Do skeptics and debunkers belong in a conspiracy website?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Let's see, shall we? The following is a list of years, with the corresponding number of fatalities in Israel from rocket attacks.

2001 1 person died
2004 5 people died
2005 6 people died
2006 4 people died
2007 2 people died
2008 8 people died

Total: 26 people died (28 according to some sources).

During the Gaza war, Israel itself admitted to killing 295 civilians. Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians, and 13 Israelis, were killed. 400,000 Gazans had no access to running water, and over 4,000 homes were destroyed. To expect fighters to wear uniforms is plain retarded. I shouldn't even have to explain why to you. If you need help in figuring that out, I will.

I'm not defending anyone who kills civilians, but to pretend that somehow Israel is the good guy here is ridiculous. He who has the power has the power to stop this madness.

There is no good guy....But looking at your facts one could say you picked what fits your point of view when there is a lot of other facts out there too. When it comes to killing, Israel has better equipment and so are more effective, and the tactics of the Palestinians to intermingle with the civilian population as shields while Israel not really caring when they do has also led to a much larger kill ratio.

But what of the total number of rockets/mortars actually launched? Doing just a quick search I come up with about 10,000 since 2005…

Some 5,700 rockets and another 4,000 mortar shells have been launched at Israel since the beginning of 2005, the Shin Bet said. Of those, more than 2,000 rockets and 1,600 shells were fired in 2008.”

That alone paints a little different picture doesn’t it than the one you painted…

Neither side is far from innocent, but I think in the big picture the Palestinians top goal is to create propaganda with every move they make, and the bloodier the better.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
People who bash skeptics are kind of like the government, just on the opposite side of things.

"You are wrong! I don't want to listen! Stop telling me all those truths!"

Err...something like that.

I can not believe people use the word skeptic here with a negative connotation. How can someone possibly think it is bad to NOT BELIEVE BS!?!

Uhh...

WORD! Please don't say something against my dream "deny ignorance" LOL

reply to post by Xtrozero


The problem here is, this post is a bit offence. I think the only question is: "Where did you set the filter?" and if you are that wise:"have I filtered correctly?" and "Is it true, or is it ego-true?". EGO has not filters.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Of course. They are being occupied, and no one seems to give a damn. They are not just being occupied, but occupied by a country with nukes, and all they have are crappy home-made rockets. All freedom fighters, whether they've started to be terrorists or not, just want to be heard. It was the same in Northern Ireland, and since all parties have now had a chance to air their grievances, and real progress has been made by the alleged occupier (the UK) in admitting things have to change, the violence has stopped.

It's up to Israel to do the same. It can't carry on pretending to be the underdog all the time.

We are now officially off-topic. We should definitely resume talking about ATS.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by davesidious]

In answer to the Op,

Of course skeptics belong here. If you remove every ounce of skepticism from a person, the only thing left is a gullible fool.

I hazard to say that many of the CT'ers at this site are skeptical even if they wont admit it.

... Like when you say your not a dis-info agent for the simple fact that you don't agree with them - and they don't believe you.

IRM

[edit on 9/2/10 by InfaRedMan]

Do skeptics belong in a conspiracy site? Pffffft! Please. I doubt it very much. What proof can a skeptic bring to the table? They're always going on about what they doubt, as if they're first name is Thomas, and all they really want to do is go poking they're fingers in someone's wound's. Like pouring salt all over an idea just because it seems to have open and festering sores. Yeah right. I'll tell you what, skeptics are full of bunk! Dey're debunker's is what dey are!

Skeptic Overlord? Like lording all over an idea just because that idea ain't fully fleshed out, but hey! Isn't that the problem with flesh wounds? They're not as fleshed out as scar tissue. Look, the most a skeptic can bring to the table is doubt, and I sincerely doubt all this skepticism adds up to much more than a hill of beans. I for one am here to debunk such cynical debunkery. Oh sure, they want empirical data as if they empire builders, and big bad wolves who've come to blow your house of cards all the way down. Well, not by the hair of my chiny, chin, chin! Always going on about the scientific method as if they're some sort of Marlon Brando's or Stanislavski's of the debunker stage.

It's all fine and good to be skeptical, but when you take that skepticism and start running around conspiracy sites pulling rabbits out of hats, like your some kind of randy Amazing Randi, without even bothering to offer a huge cash prize with rules attached that virtually assure no one will ever collect. Ha! It's all smoke and mirrors I tell ya! The simple art of misdirection, designed to get others to look over there, so they can't see what's going on right over here. Don't buy into it. If skeptics are so productive then name one great idea turned into some great invention brought to humanity by a skeptic. Huh?

Was it a skeptic that invented the wheel? Did skeptics discover time, or agriculture, or bring humanity the mechanization of industry? Pffffft, please! They're real good at rolling their eyes and offering heavy exhalations of ponderous sighs, and if such hot air could lift a balloon then maybe they'd have some sort of value other than de bunk they offer.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If someone can't demonstrate evidence supporting their theory, then it is not a theory, but a hypothesis, and no one should be expected to believe it.

Without sceptics, this site would be a pile of gibbering morons staring at rocks and claiming them to be alien poop, then screaming at people who think the rocks are unicorn poop.

Doubting a baseless idea isn't a bad thing, it's called critical thinking, and is the cornerstone of science. Without critical thinking, it's safe to say most of us wouldn't be here today to have this wonderful discussion.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If someone can't demonstrate evidence supporting their theory, then it is not a theory, but a hypothesis, and no one should be expected to believe it.

Without sceptics, this site would be a pile of gibbering morons staring at rocks and claiming them to be alien poop, then screaming at people who think the rocks are unicorn poop.

Doubting a baseless idea isn't a bad thing, it's called critical thinking, and is the cornerstone of science. Without critical thinking, it's safe to say most of us wouldn't be here today to have this wonderful discussion.

Oh really? What evidence does anyone have of the earliest instant of expansion? Not the Big Bang Theory, I'll tell you that! It's all based upon some pretty big assumptions, like the universe actually had a beginning, but what evidence is there of that? Much of it is based upon Hubble's Law describing galaxies moving away from each other at proportional speeds, which then is used to support the theory of an expanding universe, and from their a reversal of thought, assuming the universe was once compacted. Well, what about this idea, what if the universe has always been infinite and at some point these galaxies moving away from each other at proportional speeds simply collide with other galaxies also moving away from each other at proportional speeds? Ever think of that?

If the universe is expanding then just what the heck is it expanding to? An expanding universe implies another side. What's on the other side of an expanding universe? Is that expanding too? When the universe was supposedly compact, how expansive was the other side? The Big Bang theory isn't known as well as it is because it is riddled with evidence and is the only plausible theory in existence. It is just more popular than the other theories, as if it were the cool kid in school that everyone likes, and other theories are just a little more geeky.

Like, for example, did you know that you could construct a spherically symmetrical universe with earth at its center, and you can not disprove it based upon observations? But who likes that theory with its acne and pimples for everyone to see? Pffffft! But let's be honest, you can only exclude it based upon philosophical grounds. That's what the whole modern cosmology routine is about, man...using philosophical criteria to chose your model. So, the Big Bang theory is like Tyra Banks, and all the other theories are just posers.

Look, the whole Big Bang theory is based upon expanding space time paradigm, but what about the static space time paradigm, huh? Is that theory any uglier than the Big Bang theory? I doubt it, besides beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, it's your claim that without skeptics this site would be a pile of gibbering morons staring at rocks and claiming them to be alien poop. Really? Well, all the skeptics registered in this site haven't been able to stop people like me from joining and posting, ever think of that? I'll tell you what, I'd be careful about what rocks you step on, lest ye traipse that alien poo all over your carpet!

Being critical of an idea isn't critical thinking anymore than Siskel and Ebert were cinematic thinkers. Critical thinking involves figuring out the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed and simply being critical and skeptical of someone's observations and expressions doesn't make them critical thinkers. Critical thinkers give due consideration to the evidence not spend their hours wasting time dismissing it. They consider the context of judgment, not attempting to take it out of context and derail all relevant judgment. Logic alone does not a critical thinker make. Clarity, precision, accuracy, significance, depth, breadth, credibility and most of all fairness, are applied when one is engaging in critical thinking.

How fair do you think you're being when you discount the very real possibility that out of all the countless rocks on this planet, not a single could possibly be alien poo, huh? Pffffft! Hope you never step in it just so you can discover that there's a significant amount of alien poo scattered across this planet. I'll tell you what, E.T.'s doing a lot more than phoning home. But hey, if you want to believe that without critical thinking it's safe to say most of us wouldn't be here to have this wonderful conversation, then who am I to step all over your alien poo? Of course, the more I ramble on the more I start sounding like one of those damned skeptics...(sigh), I got a make a phone call and get home!

Not a very bright question, but no question is a stupid question.
There is just no way we should have any debunkers on this site.
I don't believe it was meant for them at all by the owners. In fact
they should all just clear out right now. So everybody else can swim
the void that was once great debate.

Wait a minute that's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was

Are you nuts? Without the great debunkers here on ATS there would be
no ATS.

It really is that simple, but every once in awhile my evil Dell starts debunking all my thoughts

reply to post by Xtrozero


And mostly that's all those people expect, or want, you to do. Listen, and entertain the notion that maybe, possibly, there are things in the world that are beyond our ken. That's not too much to ask, IMHO.

Believe, or not, as it suits your view of the world. But try to realize that maybe, just maybe, the world is a bit more mysterious than we know, or in some cases, want to know.

I fail to see any value in the blind belief of CT's without skepticism and scrutiny.

Yes.


Springer...

I'm naturally skeptical but I do believe that there is much that is unknown and one should always continue asking questions and seeking answers, as well as accepting the possibility that some things cannot be proven but must be taken on faith/belief.

Good thread.

This forum is at it's finest and achieves an educational status when informed people confront false information that has gained undeserved credence through endless repetition online.

To my small part on a thread about the evils on aspartame artificial sweetener I just dug out a review of a hoax that was perpetrated on the Net with falsified FDA documentation that is still circulating a decade later.

I guess that makes me a debunker.

As great as the Internet may be it has become a showcase for delusional thinkers, paranoids, the misinformed, people with malign agendas.

Countering false information is as important ans discovering new truths.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Being sceptical and keeping an open mind are part of the exact same thing - critical thinking. One does not preclude the other in any way, shape, or form.