To All Those Members Complaining About Skeptics

reply to post by dave420


And if you have not read enough on the subject to begin with, you can take your own advice.

For a start read this: www.abovetopsecret.com...'
and this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Even if you have the evidence you cannot believe your trusted leaders could ever do such a thing. I call it not ignorance, but being blind.

wZn

[edit on 3-11-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I tried very hard but I can't understand what you just wrote in your last post. I'm not being facetious, I really can't.

Evidence is everything. Without evidence there can be no claims - no rational claims, anyway.

BRAVO!!!!!

Someone had to say it!

Well said!

Yep, some times it would seem that a need for evidence and proof is a shunnable offence round here.

People cite 'Denying Ignoranace' as an argument for fully believing things which require no evidence, so by definition are themselves accepting ignorance. Which is crazy!

We all have an interest in these topics otherwise we would not be here. Its just that some would like to see the product before we buy it.

Needed saying!

I think the reasons that most believers hate skeptics is the fact that we point out holes in thier stories. I finf that when confronted with facts that counter thier beliefs they tend to get riled up and start to insult people. They call us close minded when it is them who cannot face that fact that there are alternative explainations out there that could also be the answer. I feel these people are the muppets, sheeple and whatever they want to call us in thier insults because of some of thier willingness to believe anything that comes along.

Hell, I've seen a UFO and I'm a skeptic of 70% of the criteria on this board. I mean most videos -- Chances are that who in the hell is going to be convienetly carrying a video camera when a UFO appears?

The truth boils down to one simple fact.

Not everything can be explained

So therefore let the skeptics try and disassemble whatever they may, let them point out every single flaw there is, however, the skeptic has as much proof as the supported statement does. None, none at all in fact, and why you ask?

Very simple. Anything can be faked in this age, and anything can be very real. However, many people will try and disqualify real situations where so they have no idea if this event really even happened or not, alas there is no proof unless you have many witnesses.


For example, the Phoenix Lights incident, 1997. Skeptics to this DAY still believe that they we're flares. What in the hell, it's PROPONDEROUS to belive that was a flare when F-16's we're seen racing by them AFTER they appeared.

Believe what you want, but remember.

The truth is out there

reply to post by OzWeatherman


This thread immediately reminded me of a movie I watched with my daughter some years back entitled "Antz" with with Woody Allen and Gene Hackman; the OP specifically reminded me of Hackman and now that I think about it, ATS in general reminds me of that children's movie. All the little opinionated, so sure Ants.

www.youtube.com...

A smart man; a grown man knows just about the time he thinks he knows what the truth is, the new facts come to light; sort of like how we used to think the Sun was a thermal nuclear reaction but now it is coming to light that it's electric, as is the universe: video.google.com...:en-USfficial&q=Unforgiven&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=Thunderbo lts%20of%20the%20Gods&hl=en&emb=0

Whatever the case, I find it interesting hearing one tell another how to think, write, believe.

With regards to so called "Conspiracies", I know first hand some of the worst is true but, I also know I will never know all the facts and the truth will always be subjective, multifaceted and illusive but, go ahead, find your since of security in "Knowing" but you might want to remember my reference to Antz.

For my part, as I grow older I am a lot more comfortable not needing to control, steer and force but, I do like to lecture; something I have in common with the OP

Dave420 can you further clarify 'verifiable' and everyone else, what constitues 'evidence' in your eyes......again I ask is this soley science based evidence (dont forget the social sciences too hehe!), personal experience or what?
Do people question because they are genuinly interested in finding answers or because they are genuinely interested in propping up thier own belief system...?
I totally agree that a few people seeing the same thing does not make it anything other than a few people seeing the same thing. However this does not mean that it either is or that it isnt what is being proposed.I believe the only true evidence people will accept is what fits with thier belief system whatever that is at the time and whether people are aware of this and conciously choose this or not is irrelevant.Our decisions on this have been made for us by us long before we are aware of it conciously anyway (I'm not talking aliens or governements even tho thats relevant, I mean the fact our concious mind is aware of so little even tho it thinks it knows all hehehe).
So for us to question is for us to look for an angle that is best suited to us for whatever reason.
Or maybe not.....who knows hehehehehe!!!!
But I am interested in what exactly most people who are taking the role of the 'skeptic' willingly actually define as 'evidence'.Because all the ones I've come across who use the term 'skeptic' are basing this on science.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I think this thread is more about some ppl wanting to hear themselves talk and feel smart, not directed at anyone in particular.. thiis is just the feeling I got past the first half of the page... until then it was great.

Part of the problem I've encountered recently (and I probably was a little over the top in response) is that people make claims based on evidence used to support their own argument. If you have an idea then look for evidence you're going to create bias. If you look at all of the relevant evidence and then form an opinion you are removing yourself from the issue, which is what needs to be done.

I find it very frustrating when I point out pieces of evidence that go against someones opinion, and they refuse to acknowledge it. Thats why I think 95% of this site is a joke. Sorry guys, but there are a lot of people on here that knowingly or not fool themselves on topics that reach out across the entire spectrum of ATS. The far reaching implications of particular ATS-wide mindsets has only cemented itself in my mind recently. There are definite patterns at play.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by seenitall]

What will you come up with next OZ, you are an idividual thinker. I ahve stated many time that without the skeptics (w/ a K) the UFO field would be years behind. They put things in check and keep us divias in check and grounded on the subject.

Debunkist Skepticae don't have to back up any of their claims - the burden of proof is never on them

Point in fact; when the Debunkist Skepticus makes a claim that there ' is no proof' - the burden now rests on your to refute their claim....

Welcome to the twisted logic of the Debunkist Skepticae, an obscure albeit highly prolific and pervasive species prevalent on conspiracy forums. They can commonly be found parasitizing the threads of abstract thinkers, wherein they find their most delectable fodder; explorers and dreamers.

*Warning: When a Debunkist Skepticus demands a link, he has already prepared a generic attack for whatever source you may cite.

Be wary of this, you cannot ever appease him or satiate his desire to kill your thread. Giving in will only lead to further attacks which will inevitably attract more parasites, who have been known to swiftly overwhelm and kill our younger and less defended Threadlings.

Reply only to those who treat you with respect... Do not take the bait or fall for the traps set by Dekunkist Skepticae - he is a malicious animal, though You will soon learn to recognize patterns in his behaviour and will soon be able to identify him by his 'seemingly' overt simple-mindedness and blatantly false naivete.

Edit: Persons such as the OP are not Debunkist Skepticae. They actually take the time to investigate and research.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

This is the issue I think,

The dichotomy we all posses.

I can be quite hard nosed and sceptical on some things.

But other subjects where "Skeptics" of those things I believe in, where I am sure of the validity or proof of certain things, would find my "Skepticism" to some of their beliefs unfathomable.

I also in myself find this tension or opposing poles. I have some very very deep personal spiritual beliefs and experiences, that if I posted on here, that I know are true, though only by unprovable personal experience, would have me labelled as the nuttiest member here.

yet I will as tonight jump into a an argument about "Peer reviews" etc and the lack therof of a sceptic on a certain subject.

I mentioned on Sky Floating's similar though opposite thread that I find a real difference between, as mentioned in the OP here, those with healthy caution wanting to check all the facts and data, information first, and those just with a socialised or imprinted response to a subject without checking the information or facts first.

I feel this gives the sceptics, or you may say truth finders a bad name , if you are on that side or not with a certain issue, when people just jump on a topic berate the OP without looking at the evidence first.

So we must be careful not to label all sceptics as so, when they are trolling.

A true sceptic is open minded in finding and searching for the facts on a subject and coming to a logical conclusion based on the Facts and not on opinion.

But surely no one is a sceptic in totality its a topic specific attitude, and if I say that I have seen the face of God and Angels in an NDE most here would say I was crazy or "imagining" it etc..

I have I cant prove it, but I am going now to berate a member for not having the opposite level of scientific evidence as an Op on a particular issue.

In addition we can only be labelled sceptical as an contrast to any new information and how it challenges the "norm".

The norm of "current understanding" in society or pop culture is the usual stance of a sceptic and this evolves and changes over days and years.

So like me you can find yourself sceptical of UFO's for many years "RANT Nothing can Travel Faster than C light, and as the nearest etc etc" changing to my view now which is total acceptance of their existence, though believing very few threads about them on ATS.


A good thread but I am dubious it will achieve anything :-)

Elf.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

With regards to so called "Conspiracies", I know first hand some of the worst is true but, I also know I will never know all the facts and the truth will always be subjective, multifaceted and illusive but, go ahead, find your since of security in "Knowing" but you might want to remember my reference to Antz.

Yet another claim but ZERO evidence. And this time it's from yet another 'Anonynous ATS' What is this 'so-called Conspiracies' that you are alluding to actually?

You know this first hand, how, where, when, even what? So you are just posting this is as true without evidence, WHY? You don't even have any credibility to start with other than you are anonymous. Why is your post even valid? What's the point actually if you don't have the details?

I can make an anonynous post and say the moon is made of cheese, and saying I had first hand 'knowledge' that it's true, that doesn't make it 'true' (in your words) now does it? Geeeee golly....

This is what makes ATS dumb.

_____________________________________________________________

Another 'dumbestsness' of this Skeptic vs Believers arguments is the way Believers ALWAYS resort to "Prove to me this 'so and so' doesn't exist!"
when they are pushed into a corner and ran out of moronic excuses.

This sort of backassward-halfwit-demand is the pinnacle of ignorance self-assery.

And it makes me laugh each and every time.



[edit on 3-11-2008 by spacebagel]

I believe in the scientific method for the most part, I prefer the word falsification to debunking. Karl Popper put forward that theories can never be verified in totality only falsified. He famously used the hypothetical black swans theory.

"Suppose a theory proposes that all swans are white. The obvious way to prove the theory is to check that every swan really is white - but there's a problem. No matter how many white swans you find, you can never be sure there isn't a black swan lurking somewhere. So you can never prove the theory is true. In contrast, finding one solitary black swan guarantees that the theory is false. This is the unique power of falsification: the ability to disprove a universal statement with just a single example - an ability, Popper pointed out, that flows directly from the theorems of deductive logic.”

I recommend his book The logic of scientific discovery.

I wanted to add that many established scientific theories have been in existence for so long they are now considered to be fact. Nothing illustrates this better than the field of big bang cosmology where a plethora of theories have emerged that are becoming increasingly surreal because of the fact they are impossible to falsify. Giving up real science for mathematical musings and thought experiments. Particularly in this field the scientists ignore Poppers logic, they ignore the obvious falsifications and also the solid science of other areas that says otherwise. They simple resort to tweaking the theory and adding more ad hoc unfalsifiable elements to continue along the same dead end path for the detriment of us all.
I believe this also exists in the classical Darwinian theory of evolution as well with many supposed facts being impossible to falsify. I do believe in evolution but do not agree with the mechanisms.
I find it amusing the contrast between big bang cosmology and evolutionary theories, one was based on a creation event put forth by a priest trying to reconcile science and religion, the other is the complete opposite relying solely on materialism and chance.

We also have to careful about the use of evidence. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious but still this is not fool proof and can never be. And sometimes evidence is twisted because of perception and interpretation of the facts and yet it is still called solid evidence.

So the burden of proof should not lie with person making the claims as theories can never be proven outright, it should be open to falsification as in the scientific method.
The theoretical scientific institutions could do with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Just my opinion on theories that are taught and considered as fact. Sorry for the science rant, I thought it could apply to this thread. Very good BTW.

Here's a good example of how this skepticism thing can go both ways.
The Skeptical Inquirer Embarrasses Itself

What you describe seems pretty much the same as what you did to me recently truthtellist.

Good work mate, you've described your attitude in the third person.

reply to post by squiz



Great Post!!

I agree with all the sentiments here about absurdity of the "anti-skeptic".

But I'll say this....there is more intelligent debate at this site then I ever expected. I never would have imagined so many like thinkers here. And even many of the anti-skeptics are pretty damn smart.

I just came here while researching NWO stuff. But I was wowed by the amount of information here! Really nice site and very appreciated. So much so that it's easy to put up with the anti-skeptics. It's actually a good ratio of intelligent vs stupid here. Better than most places.

Originally posted by squiz
I wanted to add that many established scientific theories have been in existence for so long they are now considered to be fact. Nothing illustrates this better than the field of big bang cosmology where a plethora of theories have emerged that are becoming increasingly surreal because of the fact they are impossible to falsify. Giving up real science for mathematical musings and thought experiments.

This is so good. I assume your talking about string theories and such. Increasingly surreal and mathematical musings.....those are the exact words I've been searching for to explain my feeling on the subject.

I'll check out that book.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by Liberty1]

Skeptics are developmentally disabled, they have severe emotional problems and they are mentally ill.

People! Do LOVE skeptics, they need your love! They lack love. So they hate/suspect everything even God!

Skepticism is a very dangerous disease. You can lose your soul!