It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by esteay812
i]reply to post by -Blackout-
What would be more frustrating? Telling someone that what they saw wasn't real or trying to tell someone that what you saw was real, only to have them tell you it wasn't or it wasn't what you 'thought' it was.
Its a fantasy world that some hillbilly redneck from Tennessee believes and lives in...
Originally posted by -Blackout-
Im tired of the UFO skeptics.
But hey, these people are nut-jobs huh?
Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Kudos, I agree with you! But there are some purists out there that won't even budge. They are like a brick wall and any word you say will not make them believe even if you have evidence. Those types truly make me believe their spirit won't evolve past what it already knows.
YES and they can not be helped either. Pseudo-intellectual's are someone who pretends to seem smart and they lurk among skeptics just as nutters lurk within UFOligy. I can determine who is and who isn't as i have developed a thick hyde from years of wasted argument. Usually you can break them down to minimizing a legitimate case but they never admit they are wrong. The best i can do, you can do is provide factual information when making a claim. If they choose to ignore it and you press hard facts the other people in the discussion will see the true intent of said pseudo skeptic and help solidify you're point. I have had so many make outlandish claims like they worked at AREA 51 and there was nothing to see there yet... could not provide proof they worked there or could even give you simple answers like Military Rank ect.
[edit on 8-6-2010 by Unknown Soldier]
Originally posted by Gazrok
Not sure if it's been said in these 3 pages, but there is a big difference between a skeptic and a debunker.
A skeptic goes into a case ready to go where the evidence leads him. In addition, a skeptic actively tries to see if there is evidence to the contrary. A skeptic may feel the evidence points to a non-extra-terrestrial source, but the decision is based on evidence.
A debunker, on the other hand, ignores any evidence that doesn't support his preformed conclusion on the case. In many ways, a debunker is just like an absolute believer, but in reverse, where the believer ignores any evidence leading away from an ET explanation, the debunker ignores the evidence pointing to an ET source.
Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of
Skeptic: "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
Pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda.