It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:18 AM

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by spacebagel

You Sir, are a Confusia Maldatus...

It is not to late to change your ways.

"Not hard to imagine as the majority of the world's population is dumb. "

Got any proof of that?

Please post some supporting evidence - or make a retraction.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by TruthTellist]


If the majority of the people is not dumb - and not ignorant to this bleeding obviousness, then this world wouldn't be a $#itty place.

OMG I don't need to post a bloody evidence to post a supporting evidence of something that is soooo bleeeeeding obvious. Why oh why? Is anyone's brain in here is too incapable to grasp the bleeding obvious?

Guess someone in here is also incapable to grasp to the notion of the bleeeding obviousness that the dumb people outnumbers the smart people as the world is round and not flat. OMG

No wonder this world is a $#itty place. Wait, now you want me to post the evidence to proof that bloody obviousness too, right?

This is the kind of post that makes the Internet DUMB.

What's next? You want proof that the universe exist?

Why oh why would I waste my time to provide proof of the bleeding obvious at the expense of someone else's enured ignorance?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by spacebagel]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:11 AM
taken from:

''C.S. Peirce thought the idea that beliefs could be true at one time but false at another (or true for one person but false for another) was one of the "seeds of death"[1] by which James allowed his pragmatism to become "infected." Peirce avoided this position because he took the pragmatic theory to imply that theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices (i.e. they should be subject to test), not that they should be tied to our specific problems or life needs. Truth is defined, for Peirce, as what would be the ultimate outcome (not any outcome in real time) of inquiry by a (usually scientific) community of investigators.''

''The pragmatist proceeds from the basic premise that the human capability of theorizing is integral to intelligent practice. Theory and practice are not separate spheres; rather, theories and distinctions are tools or maps for finding our way in the world. As John Dewey put it, there is no question of theory versus practice but rather of intelligent practice versus uninformed, stupid practice and noted in a conversation with William Pepperell Montague that "[h]is effort had not been to practicalize intelligence but to intellectualize practice". (Quoted in Eldridge 1998, p. 5) Theory is an abstraction from direct experience and ultimately must return to inform experience in turn. Thus an organism navigating his or her environment is the grounds for pragmatist inquiry.''

''Although all human knowledge is partial, with no ability to take a 'God's-eye-view,' this does not necessitate a globalized skeptical attitude. Peirce insisted that contrary to Descartes' famous and influential methodology in the Meditations on First Philosophy, doubt cannot be feigned or created for the purpose of conducting philosophical inquiry. Doubt, like belief, requires justification. It arises from confrontation with some specific recalcitrant matter of fact (which Dewey called a 'situation'), which unsettles our belief in some specific proposition. Inquiry is then the rationally self-controlled process of attempting to return to a settled state of belief about the matter. Note that anti-skepticism is a reaction to modern academic skepticism in the wake of Descartes. The pragmatist insistence that all knowledge is tentative is actually quite congenial to the older skeptical tradition.''

are some skeptics on heremaybe actually pragmatists.....???

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Liberty1

"They believe what they see, what is tangible, and what stands the test of science. "

got any proof to back up that claim? Post links!

Which part do you mean? About the skeptics or the part about monkeys?

The point I'm making:
No one man has more knowledge than any other man about the unanswered questions we face. There are only men with beliefs trying to spread what they believe, or men with evidence that can prove what they say. So it seems to me that skepticism is a necessetity if the goal is truth. No?

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

All the true skeptics on this website DO show all the above traits you describe. And they get away with it by ganging up.

How would you know? You havent even signed up Mr Anonymous

This website is a forum for people who believe in these alternative subjects to come together and discuss what they believe and feel.

Its a website for everyone, skeptical or not, if you dont believe me try contacting one of the guys that run the site

Like I have seen a billion topics you have started trying to say that chemtrails are not real

I work for the weather you know my reason

you live in Australia mate, Darwin I believe, boy you must see a lot of planes

Well I do work at the Darwin Met Office which is conveniently half a km from the main runway at Darwin International Airport, which is a combined military and civilian airport. So yes I do see a lot of planes. I take it that was a dig at my credibility, and I also take it that you have never been to Darwin

I think all you skeptics should make your own mirror thread to every thread created and you can have it as you're debunking/skeptic hangout

I think you should join up before posting what you think of a members on a site that you're not a member of.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:09 AM
Mostly all, everyday people act they way skeptics do on here that I talk to.

It's not really that big a deal to me, mostly I just feel sad for them, because I can see the invisible walls around them.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
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?

I believe in UFO's, and certain paranormal events. But you wouldnt know that as you only come on threads where you can try to start an argument with me

I knew you would bring the word chemtrail up, even when the thread isnt about them

Careful you dont get told of for trolling

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by juveous
[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."

Ddi you notice that my definition was from an external source? It isnt my definition obviously

I do agree with the skeptic magazines definition to an extent. If you had properly read the opening post then you wouldve seen that I did explain a full skeptic, compared to one with a skeptical view.

A former workmate of mine actually writes for the skeptical magazine here in Australia, i doubt he would disagree with either definition

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:04 AM
Illustration By Example

Let's please refrain from name-calling-by-proxy and other ad hominem fallacies and stick to the topic:

To All Those Members Complaining About Skeptics

For those who may not be aware:

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Civility and Decorum are Required

No more scoffing and ridicule...

Please Stay On Topic

...and that's by no means all of them. The site owners have made it eminently clear over the years that while skepticism is welcome and encouraged, rudeness and disruption of topical discussion are not.

So please, let's try to avoid confusing skepticism with sarcasm.

P.S. All generalities are generally false.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by AlienGhandi
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?

Unless the situation can be reproduced (sorta like mythbusters)

I agree with you on the Phoenix Lights way they were flares. I know for a fact it wasn't a weather phenomenen and its unlikely it was an astronomical phenomenen.

Maybe in the future if someone is able to reproduce the event, then I make take notice but I just cant think of anything that would create such a situation

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
seems like certain 'skeptics' need reasurring a lot of the time.

In the past three weeks, there have been at least three threads in the Aliens & UFO forum about the horrors and evils of skeptics. How many threads have there been in defense of skeptics? This is the only one I am aware of. Rather than the skeptics needing reassurance, it seems it is the believers who need it.

Thanks for the support....I am assuming Zeits comment was targeted at me again.

But its true that all of those threads explained that skeptics were the only ones making childish and immature comments and purposely derailing threads. For some reason those members assumed incorrectly that all skeptics are like that.....and its interesting to see that none have posted here to defend their this because they refuse to here the other side of the story (deny ignorance

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Thanks for the reply, can you please show me some threads where you are talking about such UFOs and paranormal events that you believe to be a conspiracy (or not).

Thanking you again


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:42 AM
Mac Tonnies provided his definitions for skeptics and believers in a recent post on his blog. His definitions run contrary to how we percieve the roles of skeptic and believer, and fly-in-the-face of the rhetoric of the believer, particularly the type of believers who have been orchestrating the campaign against skeptics on ATS.

On skeptics...

Skeptics are thinkers. Skeptics neither debunk nor believe -- unless they are able to establish that a given phenomenon deserves to be debunked. “Belief” is not a luxury the true skeptic can afford; the mechanics of skeptical thought are rooted in probability and open-mindedness. Being a skeptic requires courage and intellectual flexibility. What looks like a neat idea may turn out to be unsubstantiated nonsense; conversely, it might be the real thing.

On believers...

Along with faux-debunkers, believers are the most significant fetter to open-minded inquiry. Believers have no pressing need for facts; a few vague correlations or anonymous “insider” remarks will suffice. Believers typically revolve around the notion that great shifts in scientific thought are usually initiated by lone eccentrics whose genius is often recognized only posthumously. Thus, their being branded as “cranks” by the mainstream is flaunted as a badge of honor, as if identifying them as architects of the Next Great Paradigm.

While genuine pioneers are indeed often derided in their time, this is no promise that today’s “crackpot” theory will be vindicated. However, this doesn’t faze believers. Nothing fazes believers. True believers will weave contradictory evidence into their own models of reality, rationalizing it with arcane philosophical acrobatics.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by OzWeatherman

Thanks for the reply, can you please show me some threads where you are talking about such UFOs and paranormal events that you believe to be a conspiracy (or not).

Thanking you again


Here you go

Check my thread and post history for more

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by SaviorComplex

It's a bit easier to sum up than that:

Skeptics: rational, need evidence to accept something as happening
Believers: irrational, will believe anything they want to, regardless of evidence for or against

It sounds harsh, but from what I've seen on ATS, it's accurate.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in