investigation", meaning that skeptics go out to disprove a theory using different methodologies in order to prove their view
[edit on 3/11/2008 by OzWeatherman]


How about this - I'm Skeptical of your "skeptic" definition, and thus your entire approach for this thread loses some meaning. Anyone can come in here and say, "hey, Here is my definition of something, and "None of you seem to have any idea about what you are going on about anymore". Its obviously objectionable.

as matter of fact here is Skeptic Magazine's definition:

"the application of reason to any and all ideas … it is a method, not a position."


That was from the article on Socratic Skepticism

I understood your position on how things should be intelligently discussed, and agree with a lot of it, except the fact that you think you're right, that's all.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Brilliant, Oz and much needed.

At the risk of being the proverbial broken record, it seems as some people have come to believe that skeptics are somehow standing in the way of the truth.

I think a lot of the frustration and anger comes from the false dichotomy of skeptic vs. believer. As you said, while in our minds there seems to be a divide, in reality there is much overlap between the two schools of thought. Just as every skeptic is a believer in something, so do the believers employ skepticism. For instance, I am skeptical of extraterrestrial visitation, but have a very strong interest in the field of astrobiology.

I believe we should reject the labels of skeptic and believer We have invested far too much emotion to be useful in rational conversation and debate. I think we should employ the terms Convinced and Unconvinced; they do not carry the same emotional weight, and do not suggest a hard-divide that the other terms do.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Why is this in the conspiracy forum?

seems like certain 'skeptics' need reasurring a lot of the time.

Well, while I'm here, I'd like to ask the OP if he/she believes in ANY conspiracies on ATS? If so which one/s?

Thankyou for your time,

Z

[edit on 3-11-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
hmmmmm......
does a believer become a sceptic if they apply a logical, rational and systematic approach to questioning 'normal' sceptics then?

And just to clarify......do all skeptics use science as the base for 'evidence' or whatever it is that they are questioning etc?Or personal experience?Or what?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Personally, I just need verifiable evidence before I believe something is real. Anything else is about as irrational as you can get.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cutiepie
hmmmmm......
does a believer become a sceptic if they apply a logical, rational and systematic approach to questioning 'normal' sceptics then?

And just to clarify......do all skeptics use science as the base for 'evidence' or whatever it is that they are questioning etc?Or personal experience?Or what?


Well that's a great question, because the OP himself seems to constantly 'debunk' what other people have seen with their own eyes and he has not been privy to the same sights. I am mainly talking about the chemtrails we all see everyday in the sky all over the world.

Even if the OP is correct in giving a 'theory' in what HE believes them to be he has NO WAY of actually 'debunking' without seeing the same thing as the people he constantly 'debunks' do see.

Z



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


That's not how 'learning' works. Seeing things in the sky and saying 'they are chemtrails', without any evidence of them being anything other than vapour trails, is not being rational. We first need evidence that supports the chemtrail claim. A bunch of people seeing something proves nothing other than they saw something.

Deny ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join