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 who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I agree to a ceratin extent. but also i feel that the skeptics have as much a place as the believers in places like these... without them we would just go around spouting whatever BS we wanted, with nobody to play the "voice of reason."


I mean, i see a lot of really silly stuff on here... and the majority of it DOES NOT come fromt he skeptics. most of these people that the OP has such harsh feelings for are just as responsible as some of the greatest minds in this field as far as moving it forward. without someone demanding more evidence we would never feel motivated to get more. because for some a blurry photo of a paper plate hung on a peice of fishing line is enough evidence for them.

I for one applaud the skeptics and the believers alike. because without either of them, we would never get anywhere.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
I agree to a ceratin extent. but also i feel that the skeptics have as much a place as the believers in places like these... without them we would just go around spouting whatever BS we wanted, with nobody to play the "voice of reason."


I mean, i see a lot of really silly stuff on here... and the majority of it DOES NOT come fromt he skeptics. most of these people that the OP has such harsh feelings for are just as responsible as some of the greatest minds in this field as far as moving it forward. without someone demanding more evidence we would never feel motivated to get more. because for some a blurry photo of a paper plate hung on a peice of fishing line is enough evidence for them.

I for one applaud the skeptics and the believers alike. because without either of them, we would never get anywhere.


After reading your post, it appears that you understand the point of the thread. I never actually viciously attacked skeptics. If I did, then I corrected my stance from the beginning. This was about exposing debunkers.

Thank you for your post.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Sorry; is this the place for a 5 min argument?




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
this kind of thing is pathetic, and this kind of thing is not what ATS is about. And if it is, then this is not the site for me.
This site calls for a certain level of openmindedness, a mind that can say 'ok, I don't agree with this, here's why, but I'm open to debate...." not "THIS IS ALL WRONG, I'M RIGHT AND THIS IS STUPID, YOUR IGNORANT FOR THINKING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Drama should be saved for the highschool halls, not on ATS. Its silly and annoying seeing people argue over the internet, on a site that has so much potential for conversation and debate...the tone of ATS posters need's to change. The sarcastic, insulting, and immediatly defensive comments need to stop, if ATS ever wants to be a better enviroment.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
On 23/7/09 (page 2) Mike_A wrote, “personal testimonial is just not good evidence from a scientific standpoint.”

Ultimately it’s a matter of what you consider to be sound evidence, so you have to be systematic about it. The conventional classification furnishes five categories: intuition, personal experience, testimonial, anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence.

More to the point, Dr. Michael Salla, Ph.D., founder of exopolitics, has come up with his own typology of evidence in the field of exobiology (or UFOlogy, if you’re a purist), which he places in a hierarchy according to its reliability, or along a spectrum going from “strong” to “weak”, with intermediate grades of “moderateness”, thus: whistleblowers, abductions/contacts, documentary evidence, remote viewing (a modern, New-Age term for good old “clairvoyance” and nothing fancier than that), independent archaeology and channeling (another newfangled name for old-fashioned --ancient, really-- “spiritism”, “séances”, “conjuring”, “calling up/invoking of the spirits”, etc.). Here he’s going all the way over from “strong” to “weak” evidence, as he sees it.

I think he’s quite mistaken in that he places channelings at the very bottom of the list, and at the same time his caution is understandable. That’s because, when you knock on the door of the subtler realms of reality, YOU NEVER KNOW WHO’S GOING TO OPEN IT. Most of the time it’s harmless jokers pretending to be wise, or it can be wicked entities that will mess around with your mind, so that’s why you see teenagers playing around with the ouija board and then their parents having to go look around for a doctor or an exorcist.

Apart from that, we have the impostors, which seem to outnumber the Real McCoys about fifty to one....

Spuyten Duyvil, I’d put his list on its head and swing channelings up to the top. Only true guides on the other side can clear up such befuddling matters. Again and again, in the course of my lifetime, I gave up in total despair trying to find out what was going on as regards apparent space aliens, until I finally came across what I still consider to be some of the most reasonable, level-headed set of channelings, namely, those that L.L. Research freely offers to all comers. It seems like there’s no subject between Heaven and Earth that they don’t bring up.

If you grew up listening to everybody around you talking about these things, and maybe you happened to have a grandfather who was a Theosophist (cp. Mme. Blavatsky, Annie Besant, etc.), and then maybe you went through a spontaneous OOBE or some other kind of “peak experience” (not the cheap-thrill kind, like acid or opium trips), and you had the chance to compare notes with those who went through similar events, then you won’t have any trouble handling all this stuff. Otherwise you’ll think only a psychotic can say such outlandish things, and no one will be able to blame you....

***



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by summerdreary
this kind of thing is pathetic, and this kind of thing is not what ATS is about. And if it is, then this is not the site for me.
This site calls for a certain level of openmindedness, a mind that can say 'ok, I don't agree with this, here's why, but I'm open to debate...." not "THIS IS ALL WRONG, I'M RIGHT AND THIS IS STUPID, YOUR IGNORANT FOR THINKING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Drama should be saved for the highschool halls, not on ATS. Its silly and annoying seeing people argue over the internet, on a site that has so much potential for conversation and debate...the tone of ATS posters need's to change. The sarcastic, insulting, and immediatly defensive comments need to stop, if ATS ever wants to be a better enviroment.


Whatever you say...you obviously have a better handle on things than the rest of us.

You no like, you no comment!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by summerdreary
 


No summerdreary. Youre wrong! Your ego has prevented you from understanding the OP's brilliant experiment.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Alright, sorry. My ego has blinded me.




top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join