And Then They Call Our Minds Closed

What boggles me is that of the Skeptics that require Proof as a Hard Evidence....they are still Believers on the inside.

This is because they are already Believing their sense of touch, sight, smell, taste, and hearing....where as they have no Proof that what they are feeling is even real!

Ignorance is bliss.

It is obvious there is more to the 9/11 story. I am not claiming there were explosive charges or any of that, but there is something else.

But many of us see it pointless to argue that there is something major that has not been told to the public yet.

Is there a point to believe in something if there is no hard core proof?

We could put the "WE WANT EVIDENCE CROWD" with the "RELIGIOUS' crowd in terms of contradictory.

One group does not see a point in believing something unless it is proved on some level, where others have faith and instinct that there is something "bigger" out there controlling things, whatever that may be.

There has to be a point that you stop believing something, and the two examples I posted is what I mean.

Where is the line you draw when a story just sounds to far fetched? How much can you believe without being labeled gullible?

If we lived in a world where word was trust then we would live in a world of con artists.

If we lived in a world where proof was trust then we would live in a world without proof.

Just like anything, we have a few people on the extremes of the spectrum, but most of us lay in the middle. Give us some proof, and once our instinct kicks in, then we believe it.

More than likely, you would believe something if EVERYONE told you it was true, regardless of proof.

More than likely, you would believe something if PROOF perfectly proved something, yet others would still deny it.

You believe everything, you will fall for anything. You believe nothing, you will die for nothing. Meet me in the middle.

Unfortunately, there is an abundance of a couple of types of people.

The first are those who go into a thread with the mindset after reading the title, that they support this idea. It's already decided that this is probably a true story, and any post that says otherwise strengthens their resolve. On the furthest end of this spectrum, they get paranoid of anyone else posting, considering others who do not agree to either be disinfo agents, or having an alternative objective other than just getting to the bottom of it.

The other type are skeptics that go into a thread after reading the title, preparing to debunk it, before they've even read it. They are the ones that definitively say that they KNOW something is a weather balloon, a cloud, a rock, after looking at it for 5 seconds. No matter how odd the case or circumstances, they will go out of their way NOT to get the truth, but they work from an angle of "how can I best debunk this."

Imo, both ways lead to sloppy results, biased research, know-it-all attitudes, rude comments to others, among other things. I think there are some that do try to approach everything with at least a neutral mind, until they've read up on whatever it is, and thought it through from both the "is it possible" and "is not not possible" spectrum's.

But all you can do is roll with it. Give your viewpoint, try to be neutral, unbiased, and logical, until you decided you know where you stand, then you can state your theories. Of course, once you do, you'll either be called a disinfo agent or a nutcase, but what can you do?

I like reality as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean something isn't true unless it's been demonstrated by a credible physicist at a popular university.

Where does the sky end, and when did time begin?

Nobody on this planet can sufficiently imagine the profoundness of those questions, let alone answer them. Yet there are clearly members here who live to debunk anything they can't hold in their hand and bounce off the wall, so to speak.

I have an open mind and "want to believe" there's more to reality than we know, but until I see it, I suppose there's no harm in asking for the proof either way.

While I'm probably more inclined to believe in the intention of the Bilderberg group than lizard people, the FOL, Anunaki, or greys, if I'm ever abducted I'll be the first to come in here and pity all you naive sheeple.

reply to post by MOFreemason


The first I heard about this was while reading Behold a Pale Horse. The words written were about how in 2001 (this is now 2009 btw the US Government would be sending a satellite out to Jupiter with a nuclear payload to blow the # out of it and turn it into a star or some such nonsense.

I put the book down and never picked it back up.

Originally posted by -NewSense-

Originally posted by Astyanax
The fact is, Jupiter is (1) not behind the sun right now,

Umm, yes it is..

2

No.
It isn't. The arrow points to where Jupiter would be if it were behind the sun.
www.fourmilab.ch...

Jupiter is visible about a half hour before sunrise. Saw it myself this morning.

Fantastic post and beautifully put

You are completely correct, sceptics are required to change their views if they are proven incorrect. I myself have been proven incorrect on at two occassions here, and as a result my opinions have swayed.

Conspiracy theorists on the other hand will never change their point of view, and when challenged properly, end up slinging out the disifo and close-minded insults.

Thats why I think ATS's motto should be changed from "Deny Ignorance", to "Deny Idiocrasy"

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by -NewSense-

Originally posted by Astyanax
The fact is, Jupiter is (1) not behind the sun right now,

Umm, yes it is..

2

No.
It isn't. The arrow points to where Jupiter would be if it were behind the sun.

www.fourmilab.ch...

Jupiter is visible about a half hour before sunrise. Saw it myself this morning.

It's still more-less behind the sun.. The point is, you can't see it w/ a telescope right now.

reply to post by -NewSense-


Yes, you can. As I said it is visible before dawn, in the east.

Originally posted by Astyanax


The boot of gullibility is on the other foot. Your average conspiracy theorist, New Age visionary or Indigo Child will swallow anything as long as it accords with his cherished beliefs. He'd swallow a whale if it swam up to him and professed undying belief in his pet theory. But offer him the tiniest shred of evidence contradicting that theory and watch him explode in fury, call you names, misunderstand or misrepresent what you say, embark on long rants about the arrogance and soulless cynicism of unfairly privileged reason and at last, when all else fails, ignore you and go back to babbling nonsense with his fellow-believers. However plainly you put your case, however easy to understand and incontrovertible your evidence, it will not make a blind bit of difference. His ears are shut, his eyes are closed. His brain has put its shutters up for the duration.

To the OP, I think you need to calm down a little bit and not take this site so seriously. This is a public forum and people debate on public forums this is not some ground breaking concept. What would ATS be if there were not believers in the first place? Just like skeptics are needed so are the believers.

If you believe that you can change everyone's opinion to match your own then you are truely naive, no matter if you are indeed 100% correct with your claims.

My advice to you is give your opinion on things and leave it at that. You can try to explain your side of things but if people don't want to listen then thats all there is to it. Let them keep their fantasy because they are not gonna change.

Skeptics are a vital part to any good discussion but at some point you need to know when to walk away from the fanatical threads.

A Few Responses

Benevolent Heretic, IRM, GrayFoxSolid, secretagentwooman, OzWeatherman: thank you all very kindly indeed.

Originally posted by -NewSense-

Originally posted by Astyanax
The fact is, Jupiter is (1) not behind the sun right now,

Umm, yes it is.

If you want to debate this with me - or with anyone else - please do so on the Jupiter thread. You'll find a nice, big, hard-to-miss link to it in the OP of this one. Phage is posting on that thread as well, so if you want to comment on his reply to your post here, please do that on the other thread too.

And then... hmm?... there's this little gem:

Originally posted by just_another_yourself
i could only assume, as we all do everyday, that the OP of the "i cant stand close minded people" thread struck a chord in something you dont like about yourself.

Oh dear.

The chord was struck - as you would have learnt if you troubled to read the OP with any attention - by the posting activity on a completely different thread, not that one. There was a great big link to the thread right in the middle of the OP.

Did you visit that thread to see what was going on? Or did you just surge in to post on this one because it - to coin a phrase - 'struck a chord in something you don't like about yourself'?

Your post illustrates the Believer mindset completely. When someone questions their belief it's like throwing sodium into water. FIZZBANGFOOOFKABOOMFROTHFROTHFROTHBUBBLEBUBBLEBUBBLE... Then the smoke clears and you see that nothing has changed, everything is just the same as before. No conspiracy, nothing to see, just somebody getting their knickers in a twist because they were too excited or lazy or clueless to check the facts.

So, not to break the one line reply rule but...

How many people are in love with...I mean voted for Obama?

and for that matter, think that G. W. Bush is a
a. saint
b. conservative
c. forward thinking

reply to post by irongunner

You're off topic and trolling. This thread has nothing to do with American politics.

Do you have any comments to make on the subject of the thread?

reply to post by TooManyHumans


I couldnt agree with you more Toomanyhumans.

On a site like ATS, which deals with conspiracies, and the paranormal, rarely anybody ever knows the 100% correct answer.

The boot of gullibility is on the other foot. Your average conspiracy theorist, New Age visionary or Indigo Child will swallow anything as long as it accords with his cherished beliefs.

Same thing goes for the skeptic, one who doesnt want to step out of his comfort zone. Skeptics sometimes go over board and say stuff when they shouldn't. Mainly the famous one liner "This is Bs".

Almost a year ago, me and my friend took a picture of a ufo in the middle of the day, posted it on ATS, and immediately every skeptic comes rushing to the thread as if it were a race to see who could call it CGI first. They didnt dismiss it as a plane or bird, it was just CGI. Sadly enough, my contribution to the ats after 5 years of watching and reading all the interesting threads was denied..

Skeptics and Believers are ultimately the same thing, the believer is a skeptic of what the skeptic says and the skeptic is a believer of what he says. People dont like the view it that way so... like Toomanyhumans said... We need you. We need you to make the debate. If it werent for skeptics there would be a bunch of cultists talkin about reptillians trying to ignite jupiter by shooting their moon laser...but you never know what those reptillians are up to..

Originally posted by Astyanax
But offer him the tiniest shred of evidence contradicting that theory and watch him explode in fury, call you names, misunderstand or misrepresent what you say, embark on long rants about the arrogance and soulless cynicism of unfairly privileged reason and at last, when all else fails, ignore you and go back to babbling nonsense with his fellow-believers.

Pardon, but I think you're falling victim to the same propensity for over-generalization that you project on the so-called "believers." In my experience, there are belligerent zealots in every extreme of human thought, from theism to atheism and mysticism to skepticism. One thing is certain: When any extreme of human thought becomes static and closed to change, it loses credibility and becomes dead to our human curiosity.

For example, one of the reasons that Manmade Global Warming hysteria has received such a cold reception (pardon the pun) is because the "rational and reasonable" scientists who endorse the theory are known to viciously assail their esteemed colleagues who do not accept the theory without question. Scientific reputations are being destroyed as we speak, simply because a significant portion of the scientific community dares to question what is, in many cases, flawed and incomplete evidence of Manmade Global Warming.

Here we see a case of believers versus skeptics within the hallowed halls of Science itself, with climate change dogma being closed to question and being forced upon the rest of the Scientific community (as well as upon the entire human population). Worse than a case of sensationally bad Science, Manmade Global Warming is becoming a non-issue because of its inflexibility.

On the flip side, consider the longevity of The Catholic Church, long villified by skeptics of every stripe for its lack of material evidence and perceived injustices against humanity. Those who oppose the Church invariably cite glaring historical inaccuracies of the Bible, the Spanish Inquisition, et cetera, as evidence of a cruel and ignorant and dogmatic institution of fundamentalist believers. What the skeptics do not — or will not, or cannot — grasp is that The Church is an extraordinarily flexible institution that has seen several stages of reformation over the centuries, an institution that has embraced Science to such a degree that it is entirely open to modern scientific research into its holiest of holies.

The Church now accepts the probability that The Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, for one example, and now accepts that Christ was probably nailed up by his wrists rather than by the palms of his hands. This is all fairly recent scientific research for which The Church not only gave its consent but openly invited. Additionally, The Catholic Church runs its own astronomical observatories, employing quite modern technology for studying the cosmos. The Church systematically researches claims of "miracles" and most often refutes those claims in the best skeptical tradition.

So here we see a long-reviled spiritual institution that is actually much more flexible and vital and open-minded than the dozens of governments and obsolete intellectual movements that it has outlived over the last 2000 years.

Yes, there are skeptics among the ranks of The Catholic Church and other spiritual/mystical institutions, just as there are zealous, unswerving, inflexible fanatics roaming the halls of Science. I think it's this volatile mix of Faith and Skepticism that keeps us alive as a species, it keeps our minds alive, searching for answers and, more than that, perpetually questioning the answers.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you. S & F.

Someone finally gets it. No offense, I know there are many who actually 'get it'.

I have to be careful, for fear of violating T&C, but there is a level a close-mindedness on ATS (we know who they are) that sometimes has me reaching for the phone number of someone with a underthecounter gun.

All I've tried to do is point out that there are other explanations for phenomena and all i'm greeted with is,

"Well how can you say that when everybody else knows you're wrong?"

I can say it because,

a) A million monkeys CAN be wrong.
b) Even if you're in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

(Thanks to David Lee Roth and Ghandi)

My pet gripe.

On the "Believers" side (for want of a better word) there are a lot of people ignorant of the scientific method. Basically that is the only true path to truth we have.

I do not "believe" anything.

If we observe some phenomena we develop some hypotheses, including the null-hypothesis, that explain it then attempt to disprove those hypotheses. It is a simple but effective system.

Usually with the phenomena or theories discussed on ATS it is impossible to disprove most hypothesis so one can only ascribe a degree of confidence in a hypothesis. This means one can not prove any hypothesis.

A perfect example recently on this site with regard something on the moon that had the approximate shape of a wrench. One poster enthusiastically decried sceptics for not providing evidence that the object was a rock. The proper response was that the null-hypothesis (it was a funny shaped rock lying among a field of rocks) did not require evidence, but rather the onus was on the OP to show evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. That is show evidence it is not a rock. Well this seemed to set off one or two posters complaining that sceptics never show evidence to support their theories. I just gave up, there is no way to respond to such ignorance.

I think it may be time for a thread on logic and the scientific method. I may try to compile one. Not that it will do much good because to use the method you must be a sceptic of everything.

Personally I think the ET hypothesis is a the most likely hypothesis for a very small proportion of UFO incidents. But I cannot "believe" in UFOs, I cannot "believe" in Alien life. They either exist or they don't. And right now I simply don't have enough information.

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Astyanax
But offer him the tiniest shred of evidence contradicting that theory and watch him explode in fury, call you names... and go back to babbling nonsense with his fellow-believers.

Pardon, but I think you're falling victim to the same propensity for over-generalization that you project on the so-called "believers."

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your average conspiracy theorist, New Age visionary or Indigo Child will swallow anything as long as it accords with his cherished beliefs. He'd swallow a whale if it swam up to him and professed undying belief in his pet theory. But offer him the tiniest shred of evidence contradicting that theory...

Hardly an overgeneralization; I didn't say they were all like that, only that it was the average reaction.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
In my experience, there are belligerent zealots in every extreme of human thought, from theism to atheism and mysticism to skepticism.

Originally posted by Astyanax
A sceptic... is obliged to change his views when he is given compelling evidence for doing so. If he doesn't he is obliged to resign the position of sceptic. The thing about sceptics is that they refuse to believe against the evidence.

It is therefore impossible to be both a sceptic and a belligerent zealot. You are clearly misinterpreting your experience.

You are also displaying the typical Believer reaction of galloping into the fray on your hobbyhorse without first checking to see whether such a reaction is appropriate.

Not really so clever, then.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Oh dear, SD!!

Earth's average distance from the Sun is 96,000,000 miles. SOL (speed of light) is 186,000 MPS. (Not to confuse the term "Sol", as it refers to our Sun....since that is how we are now referring to a 'day' on Mars...one 'Sol')

A 'day' on Mars is slightly more than 24 of our 'hours'.

Math shows ABOUT 8 light-minutes from Earth to Sun (only light distance relative to our Sun I have memorized....except for the 4.3 YEARS at light speed to Alpha Centauri A and B)...

What was the subject again???

OH!! Closed minds.


I applaud the OP for this thread, it's going to be fun to watch!!!

EDIT:
Oh dear, again!!! Five minutes of typing, and already dozens of posts behind....take it with a grain of salt, whilst I read and enjoy!!!

[edit on 2/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

I really hate the "skeptics vs conspiracy theorists" theme that I always hear about. People that come here are so varied in their opinions and beliefs that to put them into 2 categories is just ridiculous. Sure there are gullible people who will believe a lot of garbage, just as there are people who will always look for a reason not to believe something. I try my best to see arguments from all sides, for example:
The "conspiracy theorists vs. skeptics/us against them" mentality is divisive and can lead to either side refusing to see the others point of view out of spite.
However, driven out of spite for the other side, often new and valuable information is uncovered through very hard research that otherwise might never have been done.

So many times I've been quick to take sides on an issue that seems glaringly apparent, only to have my judgment completely thrown out of the window by somebody with equal or greater information that counters what I thought I just learned.