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.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by cripmeister
Many of the labels we are using, pseudo-believer, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, true believer (which I will readily admit to using myself) make no sense. But that is the purpose of labels, short-hands to dismiss others without thought.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
When the skeptic asks for evidence it's a joke. They already believe that extraterrestrials and or extradimensional beings don't exist. Many of them will not come out and say this because they know how closed minded it will look.
Originally posted by expat2368
I am about at the point that I believe there are a few true skeptics/debunkers who are open to the possibility of Alien life but want to be sure of the evidence.
The rest are simply people who are on a mission at the behest of someone or something to slam anything and everything that might reveal things which would be inconvenient to explain. There are more than a few of those on here.
Originally posted by Verklagekasper
lol. It's exactly the other way around. The believers would have their little worlds shattered to pieces if they ever realized that what they believe in is all bogus. As they spend more and more time in the paranormal, they are less likely to change their mind...
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
We should not be so quick to speak in absolutes. The behavior of one person or even a number of people is not indicative of everyone, be they skeptic or believer. Declaring that "all" or "most" skeptics or believers are guilty of certain behaviors and attitudes makes any meaningful discussion impossible. The same is true when we attach labels on people such as "pseudo-skeptic", "pseudo-believer", "true believer" or "debunker." We cease to see the merits of their argument and reduce that person to our own prejudices, embodying the closed-mindedness we accuse the others of...
Be wary of those who provoke it and those so ready to attach labels to people.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by Dagar
Perhaps this thread should be renamed '2009, the year of the smug, rude, biased, and intolerant' ?
I thought this thread was about skeptics, not believers...
This is both what I love and loathe about the most zealous UFO believers... if they cannot find a connection, they will make one up.
V and the Complicity of Believers
"...the psychology of the Disclosurists and True Believers, those who treat this as more religion than science....inherent contradiction among the Disclosurists and True Believers.."
...it should be critical thinking vs. the gullible, the true believers, the disclosurists.
And here we are; the nonsense response from UFO believers who hate SETI.
Why is it so many UFO believers turn to an appeal-to-motive when they cannot convince someone of their beliefs?
Originally posted by Unplugged
It doesnt matter how many things are proven to be natural or hoaxes, etc...what matters in the end is that there are countless cases and literally piles of physical and documented evidence supporting the case for UFO/EBEs being real. Trace evidence, expert witness testimony, unexplained physical phenomena in people, so on.
The problem with a lot of "skeptics" is they see a few cases that are easily debunked and throw a blanket over the entire subject claiming it to be "debunked."
Too many of the ones I have seen are ignorant and have not done much if any research into the best cases with the most evidence. The bottom line is no skeptic has been able to debunk the best evidence (UFO trace evidence cases, IMO, and some abduction cases, ex. Travis Walton).
[edit on 2-2-2010 by Unplugged]
Originally posted by expat2368
I am about at the point that I believe there are a few true skeptics/debunkers who are open to the possibility of Alien life but want to be sure of the evidence.
The rest are simply people who are on a mission at the behest of someone or something to slam anything and everything that might reveal things which would be inconvenient to explain. There are more than a few of those on here.
Originally posted by Malcram
You are being quite selective in which labels you complain about here Rex.
Originally posted by Malcram
The purpose of labels is not "to dismiss others without thought" as you claim. Rather, labels are used to clearly identify and define things, so that they can be recognized and understood by all. That's why we have language.
Originally posted by Malcram
Yet when it comes to understanding and defining 'pseudo-skepticism' (that which calls itself 'skepticism' but does not abide by skepticism's defining principles) you are very anxious that this difference not be defined and understood...despite the fact that this would exonerate legitimate skepticism in the minds of many who were formerly confused about it.
DIRECT EVIDENCE
Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
On July 25, 1976 three persons kidnapped 26 summer school children and their bus driver. You may have heard of the Chowchilla California kidnapping case. The children and driver were forced into a buried cargo container while the kidnappers demanded ransom. Fortunately the children and driver escaped from this would be grave and were reunited with their loved ones. Frank Edward Ray, the 55-year-old bus driver, underwent hypnosis to refresh his memory of the kidnapping itself. While under hypnosis he was able to provide 5 of the 6 numbers on the license plate of the van used by the kidnappers. All three were caught and sentenced to long term jail sentences for their crime. This sensational case documents the possibilities in using hypnosis for memory recall. Other cases in which hypnosis was used to provide details include the Boston Strangler, Ted Bundy, Sam Sheppard (the Fugitive) and thousands of “lesser” crimes.
Hypnotically refreshed memory comes from accessing long-term memories. Since we take time to process short term memory into long term memory it is best to wait until several days after the incident. There does not appear to be a limit to the length of time a stored memory can be recalled. People in hypnosis have successfully recalled specific and minute details of events that happened more than twenty or thirty years ago. The perpetrator of a crime may lose conscious memory over time to the specific details leading police and others to doubt their claims of guilt. Hypnotically refreshed recall could be used to discover discover if in fact the person knows those details that prove they were involved.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Why do you think they have line ups at Police Stations? The eyewitness points out the person they "saw" commit the crime.