Be skeptical of debunkers, Debunk Skeptics & Believe in someone.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by Chamberf=6 reply to post by Esoteric Teacher What is with your sudden obsession (and nearly begging) for stars? I just don't get it. If you want stars that bad just make a thread asking for them outright.


i did, but SemperFortis moved it to BTS

Well it was a wise move. Too bad this one doesn't disappear so easily.

Why do you want more stars?? Seriously, what's the point?

i would like to point out the fact that the members in the know and the "conspiracy" headquarters for some of the deepest black ops, the most secretive psy-ops, may only get a star on a wall as recognition for their efforts, also. granted maybe they were not begging for that star, they gave alot for just one star on the wall, in the general publics perspective.

And surely in that above quoted post you weren't comparing yourself to soldiers and others that have earned their stars on the wall with Their LIVES??

This thread doesn't even Begin to compare with that.



BTW still: No star for you! (slight soup nazi rewording. )


[edit on 21/7/2010 by Chamberf=6]

people need to understand that everybody have a different perspective over the same subject, and a lot of people have mental diseases ... so they perceive the world in a different way

its impossible to try to prove anything with statements/testimonies ... thats why there is not a single debunker in this website that debunks statements

they debunk evidences, like pictures, videos ...

come on, YOUR THREAD doesnt make any sense

if there is a debunker out there that can debunk testimonies, please, give me that example, I wanna know, simply because that would be supernatural

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Believer: Chemtrails are real and nothing will change their mind people.
Debunker: Chemtrails are not real and nothing will change their mind people.
Skeptic: Chemtrails might exist you never know people.

I'd like to add one more if I might.

Devil's Advocate: Chemtrails exist, chemtrails don't exist, maybe they do exist people. They just want to argue.

I guess that makes me a skeptical playing devils advocate then.

Not bad

reply to post by Tykonos


So what is hard evidence? Because NASA or some guy with a degree in keyboarding claims it's hard evidence?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Come Clean]

Originally posted by Tykonos

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Believer: Chemtrails are real and nothing will change their mind people.
Debunker: Chemtrails are not real and nothing will change their mind people.
Skeptic: Chemtrails might exist you never know people.

I'd like to add one more if I might.

Devil's Advocate: Chemtrails exist, chemtrails don't exist, maybe they do exist people. They just want to argue.

I guess that makes me a skeptical playing devils advocate then.

Not bad

When I wrote that I was pretty shocked. I think I lean devils advocate over skeptical.

reply to post by Come Clean


Dam you skeptics!

Hard evidence is something that can be verified by people that are not connected to the organisation or party affiliated to the claimant.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
...senses...senses...senses...sensory input...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses... senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses... senses...senses...senses...senses... senses...senses...senses...

etc.

my senses tell me you have misquoted me.

but i loved the information you shared in the rest of your contribution.
i'm adding you to my friends list & star.


Believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

so if an ATSer cannot be a "believer" due to the definitions, and an ATSer cannot be a "skeptic" because of the definitions, and an ATSer cannot be a debunker due to the reasons they cannot be a skeptic or believer (on an issue) then... what category does such an ATSer fall into? the accepted "lunatic fringe"? is there a pill or some sort of treatment for such a diagnosis as a member of the "lunatic fringe"?

So, you should be skeptical of debunkers - no problem there. But you should "believe" others without actual proof.

i'm not sure is was inferring that, the the title of the thread may leave room for some to interpret it as such, as an invitation for discussion, not a battle field for clashing ideals.

A little consistency, please. Be skeptical of EVERY claim, pro or con.

pro or con to what? why discuss such things if it is because they don't exist? and some ATSers are adamant in their stance that such things do not exist, because no proof or evidence substantial enough exists to make them believe in whatever subject they are debating, or at least it seems this way to me at times. but, maybe my senses are not as reliable as other ATSers senses concering some subject matters. thus, i even read past the lies (misquoting) to read the rest of the post, in hopes some nugget of truth may exist. and your post was just such a post. i learned something new from a new perspective, and i thank you for this.

The surprising thing about this experiment is what a massive effect a simple statement had on such a wide variety of factors. Giving positive (although incorrect) feedback to participants catapulted their confidence in their identifications much higher than they would have been otherwise.

after reading your post twice i wondered how much of "pride" is identified as being something derived from "ego". i wonder if these are attributes of the ego, or is the assumption they are made without justification in some cases. admittingly i'm no psychologist or psychiatrist or neuro doctor of any kind, according to documentation i do not have to support such claims.
but this does not mean i am not the student of the human mind, i think.

THIS is why skepticism is a good thing. Tell someone what a good job he did seeing whatever he thought he saw, and the person will be more certain that he is correct. And he'll subconsciously alter his recollection to fit whomever or whatever is identified as what he witnessed with his "senses."

i may be skeptical of skepticism being a good thing for all scenarios and all circumstances. but i'm not a believer in debunking your belief system based upon my senses.

great post & thanks for sharing,
et



mod edit: fix page stretch

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Duzey]

this is ridiculous. Debate the facts until one side's argument is undeniable. How hard is that?

if there isn't enough information, debate theories, provide information that led you to this belief, DO SOMETHING for the sake of intelligent conversation

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
there is a place and time for debunkers.
there is a place and time for skeptics.
there is a place and time for believers.
there is a place and ATS for someones.

there is a time for debunkers to believe skeptically about someones who are believers in ATS, at some place and time, et thinks.

No. The time and place for all four of those things coincide with one another.

yes. we can agree. is ATS still such a time and place? i believe so.

If you want to put forth theories without having to defend them, then find another forum. This one is devoted to Denying Ignorance, not perpetuating and encouraging it.

theory:
skeptics are skeptical of ATSers posts.
debunkers are busy debunking ATSers posts.
ATSers are allowed to defend the theories they put forth, but not permitted to do so outside the realm of the rules of engagement.
via terms & conditions we all agreed upon when we signed up. yet, to tolerate such posts are fundamentally perpetuating skepticism and disbelief as we are only permitted to know what someone is willing to share. and even as i type these words in preperation for this post, here in yellow words below are:

Please do not post your own personal information. You should be aware that any personally identifiable information you submit here can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used to send you unsolicited messages. We are not responsible for the personally identifiable information you choose to submit, and may remove it at our discretion.

yet, people fish hard for such information as it is critical data they need in their efforts to legitimize and justify their skepticism and debunkerizing (not sure that is really a word).

and if anyone is looking for an arguement, please be informed:

i may be smarter than you are in my sleep.

Please, PLEASE bring it on.

easy now. i did say: "(in my dreams)" or "(while i dream)" i think.
it was meant as a joke at my own expense to open dialogue in a non-abbrassive manner. not encourage it. though i liked your response!

thanks,
et

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


OK, I get it now. You wrote a nonsensical and unintelligble, pretentious piece of pseudo-intellectual drivel, just so you could see if people would buy it.

Might I respectfully suggest you direct your little mind and your huge ego to other things which might actually contribute to helping us to uncover more of the truth and find ways out of this MESS.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Let us show the young lad why he is so wrong.

thank you for the compliment. i haven't been called young since yesterday afternoon. ah, the memories...

star,
et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


So then what's your opinion on me? I've seen a UFO with my own eyes and yet I remain skeptical. I wouldn't call myself a debunker though, at least not when it comes to the subject of UFOs.

I recognize that we must be skeptical, even to a hardcore degree, in order to sift out hoaxes and misidentifications and get at the heart of the UFO phenomenon, that small percentage that are truly phenomenal.

I'm gonna go ahead and try reading this thread again tomorrow...when I haven't had 5 glasses of Pinot Grigio. However, it is entertaining because it sounds like a Dr. Suess book!

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


I've read the whole thread, and enjoyed it.

I'm going to give it straight from the shoulder, ET, and I stress that it's merely my opinion.

I believe there are "others" here on Earth. I cannot say where they are from -- perhaps "they" were here before us humans; perhaps they have evolved in the immense pressures of the ocean deep; perhaps they are from neighboring planets or distant galaxies. I don't know. I don't have the variables at hand to accurately guess.

Skeptics are your friend. True skeptics help to separate the fluff from the fine. When we look at photos or accounts of UFOs or video, we all collaborate to try and attribute the phenomenon and explain it by known phenomenon.

How many times have you seen a "UFO" video that is most easily explainable by someone seeing the ISS for the first time? It happens often.

I hear you regarding what I would characterize as 'chronic debunkers'. Sometimes we get a sense of people that do NOT believe, and perhaps are stuck in that mindset -- contrary to openmindedness -- and seek to smash any hint of evidence toward something unexplainable.

I want to help weed out the hoaxes, as we all know there are those, for whatever the reason, that want their momentary fame via an intentional hoax. I want to help to explain known phenomena within context of terrestrial objects we can track and anticipate. I do not want to interpret unusual military or atmospheric artifacts as a 'ufo'. I want the real deal, and I think it exists.

This internet thingy that we all use........ it's a blessing and a curse. The digital media is so very powerful these days that we need additional variables to shore up our evidence.

I don't need disclosure. I've seen enough myself. What I want is information ........ because I believe humanity has an awakening at our doorstep that can possibly heal some of our spiritual ills. I don't believe ET is going to save us, nor do I think they should, if they could. I believe the visitors have played a part in our history and if so, we deserve to know about it, even if, or especially if, it conflicts radically with our accepted "truths".

I will never villify a skeptic. I may disagree, but a true skeptic holds a standard of measurability that is akin to the core of the scientific and investigative process. It's a part of who we are, and what we might become.

Originally posted by Tykonos
reply to post by Come Clean

 

Dam you skeptics!

Hard evidence is something that can be verified by people that are not connected to the organisation or party affiliated to the claimant.

I agree with that as long as they aren't debunkers.

Originally posted by TheOracle
When you are facing those hardcore debunkers and skeptics

Simply keep in mind that if they were always right, the Earth would be flat with the universe evolving around it.

acually from a two dimensional perspective of only pros & cons, their world may appear to be less than flat, wouldn't it?

but no, this isn't about attacking ATSers cyber-roles.

this is about understanding eachothers viewpoints and helping ATS become a little more inviting to those who may not be capable of fitting comfortably into the labels of skeptic, debunker, or believer, according to their experiences and their background.

it is an attempt to promote dialogue, not silence opposition.
it is an attempt to promote conversation, not censor it.
it is an attempt to isolate a few things about ATS current moods that certain ATSers may not fully comprehend. ET included.

thanks for sharing,
et

It just doen't make sense to try to make sense of the senseless!

Originally posted by Come Clean
Believer: Chemtrails are real and nothing will change their mind people.
Debunker: Chemtrails are not real and nothing will change their mind people.
Skeptic: Chemtrails might exist you never know people.

Not at all. A skeptic will not say "might exist you never know". The skeptic will make a judgement based on the best available evidence. Skepticism is not a position of perpetual agnosticism.

Originally posted by tomdham
I wish the kids would hurry and go back to school so this "summer break" rush of nonsense threads will stop.

73's,
Tom (KC5ILU)

as anyone informed enough (and demonstrating the mature virtue of patience & reasearch can determine) ...

i am not a kid out of school on "summer break".

i graduated high school more than 20 years ago, and currently collect a comfortable retirement check monthly from the tax payers for more than a decades worth of employment. (thanks taxpayers).

my birthdate is in my profile page, had you the maturety to post based upon research prior to the assumption that led you to post faulty details.

a picture of me is in my avatar's background image on longer posts.

my name is in my signature.

yet, my age and my intellectual capacity and cogitative abilities and my personal experience and my personal background (all available) played no part whatsoever in a post that blatently labels me as..

"a kid on summer break from school"

besides, what kid from school do you know who would pick the name "Teacher" as part of their Screen Name back in 2005?

even if i was entering my senior class in high school, there is one "adult" who claims i joined ATS in my grammar school days.

enough. i'll stop there with that.

thanks,
et

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Unless the skeptic lacks evidence sufficient to produce proof. In that case, the skeptic (if they truly are skeptical and pseudo-skeptical) must say, "I don't know for certain," or at the very least, "__________ seems most probable based on currently available evidence, but technically I don't know for a certainty."

The skeptic's greatest challenge is to refrain from making assertions without proof, while seeking proof.