Conspiracies are Real, Skeptics Aren’t!

Originally posted by inivux
In a nutshell, there are multiple types and calibers of skeptics. You either don't see this, don't want to see it, or are so arrogant and ironically misinformed that you dismiss the so called skeptics as malevolent parts of the duality that comes with conspiracy theories.

Thanks for some multiple choice answers to select from.

This is one way to cover every base, and appeal to potentially everyone in that process, except the person you are singling out specifically in this type of argument. Meanwhile of course you don't have to take ownership of either statement, as you aren't specifically saying anything other than providing a list of possible options.

Thus enabling such a person to later choose a position as oppinions form, while not appearing overly advesarial.

Thanks for showing us how this is done!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I can hardly address the entirety of a huge post without addressing the single points stated within it. If this thread is only about skeptics not being real then why did you include so much extraneous information in your original posts about humans being the only things to have imagination.

I'm specifically disagreeing with a point that you made. How is that not debate?

If you want people to address just a single point then why make several points all at once?

If you don't want anyone to debate the points you make at all then why bother posting it in a public internet forum.

The basic fact still stands that the very first point you made in the OP was wrong, humans aren't alone at all in adapting their environments to suit themselves. I posted several examples of why you were wrong about it.

The fact that your ego won't let you accept that the very first sentence of your post is wrong is the problem here, not scepticism

Originally posted by inivux
You're very welcome. I'm always happy to put people in their place.

Which is yet another way of saying absolutely nothing of substance.

The place is just left up to the imagination of the reader.

Meanwhile it's basically just an off topic one line post, aimed along the lines of a personal attack.

So, I challenge anyone to specifically say how such adds to a quality debate, or discussion.

The truth is it doesn't.

Now in elementary school where I sometimes feel I am at on ATS, long about the 4th Grade there was a quiz sort of test where the teacher handed out a sheet, where the first line on the quiz said "Do not fill out any answers below until you read all the questions and lines first".

Now fortunately I knew to expect this test eventually from an older sibling, and that the last line would actually then say not to fill out anything above.

Yet of course everyone else in the class, just went ahead answering questions one by one until they finally got to the bottom of the test and realized there was a reason why the lesson was actually to read the whole thing first.

The lesson in this Thread is in the last paragraph which some self described skeptics have already said they refused to read, because they took exception with the opening piece early on it.

You see the last paragraph has to do with 33 major conspiracies that were real that effected the world, that Skeptics claimed didn't exist, and weren't conspiracies.

Skeptics just as often or not are wrong.

Which begs the question if someone doesn't actually know where they are? A Conspiracy site dedicated to discussing and investigating conspiracies, how would they know where anyone else belongs.

I am going to have fun with this thread. I can just tell!

That was pure babble.

Your title is Skeptic's are not real. OF course they are. I'm skeptical of your ability to think clearly. That makes me a skeptic and I know I am real.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
That was pure babble.

Your title is Skeptic's are not real. OF course they are. I'm skeptical of your ability to think clearly. That makes me a skeptic and I know I am real.

I bet you can't define real? If you are real, how come you are temporal? Ashes to ashes dust to dust and all that?

Can you describe to us how quantum mechanics work? Or the very nature of our temporal existence that leads to us being just fleeting bits of dust in the wind?

You probably can't, but I will keep an open mind, and understand the limited perspective that even the most studied and learned of us have, because there are in fact so many unknowns in the universe, to the point that being a skeptic is rather silly.

Originally posted by davespanners
The basic fact still stands that the very first point you made in the OP was wrong, humans aren't alone at all in adapting their environments to suit themselves. I posted several examples of why you were wrong about it.

The fact that your ego won't let you accept that the very first sentence of your post is wrong is the problem here, not scepticism

Actually the only problem here is yours, when it comes to observing, ascertaining and fully participating topically in a thread.

That you would like to put that on me is rather telling.

You still have failed to zero in on the key word imagination, and failed to display that how animals and insects build things has any bearing on Skeptics and many important conspiracies being proven by non-skeptics.

That you want to imagine the anal retentive rut you are stuck in is a problem for me, is rather comical.

The thread is about Skeptics and Conspiracy Theories that often do in fact turn out to be true when Skeptics say they aren't.

You might want to stick with Termite mound discussions, after all water does seek it's own level.

Thanks for the comic relief!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


There are different types of skeptics, some are skeptic because they may not know enough about a particular conspiracy but have an open mind and willing to look at the evidence before writing it off.

Another type of skeptic just writes everything off without looking into the conspiracy at all, making the statement I don't believe it without anything to back it up.

Next is the worst kind of skeptic who is more a debunker then a skeptic, this one not only says he/she doesn't believe it but does no research to prove his point. He/she doesn't want to be put in the position of answering questions because he can't. He/she may in reality be a debunker who is passing himself/herself off as a skeptic.

Great thread Proto.
Stars & Flag

Oops double post..

I hope my point was made in this thread. No more personal attacks. Period.

It seems that often times, people will confuse skeptics with statists.

Statists will tend to declare themselves skeptics and then choose to only be skeptical of that which does not have it's origins within the state or its institutions.

Praise Mao.

What did they do to John the Baptist? The skeptics beheaded him. What did they do to Jesus? The skeptics crucified him.

So you believe Jesus and John the baptist existed?

Skepticism, or critical examination of a subject?

When you are skeptical of God, UFO's or star-gates, does that not make you a skeptic?

Everyone is skeptical of something.

As a Conspiracy theorist myself, I have to remind myself of the word theory, it is wise to maintain a healthy amount of skepticism,
even in regards to your own theories, and it is good to have skeptics point out flaws in one theory whether it is scientific or political, you cannot have one with out the other,

It would be the one that rejects the valid opinions of others that has the closed mind.

"A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."
Webster's Dictionary

Philosophy .
a.
a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b.
any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.


Origin:
1565–75; < LL scepticus thoughtful, inquiring (in pl. Scepticī the Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós, equiv. to sképt ( esthai ) to consider, examine (akin to skopeîn to look; see -scope) + -ikos -ic

I think I may agree with the concept that real knowledge of anything is impossible.

"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.

www.isws.illinois.edu...

"thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology."

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

History then often reveals such personalities for what they are, brave people, willing to take on all odds, to make the world a better place, that then arguably did make the world a better place.

Yet their contemporaries and peers are rarely and seldom so kind.

What did they do to John the Baptist? The skeptics beheaded him. What did they do to Jesus? The skeptics crucified him.

Good analogy Proto, I had to read it again, for a moment there I thought you believed that John the Baptist and Jesus existed and then realized you were only trying to make a point. There is good reason to be skeptical about John the Baptist and Jesus, there is no real proof they ever existed, if they did maybe those who beheaded John the Baptist and hung Jesus had good reason, at least in their minds.

Most conspiracies in modern times talk about real people that we know existed and many times in our lifetime. JFK's assassination happened in your lifetime and mine, plus the fact there is real evidence and research out there to question the official findings.

reply to post by Aquarius1

Most conspiracies in modern times talk about real people that we know existed and many times in our lifetime. JFK's assassination happened in your lifetime and mine, plus the fact there is real evidence and research out there to question the official findings.

What is interesting about this, is that a few thousand years from now, and depending on the circumstances, even these people we know to be real may be thought of as mythical gods.

I have been away from the site for some time so I was wondering if you could explain something to me. What is the word skeptic generally accepted as meaning now?

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Is the definition I get for skeptic after a quick googlin'. To me, this seems like an admirable trait, one that you yourself posses. I am definitely skeptical of claims that people are able to predict the future/communicate with aliens/etc. I am also skeptical of many of the official stories explaining certain events.

reply to post by abrowning


There are all kinds of skeptics out there, the ones who don't believe anything no matter what is the worst kind, they don't do the research, they just flat say it's bunk no matter what. In some cases they may believe and know it's true and are being paid to muddy the waters. I don't give those types any credence if they can't make a case for why they are so called skeptic.

reply to post by Aquarius1


I understand the knee jerk disbelievers are irritating but the impression I got from this thread was that skepticism = bad no matter what level. I think it's important to have a healthy amount of skepticism and also the ability to accept that you don't know everything/not everything can be proved. The skeptics and believers I enjoy are the ones that discuss something civilly, saying things like 'Oh I can see where you're coming from but what about this idea?'. I suppose I take issue with what to me seems like a person saying if you're skeptical gtfo this forum is not for you. Conspiracy theorists need skeptics to keep them honest, and skeptics need conspiracy minded folks to push the limits. I think both are invaluable to this site (wow, just started singing 'Can't have one without the other' in my head...).

reply to post by abrowning


Agreed, varity is good on ATS and in life. This is for you.