It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:37 PM

i read some statements made in this post and i have problems believing what my eyes are telling me.

does this mean those who benefit from me not trusting my own senses are winning?

can i believe my eyes?

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:41 PM
Without sceptics and debunkers we would probably still be burning innocent women at the stake because someones baby died or a dog howled at midnight. Many people fear opposing view points to the point of acting out in anger and violence against people who disagree with them. We need all opinions and perspectives to be included for truly healthy discussion and debate, even the unpopular ones. Otherwise, all you have are empty heads nodding in unison and we'd never learn anything at all.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Nice thread mate.
You've made some good observations. Although I too had to read it a few times myself to get the jist of some of it. At first it reminded me of Donald Rumsfeld's "known Knowns and Known unknowns" hehe. , I while ago I was one of these someones who came to this site to share my thoughts and observations that my senses could provide me at the time but without fully understanding the whole picture and once its on the net, its on there for good. Luckily it was largely ignored, but one day it may very well come back to bite in the ass.
So in my experience coming from a someone, its probably good advice to say "You shouldn't believe nothing, You can't believe everything, but you can believe in someone.
Again, nice post Esoteach.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Exoviewer]

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:03 AM
I think using terminology like debunker and skeptic is a little hard edged considering this sites membership would be more productive and effecient as a coalescant if such terms were trashed.
First, one ought not be called a debunker or a skeptic, just because they believe that unless solid scientificaly confirmable evidence can be aquired and observed , that there is no such thing as aliens. Its a totaly reasonable position (and Im a believer btw). Similarly , it is not right for every person who has allegedly seen a UFO or had a close encounter to be ridiculed and made a mockery of.
There are utterly idiotic members of both factions. Theres the frankly sickening and insane Aliens as Religion types, who frankly need to be acid bathed , and there are the xenofascists, who believe that aliens cannot exist by the law of God, and if they do they are satan... This group, perhaps more than the first deserve every chemical violence in mans imagination done to them in my opinion, since they are by evidence of thier own mouths deliberately ignorant of what may well prove in the future to be the truth, and are already as good as set on attepting genocide on whatever may or may not come from the stars.
In interacting with other members on this site, I realise that the classifications we place upon one another are meaningless. All that has meaning, is wether a person thinks in a logical and scientific manner or not ( I am not suggesting that a person without qualification in science has nothing to add to the debate, or rather the disscusion... merely that in order to contribute one must think clearly , rather than allowing ones judgement to be impeded by anything other than reason).
Consider this, suppose the point were proved either way... If someone was right in thier attitude and thier conclusion about ufos and aliens, then fine... but if someone arrived at the correct answer without any understanding , he or she would still be an ignorant pig headed cuss. They would just be a lucky ignorant pig headed cuss.
Honestly , I think if the real thinkers on both sides were to ignore thier classifications for a while, more positive and progressive discussions would get had. As it is classifying someone as a debunker or a rampant believer just installs an unhelpful target for over passionate vitriol, which wastes space on boards, and is NEVER truely relavent to the case being discussed.
I say debunk classification, and do your own thing with logic and reason as your tools, no matter which side of the debate you happen to sit on.

Peace and Progress

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:04 AM
A skeptic you can talk to. Being skeptical is not a bad thing.

Debunkers you can't talk to. No use.

The two should not be lumped together. very different in my opinion.
Apples and Oranges.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
can i believe my eyes?

No, you cannot. Human perception is faulty. Senses fail.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

i think whomever is responsible for that rumor didn't have any experience as a someone. your teachers senses who taught you that may have been faulty..

i often wonder if hitler's teacher had not debunked his artwork in grammar school (it was his childhood dream to be an artist) then hitler maybe would have been famous for his art of art, and not his art of ... whatever it was he is "famous" for having done. hard to imagine that man killed millions of people on his own. maybe that teacher of his was wrong with her senses when she made hitler skeptical of his senses. i dunno.

maybe i type too much.

thanks DoomsdayRex.


moving on to something related to other topics, sorta.
look at this skepticism. Watch this film I found at the above link.
Start at 4:06 if you want to know what I’m talking about.
This “retarded” autistic girl and her SKEPTICAL parents.
This kid is 11 years old and mommy and daddy were so skeptical that she could even communicate that when she finally did they made her have to type something out before they would reward her for anything to prove to themselves that their own daughter whom they claim to have “known” could even communicate effectively, basically because they never allowed her to write or type for 11 years, or believed or encouraged it, I think. Did skepticism help? I don’t know. But if mommy and daddy don’t know … nevermind:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:38 AM
reply to post by Exoviewer

thank you for the compliments, i appreciate it. glad you enjoyed the read. honestly, i still read it myself to think about what it means. some of it i like more than other parts. other parts i think needed to be said and shared with some who might read it. not sure if the shoes (labels) fit anyone all the time, though. but with alien discussions on ATS, and the current atmosphere, i thought it important to share.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I think using terminology like debunker and skeptic is a little hard edged considering this sites membership would be more productive and effecient as a coalescant if such terms were trashed.

and i think some ATSers should stop acting like they are professional somethings that they are clearly not.

those posts which offer little but ... whatever those "labels" used to be?

debunkers are less effective at debunking when enough ATSers can effectively be skeptical of them, causing them to maybe be skeptical of themselves.

skeptics are less skeptical when we debunk them as skeptics.

being skeptical of debunkers, and debunking skeptics may make someones' a ATS on a ATS in a ATS not away from BTS.

it's not the labels we hate. it is the connotations people too willingly accept about the labels we may hate.

thanks for sharing,


posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by slushpup

I would agree with that interpretation of scepticism.

The term “skeptic” derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration.

[edit on 24/7/10 by JAK]

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:31 AM
reply to post by JAK

to someone, it may sometimes seem that the labels may have evolved into something that the majority may think means something different to someone who hasn't checked or is unknowledgable of the original intent of the label.

but i could be mistaken, but: seems there are those who think they are a skeptic, when in fact it is the only aspect of their point of view they haven't debunked yet.

thanks jak,

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by adigregorio

I think this post is expressing what I feel as well, the writer has had a gut full of debunkers and their tendency to reject anything that doesn't fit their own personal view of the world.
If it doesn't fit into their narrow view of what is possible then it simply cannot be real.
The most infuriating aspect of the debunker's claims is that they reject these anomalies BEFORE they've even bothered to check the evidence and most debunkers don't even bother to do this.
If they do look at evidence it's after they've made up their minds then they seek evidence that supports their point of view. They are totally irrational in their approach.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:20 PM
You most certainly get a S&F from me.

I've been a lurker here for a few years, and it's almost as though people flock here to tell people who believe in a lot of theories, etc. that they're wrong, ignorant and foolish to believe in them, which I think is disgraceful for a website that's dedicated to such things.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:26 PM
This thread was created by a guy who wanted stars, and who is probably insane.
And now it's a debunker vs skeptic thread.
This might actually be the worst thread ever.

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:35 PM
As one forum moderator (a chemtrailer) once said: "I'll just sit back and watch".

I'll do the same here. Take no sides. Be a spectator. Does anyone want popcorn? Let the debate continue to nowhere.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by hippomchippo
This thread was created by a guy who wanted stars, and who is probably insane.

you are so cute.

And now it's a debunker vs skeptic thread.

it is? where?

This might actually be the worst thread ever.

thank you so much!

i really appreciate you expressing these thoughts and sharing them with us. it means so much to me. when i read contributions like these i know how much heart and passion fellow ATSers put into what they share with us. words like these make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

hugs & kisses,

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Oh, dearest Sarcasm. What a cruel mistress you can be!

Completely agree though!

If someone could kindly quote me as to where it's turned into skeptics / debunkers, that'd be lovely!

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91

Deny Ignorance.

why not allow innocence?

isn't there enough room for innocence, too?

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:45 PM
i googled for some images regarding keyword: "Skeptic".

i thought some fellow ATSers may like them, find them intertaining, maybe want to use them or incorporate them as avatars, or components in their "mini-background image".

source/more:" border=0>

i thought this cartoon was funny:

here is a good one for debunkers and skeptics, an appropriate response for a lot of threads in the [HOAX] forum...

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:07 PM

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in