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.

 

Skeptics and Believers dont exist

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strype
Quite the argument you two have going, but technically you're both right.

It's wrong to label one or oneself as either a skeptic or believer, because it simply comes down to the topic of discussion.

It's just as wrong to label one another as wrong or right, because it simply comes down to opinion.


Cheers.



- Strype


The problem I seem to be having is that simply asking "why" is construed as "labeling". The cognitive leap from "why" to "you're total nut case" is a bit difficult for me to follow.




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The problem I seem to be having is that simply asking "why" is construed as "labeling". The cognitive leap from "why" to "you're total nut case" is a bit difficult for me to follow.


Knock, Knock. She opens the door and two police officers are standing there. "You called us mam because you say your daughter has disappeared." - "Yes, since weeks. I suspect she's been murdered." - "Why do you believe that?" - "Because shortly before she was gone, she said someone wants to kill her". "Do you have evidence for that, mam?" - "Uh, no...but..." "Sorry, dismissed. Goodbye".

Conspiracy-Theorists and UFOlogists are like that woman and feel treated that way.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The problem I seem to be having is that simply asking "why" is construed as "labeling". The cognitive leap from "why" to "you're total nut case" is a bit difficult for me to follow.


Knock, Knock. She opens the door and two police officers are standing there. "You called us mam because you say your daughter has disappeared." - "Yes, since weeks. I suspect she's been murdered." - "Why do you believe that?" - "Because shortly before she was gone, she said someone wants to kill her". "Do you have evidence for that, mam?" - "Uh, no...but..." "Sorry, dismissed. Goodbye".

Conspiracy-Theorists and UFOlogists are like that woman and feel treated that way.


Strawman. This "us against the world" attitude is something ufology will have to get over before it can evolve into a credible field of research. Hostility to answering hard questions isn't the way to get respect. It simply stops communication.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


There are many ways the police officer could have handled the lady more respectfully. "Alright mam. We`ll have someone look into it but we cant promise anything" for example.

She has reason to believe her daughter is in trouble, even though she has no "hard evidence" for it.

Any kidnapper or murderer would not necessarily leave hard evidence behind, would they?

This is about accepting the premise that there may be some things which people want hidden.

Its the basis of what this entire site is about.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by undo
 


"once you know it all, who can tell ya anything else, other than those you already agree with AND in such a scenario, the earth is the center of the universe all over again. just thought you might like to recognize the tendency."

That's the attitude I keep running into here. "I believe, and that's that." All I've been asking is "how do you support that?", "what evidence do you have?" And that, apparently, is a sin.


But many things have arisen without evidence, some of the greatest inventions and theories were nothing more than ideas and speculations without any evidence. These ideas give rise to more advanced technology in that paticular field which eventually produces evidence, of course by that stage, even long before, it will already be commonly accepted as fact.

I think Albert said it best:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

Definitions of intuitive on the Web:
Intuition is the act by which the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. When using only intuition, the truth of the proposition is immediately known right then, the moment it is presented. This is without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy)

Once again, let me try and explain a little if I can...

The part of you that makes you a "believer" is the part driving you forward, onward and upward. The part of you that makes you a "skeptic" is the part that stabilizes you throughout the the ascension.

The unbalance of these two faculties is what leads to many problems in our lives. Either being too much of a dreamer but not rational enough to avoid simple mistakes or being far to rational an totally unable to see beyond the walls of your own prison. I think you find these two faculties are portrayed in the Matrix by the Architect and the Oracle.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Gawzilla, again I think you misrepresent both believers and your own position, which you do frequently. It's not that there is "hostility to hard questions", as you claim, but there is resentment to a hostile attitude. You are highly insulting and sarcastic to believers. It's this that causes resentment, rather than requests for evidence or asking "questions". This misrepresentation is itself, insulting.

But as my signature describes, "sneering scoffers" often hide behind the front of supposedly representing "logic" and "reason" - claiming "Hey, I'm just asking questions" - when in fact they are being hostile and derogatory and their "questions" are loaded with bias and this is the source of the resistance they meet.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


There are many ways the police officer could have handled the lady more respectfully. "Alright mam. We`ll have someone look into it but we cant promise anything" for example.

She has reason to believe her daughter is in trouble, even though she has no "hard evidence" for it.

Any kidnapper or murderer would not necessarily leave hard evidence behind, would they?

This is about accepting the premise that there may be some things which people want hidden.


So, that happens every time with every officer? Or is it a case so exceptional that it is worth commenting on in the evening news? Stereotyping, that's all it is.

And, I'm a Navy retiree, I KNOW there are things you'll never hear about, because the information simply isn't available. How do I know? I saw those things. Can I prove it? No, the evidence is buried. Would I get hostile if you asked me for evidence of same? No, because I know I can't support it. But I wouldn't demand that you accept it on faith.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


You keep saying that you are a veteran...

I have a question for you;

Do you have any proof that you are a Veteran of the Navy?

Are you willing to provide us with proof that you are what you say you are - or are we to take you at your word?

I would not normally ask this, but you appear to be using your military experience to bolster your arguments in many of the threads you post in:


Originally posted by Gawdzilla

"First you should know that I'm a veteran of the Vietnam War...."

"And, I'm a Navy retiree, I KNOW there are things you'll never hear about, because the information simply isn't available. How do I know? I saw those things...."

"I was an assault boat coxswain in the Navy for a while, and I hung out with S.E.A.L.s who taught me a lot of interesting things you can do with whatever is handy. One guy beat the poo-poo out of me with a rolled up newspaper just to prove a point."

"I joined the Navy 14 hours after I graduated from High School. I went to many schools in the Navy, and after I retired I went to Purdue and got my MA...."

"....I got my MA in History from Purdue in '06 and my emphasis was on military history. (Not at all surprising for a Navy veteran.)"




I am skeptical of many things Gawdzilla, especially your claims of academic accreditation and those pertaining to your involvement in the Armed Forces.

If you are unwilling to provide us with proof that would substantiate these claims - then you are leaving us with your word alone to go on.

Must we take you at your word, Gawdzilla?

Or do you have some evidence to present that could corroborate your claims of academic accreditation and of your claims of being a Veteran?

*I await your proof.
(Take all necessary precautions.)

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"I would not normally ask this, but you appear to be using your military experience to bolster your arguments in many of the threads on ATS:"

I have my discharges. My service jacket. My VA card. Letters from the VA showing my disability rating. If any of the staff want to see any of this, I can send it. To confirm my name, just visit the first site on my profile and get my email address.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I am still waiting for you to post proof.

You are the one making the claims of academic accreditation and of being a Navy veteran - the burden of proof falls on you.

*I will understand if you don't post proof - But you cannot expect us to continue to believe you when you fail to back up your claims like this.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I am still waiting for you to post proof.

You are the one making the claims of academic accreditation and of being a Navy veteran - the burden of proof falls on you.

*I will understand if you don't post proof - But you cannot expect us to believe you when if you fail to back up your claims.




So, the "Please do not post your personal information" blurb doesn't show up at the bottom of your screen when you post?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

So, the "Please do not post your personal information" blurb doesn't show up at the bottom of your screen when you post?


You must have missed this part of my post:

"*I await your proof.
(Take all necessary precautions.) "

I can see you aren't going to attempt to post any proof of academic certification.

That is why I did this - to prove that you would not back up your claims. You have even continued to avoid answering the questions asked of you by Skyfloating. No matter....

It all started because I was skeptical of your claims and I didn't quite believe them, so I asked for some proof - And you refused to provide it.

*Thanks for helping me make my point. The other members will understand.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"I can see you aren't going to attempt to post any proof of academic certification.

That is why I did this - to prove that you would not back up your claims. You have even continued to avoid answering the questions asked of you by Skyfloating. No matter...."

So tell me, what proof would you like? You name and if I have it, I'll provide access to it via U2U, "to take all precautions."

You haven't proved anything yet. Premature, aren't we?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


So tell me, what proof would you like? You name and if I have it, I'll provide access to it via U2U, "to take all precautions."


We require a more neutral third-party.

I prefer that the moderator Skyfloating be the one to confirm your claims of academic accreditation and of being a Navy Veteran.

He is trusted and and respected by all - If you could prove to Skyfloating that you are what you say you are, I would accept his judgment.

He will probably be around shortly, so we can get this thing sorted out then.

*If Skyfloating is satisfied with the proof that you provide pertaining to your claims of academic accreditation and your status as a Navy Veteran, I will also be satisfied.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I think you can be called a skeptic, and not suffer a grammatical violation


If you placed the "skeptical" characteristic of people on a linear scale - I think at one end you have "Niave/Trusting/Gullible" and at the other end you have "Skeptical/Distrustful/Paranoid"

While I'm sure someone can execute my idea technically from a definition point of view - I think the idea has merit that some people are just harder to convince than others.

While it might not be technically correct to label them skeptics - it can be a useful as an adjective.

However, I think the point of the poster (please correct me if I misunderstood) is to underline the idea that being skeptical isn't a license to assassinate others thoughts and theories from a perspective of ignorance, and then 'tag' yourself a skeptic as some kind of justification.

In fact if your simply stating your own belief to the contrary without any attempt at raising evidence or establishing a counter argument - your just an ignorant, gullible, biased thread assassin - and definitely not a skeptic.

While I might be showing ignorance of the dictionary definition; skepticism to me is an ability to hold open several doors of possibility - accept new and conflicting information without resorting to labeling any of it truth, or forming any strongly held beliefs.

I like to try and follow the following motto;

Truth is a mind killer, those who have it need no longer look for an answer or ask any questions. If you find any truth in your mind, remove it quickly - and replace it with doubt.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"He is trusted and and respected by all - If you could prove to Skyfloating that you are what you say you are, I would accept his judgment."

That would be fine by me.

And then, after I provide proof, it will be your turn, yes? Or are we talking double standards here?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

That would be fine by me.

And then, after I provide proof, it will be your turn, yes? Or are we talking double standards here?


I await Skyfloating's judgment on the matter.

*What do you mean 'your turn'?

I am not the one making the claims - I am the one asking the questions. This is not quid pro quo.


(However, if you can find one instance where I have claimed to have academic accreditation, please find the quote and post it. I have taken the time to quote and post the claims you have been making.)

Edit:

While we are waiting, you should start scanning your MA, certifications, discharge papers and whatever else you think Skyfloating may require of you. Then you can upload them to a photo album on ATS before U2Uing the links to SkyFloating.

With a bit of cross-checking and research, He'll soon know if you are telling he truth and will know if the person who's name appears on the certificates/papers/MA is actually a member of ATS...

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"*What do you mean 'your turn'? "

I mean "you" in general. I provide proof, you provide proof. I answer your questions, you answer mine. Or do we have a double standard?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
One thing you might find helpful in this matter. Google "Larry Jewell Purdue".

You can find my current email address as mentioned above.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Interesting! So instead of calling someone a 'skeptic' on ATS, do we say so and so is a 'skeptical'? In other words, Mike is a 'skeptical'!

Darn! What's in a name?
It's just semantics for Chrissake! We don't need to split hair on this, do we? An ass by any other name is still an ass! (I'm not belittling the skeptics errr...I mean the skepticals here! ) Now, how confusing is this? As it is, my English language skills are up the godamn pole. You're making it worse! Jeeez!


Can someone tell me in plain English how we should address the 'skeptics' now?


Cheers!


[edit on 17-4-2009 by mikesingh]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join