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.

 

Why are a lot of "skeptics" so arrogant?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
i never see people who believe in conspiracy theories ridicule the establishment defenders (i mean skeptics) as harshly as the "skeptics" ridicule them.

Why?

IMO, conspiracists are the true skeptics, since they don't buy what they're supposed to believe is true.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Donnie Darko]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
What the hell is a skeptic?

And what are they supposed to believe?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
What the hell is a skeptic?

And what are they supposed to believe?




well the mainstream opinions. aliens aren't real, 9/11 was done by muslims, etc



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Are you being skeptical of skeptics. Does this make you arrogant?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Derised Emanresu
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Are you being skeptical of skeptics. Does this make you arrogant?


lol

 


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/5/10 by masqua]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Arrogant skeptics are an equal and opposite reaction to the arrogant believers who post nonsense. Most here on ATS will accept it when the evidence in their OP turns out wrong or will be open to differing opinions BUT there are those who set out with their preconceived bias.

As a skeptic myself nothing gets my blood boiling faster than seeing someone claiming 2012 or Nibiru as fact or that evolution has no evidence to back it up or that reptilians walk amongst us, etc. When people support tabloid junk as absolute truth and provide no evidence it is the opposite of denying ignorance and it leads to the equal and opposite reaction of skeptics being arrogant.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Why are a lot of "skeptics" so arrogant?



I'm going to go down the road of "When you've got it why hide it".

To be honest (in a different way because I really am the bomb)

I think it's highly arrogant for someone with no education to put out an extraordinary claim and then expect people to just follow along with it without showing them anything worthy of scrutiny.

I think it's highly arrogant when someone with an excellent education puts out an extraordinary claim and expect people to just follow along with it without proof of its existence.

In short I think it's highly arrogant for those who are not sceptics to expect the rest of the world to follow along with their fantasy models and scorn those who question them as anything other than 'good'.

The house you are in, the cloths you wear, the water and food you consume and the society that protects you all came from sceptics.

If you don't believe me go and try to hug a Grizzly Bear - someone at some point must have been told it was good for them and only those who still think it is, without proof, need attempt it.

-m0r



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   


Arrogant people are arrogant. Spartanistic!!

*bouncing still*



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Arrogance is a presumption of knowledge and skeptics arm themselves with a myriad of rules and standards that give an appearance of knowledge. Conversely, conspiracy theorists are more interested in proving their theories right rather than falsifying them. Skeptic Magazine has several psychiatrists on its board of directors, yet that magazine has not even come close to applying its own standard of skepticism on psychiatry.

In the whole history of psychiatry that field has failed to cure one single mental illness, and instead has experimented with lobotomy's, and other barbaric brain scrambling such as shock treatment, and more recently gone with medicating the illness with psychotropic drugs. Many in that field will diagnose a "chemical imbalance" as being the source of some form of disorder just to medicate it, but if ADD is the disorder, and a chemical imbalance has been diagnosed, ask that patient with this so called "ADD" or "ADHD", if any MRI, or even an EEG was run to diagnose this "chemical imbalance". It is unlikely that this patient can confirm that even a simple blood test was taken, but Skeptic Magazine, while very keen on debunking the "alternative medicine" crowd, has nary a word to say about the dubious practice of diagnosing a chemical imbalance based upon an interview.

Just as the Catholic Church was profoundly skeptical of Galileo's assertions that the earth existed in a heliocentric universe, instead of a geocentric one, skeptics today tend to behave in the same way, and will zealously defend their "conventional wisdom", while conspiracy theorists will hold conventions to discuss their theories.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
It's getting worse lately....

I'm a skeptic I guess, but man it's just post after post of ridicule, and no real substance.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Hang on there, when you say skeptics, are you talking about people that disagree with your opinion? ifso this is not skeptical. I used to think that there were many skeptics on this site, but after a while I got to know these people and they offered a balanced viewpoint.

Its like this, ask yourself why are you on this site? then ask why are 'they' on this site? everyone is looking for the same answers.

I agree there are skeptical minded individuals whom are rude and arrogant but these are very few and far between and they are stirrers/trolls looking to gauge a response.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Hey man, it'd be good if you told us what your definition of a Skeptic is - does it come close to this?

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism (skpt-szm)
n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

Source

Personally I'd say this defines my attitude - although I'm open to being wrong. I'd say my personal, exact definition is that I won't blindly believe. Now that can come across as arrogant, I was participating in a thread a while ago where someone had claimed to have done a lot of research and continually refused to share sources - I don't think I was being arrogant there.

Now, from my point of view (as a Skeptic), I'm on ATS because I think there's a lot of potential truth to some conspiracy theories - I also like the science and breaking news stuff too... however, I won't blindly believe things, examples of this include Nibiru and the GFL - I'm open to them existing, but the proponents of these ideas seem flaky to me and the OPs never seem to measure up under scrutiny. It would seem to me that if something's true then that's unshakeable one way or another and questioning it doesn't make it more or less so - it just aids others understanding thereof.

Not to be pissy, but I see arrogance on both sides and I don't want to be mean, but I'm reading a degree of arrogance in your OP - I am open to being wrong about this and welcome the discussion - AND I'm not saying I disbelieve your OP, nor am I trying to debunk it



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



i never see people who believe in conspiracy theories ridicule the establishment defenders (i mean skeptics) as harshly as the "skeptics" ridicule them.


You’ve raised a couple of points there:

You really need to redefine what you mean by the word “skeptic”; I think that you’re grouping everyone together that won’t – or can’t – just accept everything they read as the truth, as being skeptics.

That’s not the case.

Many people will produce, often aggressively or dismissively, a contrary, confrontational or argumentative response to a claim or a concept because it conflicts with their own beliefs, and they will be labeled as being “skeptical”. That isn’t skepticism. What you have in that case is someone who is being defensive.

A true skeptic is someone who is willing to learn, but who maintains a logical stance in a discussion. Often, they will pick out irrational or unsound points that are obviously based on unscientific or unfounded information within the claimant’s post. There is nothing wrong in that, as it is purely the practice of pointing out the elephant in the room.

As to skeptical impartiality; sometimes being objective just isn’t possible when it is apparent facts are knowingly, or unwittingly, being distorted. That often results in skeptic being called a “hater”, or “dis-info”, or being labeled “asleep” (as has happened to me on more occasions that I care to recall) and is a hazard of the job, so to speak.

That raises the second point; in my experience, it is quite often the unquestioning believer that is aggressive, dismissive and downright defensive of a skeptic’s response.

This is because someone is (hopefully eloquently) pointing out the flaws and mistakes in their strongly held belief system, and, as we all know, no one with radical beliefs like being told they’re wrong.

Many people describe Richard Dawkins as being a skeptic and a stalwart for rationality; he isn’t. He’s as uncompromising in his opinions as the most dedicated religious extremist.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
IMO, conspiracists are the true skeptics, since they don't buy what they're supposed to believe is true.


That is patently incorrect. A true skeptic demands to be convinced by evidence. Conspiracy theorists outright deny various topics and rewrite new scenarios for them without the need for any evidence.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 



IMO, conspiracists are the true skeptics, since they don't buy what they're supposed to believe is true.


Here's a scenario I've seen played out many times on ATS:

Someone makes an assertion; someone else questions it.
The first person responds with "You're a sheeple. You've been brainwashed by the MSM. You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV."
The second person replies with "There is no evidence that what you are saying is true. What are your sources?"
The first person directs the doubter to a website or a youtube video, completely overlooking the obvious irony.

In my opinion, a sceptic examines the reliability of a source, rather than believing it without question just because it goes against established opinion.
So, it's perfectly possible for a sceptic to be a conspiracy theorist as well.
Just saying.
Peace.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
In my opinion, A "skeptic" can not be convinced of nothing that doesn't contain a rational and mainstream science backed answer.. Now, I don't fault this as it's what resonates with their personal paradigm of reality. It's obvious that we ALL live different "realities" in some way or another ie. views of the world, religion, feelings, beliefs etc... Skepticism falls under this category. It's merely somebody NOT believing in the reality that you believe. It goes the same for somebody like myself, whom is more in to alternative answers than mainstream science answers.. I feel that there are OTHER answers and therefore I search outside of the mainstream

That being said, I do agree that folks who look for alternative answers normally don't go on mainstream scientific websites and poke fun and give OUR versions of whatever the issue it. To me, it seems as if mainstream people get a kick out of poking fun at alternative answers because it fuels their ego and they feel if they google some random some scientific answer, they are teaching us something.. This is a common issue I see with "scientific answers"... What I usually see on ATS is somebody barging in on a perfectly good conspiracy thread and then they post their "skeptical" mainstream response and follow it up with some random google links. There are no answers of their own, these people haven't done these scientific experiments themselves... They only know exactly what science websites tell them and they use it if it feels right to THEM personally. Just as us in the alternative world use what info resonates with us. Regardless, they copy and paste it and pass it off to us as if it were truth and they were the almighty purveyors of knowledge. By then, the whole thread is ruined because it turns in to a pissing match between different mindsets..

Again, I don't fault "skeptics" as it's a twisted word but, my problem is that this is a CONSPIRACY website... If I wanted "rational" and mainstream answers, I would simply visit CNN or Scientific American or find some google link. I come here because I want to see opinions of like minded people. You can easily tell what a thread is about by reading the title and if it's a title that you don't believe, simply DON'T ENTER THE THREAD.. I promise you that if I see a thread called "THE GOVERNMENT STORY OF 9/11 IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE", I will NOT enter that thread and start posting about why it ISN'T true.. I can tell immediately that it's not the information that I want to hear and I have no desire to ruin your thread.

IMHO, The truth is that NOBODY knows the truth. We are here on school earth to make our own way and to learn exactly what we need to learn.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
"Easy to Be Smug", sung by Three Dog Night.

It depends on how many murderous psychopaths you can get to back up your treason or not.

clearly the government has hired many more using your taxes & the money they stole from your children.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Just so you guys know, "skeptic" is in quote.

I really think the word is misused. What is called a skeptic, like one thread said, is really just an establishment defender. IE, someone who believes the mainstream opinion is always more backed by facts than the conspiratorial opinion, which just is NOT the case.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Donnie Darko]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 




I think there are arrogant people... that's it.


Whether they're "Skeptics" or "believers" is irrelevant.... people are people.
Everybody on this site is a Skeptic And a Believer.


And to say that people who disagree with you and people that don't believe in every "Channelled Alien" story and all the other crap posted on this site, are "Establishment Defenders" is as narrow-minded and Arrogant as anything I've heard on here.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 




I think there are arrogant people... that's it.


Whether they're "Skeptics" or "believers" is irrelevant.... people are people.
Everybody on this site is a Skeptic And a Believer.


And to say that people who disagree with you and people that don't believe in every "Channelled Alien" story and all the other crap posted on this site, are "Establishment Defenders" is as narrow-minded and Arrogant as anything I've heard on here.



I'm not talking about the people who merely don't believe in it, i'm talking about the people who MOCK others and call them tinfoil hat wearers etc.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join