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.

 

The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
When I debate skeptics, I usually start off with these questions.

Do you know all there is to know about the universe?

Do you know the origin of life?

Do you know if there are parallel universe?

Is the universe a quantum computer?

Do we live in a holographic universe?

There's more questions but I will stop here. They will usually answer no to the first question and then I don't know for the other questions.

In this case the skeptics are agnostic.

But then they say with the certainty that psychic ability, extraterrestrials, ESP, Remote Viewing, Life after Death, Telepathy and more don't exist.

It's really convoluted thinking. In one breathe you admit your lack of knowledge about who we are and how we came into existence. As well as the universe itself. At the end of the day science can't even show that you have an objective existence. Are you a simulation? They don't know.

Yet, the skeptic seems to know with certainty that the things I listed don't exist.

I believe they exist based on the evidence. Am I certain? No. But I think there's good evidence out there to support these things.

When you ask for evidence against these things, the skeptic says I don't have to prove a negative. This has nothing to do with proving a negative. It has everything to do with providing evidence against the proposition that psychic ability exist or extraterrestrials exists. There's always evidence for and against.

For instance, if I were to say the sky is really pink not blue, a person could show evidence against the proposition that the sky is really pink not blue. They wouldn't have to prove a negative in order to present evidence against the proposition.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. There is something very closed minded in turning skepticism into a belief system. Many people say I'm a skeptic like someone would say I'm a Christian or a Muslim.

When healthy skepticism is turned into a belief system, that's not a good thing.




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Yea i agreed with the first part of your post, spot on but saying




But then they say with the certainty that psychic ability, extraterrestrials, ESP, Remote Viewing, Life after Death, Telepathy and more don't exist.


i really dunno where you got that from, i mean im agnostic and a skeptic and while i dont believe in whose subjects, i would never disregard them, i find them very interesting and i think we can learn alot from them too.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Prove to me that interdementional purple unicorns dont steal my underwear.

then i prove to you that an afterlife doesnt exist.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
This is the skeptic's dilemma. Just replace "Health care system" with UFO and the end with "HOAX". Wherever end is...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Nice to see someone else has noticed this problem. Not much you can do about it though once it happens. Once it does, there is absolutely no way to win or even have a decent discussion on the topic.

There isn't anyway to disprove, or even prove quite a bit of things. However, skeptics are needed so we can all process and learn from different points of view. It is unnecessary for complete deniability of an idea or theory though.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Like I said, Healthy skepticism is a good thing but you mostly see on ATS and in other places a certainty of skepticism.

For instance when these things are debated you don't hear the skeptic say they don't know, you often hear them say they do know and the people making claims about these things are hallucinating, seeing things or it's just wishful thinking.

Exhibit A of the Skeptics Dilemma. Equating things with evidence to things with zero evidence. There's evidence for life after death.

www.near-death.com...
www.time.com...

I could make an entire post about evidence for life after death. Everyone doesn't accept life after death in a vacuum. They look at the evidence, whereas many hardline skeptics will act as if there isn't any evidence and then try to equate life after death with flying spaghetti monsters or something that has zero evidence.
edit on 3-7-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic

I believe they exist based on the evidence. Am I certain? No. But I think there's good evidence out there to support these things.


I think there's more evidence against them than for them.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It's probably because most people are not what I would call skeptics, they are debunkers. There's a difference.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I think you might be overly generous to call them skeptics. Maybe pseudo-skeptics would be a better word.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 3-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm in an odd place with such matters. I'm both a skeptic and an occultist, and I tend to switch socially between both camps of people pretty easily. Does raise a few eyebrows though, when they realise that I play for both teams. But anyway, I find the more hardcore skeptics (or debunkers - let's be honest here) just as depressing to be around as the more 'out there' believers are annoying. So no, even if I am wearing my skeptics hat for a moment (it's made of wool, my tinfoil one's in the shop for repairs), I can honestly say that I can't answer the OP's opening questions, about the universe and such. But just because I can't, don't mean that it's not worth hearing all sides and keeping an open mind - and such a free-form viewpoint is as rare in the debunkers as it is in the hardcore believers, regardless of the phenomenon, which is, in my opinion, a real shame. Any eventual findings will just be cold, hard facts, but the journey's the fun bit...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Wouldn't people who believe in things such as life after death, collective conscious, the spirit etc. be the skeptics, because they are skeptical of everything that is apparent or derrived from the senses and reality?

I guess pseudoskeptics would be a better description as blue mule pointed out.
edit on 3-7-2012 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
What you fail to understand is that when you assert that something exists you then have the burden of proving it does. Plus a lot of times people will give evidence that isnt sufficent for the claim and then get mad because the skeptic wont accept it. For example, using some fringe source. Sometimes these sources will start with one scientific fact like scientist discovered meditation is good for the brain, and then start drawing crazy conclusions. Like its good for the brain because you are opening your third eye and nurturing your sould. Lol. Also people throw around terms without understanding what they mean by them. For example words like soul, god, angel, ghost-all mean different things to different people and a lot of the time people lack a definition if you ask for one.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Both sides are blinded by the "I'm right and you're wrong" factor.

When it comes to metaphysical discussions and the like, neither side really knows anything, so the conversation has nowhere else to go and rapidly descends into verbal attacks.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think you are making the mistake that most make when it comes to skeptics.
Skeptics do not doubt at all that may be etraterrestrial life out there. We don't have proof so we cannot say for certain, but odds are that there is indeed life abounding around the universe.
That however is vastly different from visitation.
I don't think I've ever met a skeptic in fact that claims there is no life outside the Earth. How would they know? Skeptics take a scientific approach, and to claim either way would be unscientific.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Prove to me that interdementional purple unicorns dont steal my underwear.

then i prove to you that an afterlife doesnt exist.



Why does it have to be the interdementional purple unicorns and not a white one .


By the way for the OP ., there is no dilemma if you follow facts and accept an unknown as an unknown.

edit on 4-7-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Just like all of the myth past civilizations had about magic and demons.. its always proven to be the creation of human imagination..

From now and into the future those who were victims of illogical fantasy will cling to the idea that thier long devotion to such obviously silly ideas wasnt a waste of time.

It is a hard thing to accept that so much time was wasted so fully on delusion.




top topics



 
3

log in

join