Definitions of "skeptic" and "debunk" for believers.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Harman

 

I have to disagree with a couple items.
Most Atheists I know are so because they couldn't find non-anecdotal proof. They sort of said "There is no reason to believe in any religion, so I am not going to bother." snipped

The reason I, as an atheist, do not "believe" in any religion is simply because as an arm-chair religion-researcher I've found out that all religions are man-made. There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence of any gods. If this wasn't so, we'd still have all of the ancient gods: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, etc., controlling our lives. As it is, we (at least, I) have 100% free will. I have no religious baggage controlling my thinking. There is more irrefutable evidence against religion being anything but created by strong-willed men to control weak-minded humans. As the pope controls all catholics; millions of them! Leads a good life too, thanks to all of those donations including from the U.S. Gov't.

I bothered. I bothered to find out why it's so.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

You ain't nobody until you've been called a disinfo agent. That's when you know you've hit the big time.

Oh yes, been called that. Forgot about it though mostly because I am not completely certain what they are calling me

reply to post by zorgon


Im not confused. I believe in UFOs and debunking is something fun i do. If a video is real you should not be able to debunk it and the people who start the threads should not get defensive about what they post.
Defensive
VERY DEFENSIVE and Debunked

reply to post by zaiger


Not a very popular attitude around here..

People WANT to believe these things. Reality is often boring, and after some critical and logical observation most of these cases show up to be misinterpretations, lies, jokes or hoaxes. Mostly the first one.

THEN, there's the fraction of the cases that cannot be explained. So said also the guy who did the biggest investigation into the subject in the UK, he worked for the MOD.

I truly am highly skeptical about many of these cases, but I've had some incidents that I can't explain. It's most likely that these things also have some logical, earthly explanation.

Also, I agree with you on Icke: all this reptilian-mumbo jumbo is also hurting the UFO-community big time. The man has some great ideas, but this is just BS. Seems to more like belief in this pop culture-type UFO phenomenon is really blocking the true info. People should probably get more logical if they would like to understand what's going on.


[edit on 30/9/2009 by Tryptych]

Skeptics, debunkers, believers and everyone should try to be open minded. But what does it mean to be open minded? Well as my sig says, don't be so open-minded your brain falls out. But how open minded should we be?

This video explains that in more detail:



By the way when somebody says "I'm a skeptic and a debunker and I believe rods haven't been debunked", what do you make of that?

As jkrog08 said in another thread, all of us should be "truth-seekers" regardless of our bias toward being either a skeptic or a believer.

I think it's unnecessary to force yourself into these groups..

I've seen some unexplainable phenomenon in the sky twice, experienced some really weird journeys into a space that could only be called "spiritual" or "unearthly". Still I TRY to keep somewhat critical mind about these things, since I know that human mind errs, and I know for a fact that my interpretation might be incorrect.

There is, however, a group of these skeptics that are somewhat unable to handle anything out of the ordinary, what they are used to. That's more like a type of personality more than an attitude.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
So the majority of UFO believers have not had a personal experience but accept the tales told by others, a sympathetic resonance. And once you've had an experience, you are no longer a believer but a knower. Knowledge has replaced belief.

Things are not that black and white, especially in the UFO field and with the UFO phenomena.

A lot of experiences are subjective and just by having experienced it doesn't mean you know what happened to you, or what the nature of the experience was.

And besides, if you make that distinction that people who have had experiences are knowers and not believers, are you aware that many of those people that went through some experience(s) say they interacted with extra-terrestrial beings (or other non-human entities)?

Do you believe that? Or since they are knowers by your description you take it as fact?

Originally posted by zorgon

All I want are two pictures. One of swamp gas reflecting light and one of a reptilian.

Here's one... in the Ottawa Museum

Except that now it is thought that Troodons sported feathers. And the "Troodude" runs counter to what we know theropods (the suborder of dinosaurs the Troodon belonged to) evolved into...

I think the believer skeptik thing is an imaginary line in the sand that was not put there by any community, ufology or skeptic. I believe that like the athiest/christian head butting contest only the crazies on both ends try forcing their thoughts down the throats of others.
So whenever there is a UFO video put up you have to sides stating the most insane argument while everyone else trying to figgure out what it is.
and remember one man's chinese lantern is another man's zeti reticulan space brother, and to everyone else it is just an airplane.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
So the majority of UFO believers have not had a personal experience but accept the tales told by others, a sympathetic resonance. And once you've had an experience, you are no longer a believer but a knower. Knowledge has replaced belief.

Things are not that black and white, especially in the UFO field and with the UFO phenomena.

A lot of experiences are subjective and just by having experienced it doesn't mean you know what happened to you, or what the nature of the experience was.

And besides, if you make that distinction that people who have had experiences are knowers and not believers, are you aware that many of those people that went through some experience(s) say they interacted with extra-terrestrial beings (or other non-human entities)?

Do you believe that? Or since they are knowers by your description you take it as fact?

Subjective experiences are personal and cannot be used as a form of discussion when the topic is about the objective world which is what is under discussion. UFOs are objective and are based on observable phenomena.

If you understand that beliefs are created solely by mental conditioning whether from within you or without you, you have half the battle won. If you understand that beliefs are mental and knowing and not knowing are in the physical world then you've won the rest of the battle. To believe is not to know. When you say "I believe" you are not dealing with knowledge, you are dealing with hope and faith, neither of which is dependent on evidence.

I do not accept claims of any interaction with extra-terrestrial beings or non-human entities. That, to me, is strictly in the mental realm and has no validity outside of the mind since the experiencer cannot provide any evidence.

By knowing I mean experiencing something in the physical world. A few months ago I had a bicycle accident which resulted in a split lip and chin, scraping of teeth, abrasion to the face. For a short while I was in shock and when I was taken to the Emergency Department of Roosevelt Hospital in NYC the pain started to become intense. I was in for an ordeal that lasted 5 hours.

Let me tell you my experience was real, it happened in my waking, real physical world. I do not believe I was hurt, I know I was hurt.

I disagree. We are born atheists.

Nonsense. If we are born atheists then that means atheism is radically non-rational or, to put it another way, you don't even need a detectable IQ to be an atheist. On your logic dogs and tree stumps are atheists. Do not deceive yourself; atheism is as much a religion as any other belief system.

I would add that radical scepticism ultimately annihilates all knowledge and to apply this unhealthy philosophy to the investigation of the UFO phenomenon is to dispense with reason itself.

reply to post by nerbot


Your reply to lernmore makes my day, or should say middle of the night.

Originally posted by Tryptych
People WANT to believe these things.

Yes,it appears so -even at the expense of rational thinking,deductive reasoning or basic common sense.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Tryptych People should probably get more logical if they would like to understand what's going on.

Its probably best to attempt to remain objective and impartial when addressing the evidence for the UFO subject - below is a handy comparative list to help evaluate and identify the differing aspects of 'scepticism'.

The trouble I find is that many 'self professed' sceptics on these boards do in fact fall into the latter category.

Open-minded skeptics

*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence




Closed-minded Cynics:

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]