Do skeptics ever get tired of trying to disprove everything that is amazing?

Originally posted by Velvet Death
Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't a discussion about the tooth fairy be a bts topic unless the easter bunny conspired with santa claus to replace the tooth fairy money with easter eggs. I though bts was the feel good have fun anything goes forum and ats was the take no prisoners forum.

Whatif, if the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus all whent on the Jerry Springer show? Would that make you, and everybody else happy.

Conspiracy?: The Easter Bunny conspired with Santa Claus, because they don't like anybody else who are "fairies".

The only reason I came to this site was because of the duel-nature of the posters. I see the groups like this so far: Those that believe anything and everything, they assume it's true first, and rabidly defend their position, even in lieu of facts. Those who are open-minded — in this group, they range from believing, but considering the facts, to non-believers, who might consider belieiving, if they get facts, and the middle-ground, which are those who are utterly neutral, but can be swayed either way, based on the data. Finally, those who utterly do NOT believe, they feel it's their duty to prove everything and anything wrong.

I think most folks fall into that middle category. But you will always have the believers, and non-believers, and they are the ones that set each other off. It goes from "very well could be true.." to "most likely not true because blahblah..." to "it's obviously true, you must be a disinfo agent!" to "it's impossible to be true, you're a kook!" And so on.

I try very hard to stay on nuetral ground, but have ironically been called a disinfo agent at least 3 times now (I'm apparently a 9/11 disinfo agent, a ufo debunker, even though I believe they exist, and something else I can't recall). Just because someone doensn't buy into your story if it lacks facts, doesn't mean they are super-skeptics.

For your example: I enjoy archaeology, and reading about ancient civilizations. And I would not utterly discount that they are reporting ufos, it's possible. But I must admit it's equally if not MORE possible that they are just things we are interpeting as ufo accounts. Keep in mind that most believed that the suns and stars were gods. Egyptians and Sumerians, who were pretty savvy as civilizations go, believed this. Egyptians believed that the sun was pushed across the sky by a giant beetle for cripes sake. They buried their entire court with pharohs so they could be attended to in the afterlife. So while yes, it's possible they saw something, in my mind, it's equally possible that we are just letting ourselves jump to those conclusions. It's probably NOT ufos, but I'd not mind a smoking gun as it were, to prove it was. But there hasn't been one. So you consider me a skeptic and a nay-sayer?

Quite honestly though, a lot of stuff that gets posted here is bunk. I don't think a single focused prediction has come true. I'll approach everything I read with an open mind, but common sense and logic has to be there somewhere. I'd like to believe, but won't do so just for the sake of needing people to believe in it.

I don't think they get tired of it, from a skeptical point of view, it's the constant lack of evidence that they get tired of.

I believe this is my first post here. Let me introduce myself,

I am Tokio, Empress of the World, though the world governments don't want to give up their power so they keep me a secret. I am different from you regular humans in that I heal much faster and have an extended life span. I was born to rule over all on this planet in one unified government.

I don't have any documents to prove it or anything, but it's true!! And skeptics who disagree with me are just trying to cover me up because they don't want others to know the truth...!

Seriously though, believers and skeptics are both good for the forum. Believers throw out their ideas and skeptics challenge them and make them re-think their beliefs. When you have to actually think about something you may come up with alternative ideas you wouldn't think of otherwise. Skeptics help keep the conversation going by keeping the believers thinking.

There are also some ideas that CAN be explained by science. If the skeptics weren't there to tell anyone about it then believers would go on thinking their perfectly normal experience was some kind of supernatural thing. (Ex: Sleep paralysis)

And yes, there is a difference between troll debunkers and good skeptics who just want to challenge your view point.

But the coin is double sided, so for every troll-debunker you have an equal number of people who believe they're a vampire/dragon/werewolf hybrid with telekinesis and teleportation abilities (who disappear as soon as people start asking for some kind of evidence). You have the people who believe every little thing they hear. You have people who don't form their own opinions and will just believe whatever someone else tells them to believe.

Each side has their good people and their bad people.

Without skeptics there is no one to challenge my claims of being Empress.

I personally think that there is a difference between being a sceptic, and being closed minded. Theres nothing wrong with trying to analyze and figure something out, but when you are closed minded and only want to believe one thing, thats where the problem is.

reply to post by Tokio


Empress of the world?
Lol

Originally posted by nyk537
You're right.

We should just blindly accept every crackpot theory and fuzzy pixelated image that every random person throws up on the internet.

Shame on us for using logic and reason to approach every situation from a scientific standpoint.

What have we been thinking?

He's obviously not saying that at all. So good try.
Why even post that? you should have elaborated on what you typed.

reply to post by Tokio


Empress of the World, you are my hero(ine?)...

And thanks for typing out what i was thinking so I didn't have to... must be those Empress Telepetathic abilities.

reply to post by bringthelight


Come on, if you were an immoral mongrel without a pot to piss in or family of any consequence to lean on, what would you do? What would you do when you looked in the mirror and saw that you were short, fat and ugly; that without your job you couldn't support yourself for more than a month or so, what would you do? Come on, be honest. What would you do if when you prayed to God he did not answer? What would you do if you suddenly realized that whatever education you have was worthless, that you didn't know the first thing about hunting and fishing and growing food to feed yourself, let alone a male and children. What would you do if the Internet suddenly went down? What would you do if the Water and Electricity suddenly went away? What would you do if you were trapped in a huge city or some zero lot line cracker box where all your neighbors were like you, transplants from god knows where?

I will tell you what you would do, deny the truth; deny the obvious; tell yourself you are special and God will save you; get religion maybe and go to the local church but you will not find god there either..you've been told.

I will tell you what you will do, turn to crime, do anything to survive..lie, steal cheat and murder or be the victim.

So, why do people continue to deny the obvious? Because the truth scares the hell out of them. Most of you will get right into line, shove your arm out for your chip and submit to being a slave..that is what you will do.

All your hypocrisies; your lies and theft and abuses are going to come back upon you. The good looking women will dump their losers and the the weak will be herded while the brave and strong will fight and die because the truth is those with the true power on this planet want to wipe out 1/2 of you and a 1/4 of you into willing slaves.

However, go ahead and be in denial. Maybe Obama will save you or Jesus.

As for me and mine, we are going to sail away and turn our backs so we don't have to watch. You all had your chance.

This thread reminds me of a personal delema I faced from my 4 year old. She flat out asked if Santa was real. Now I have a hard time providing a fair debate when GOD is asked about, not a obvious fairy tail about a man that delivers gifts with the help of intelligent rain deer. I hate to remove the magic from the young ones imagination as I think that it is the most special trait we as a species have. My delema was solved when she assumed it was magic and that was all she needed. She moved on to her next issue.

I think I have a grasp on physics, I like quantum theory. I consider myself an expert on windows networking, but I cannot explain how every piece of silicon works to get the pixels on the screen you see now. I even wager that an Intel CPU designer cannot describe every function of the CPU.





[edit on 7-12-2008 by staple]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by staple]

The good thing about being a sceptic is that its not up to us to prove anything

It's up to YOU to prove the tale your telling is true, sadly very very very very few of you can provide a shred of proof, even then it's highly dubious

You need sceptics

I've read this thread, and just my two cents, but I gotta tell you, much of what is discussed on this site is probably closer to the truth than ANYONE could imagine.

Just keep that in mind...

Mike

reply to post by staple


Hey staple you bring up an excellent point about stealing the magic away from children with santa clause. I actually just made a thread about it in the general conspiracy board. The idea of lying to our kids only to crush their hopes and dreams has always intrigued me. Why do we do it? That must be so detrimental to kids at a young age.

reply to post by Skyfloating


But what do you make of threads that intentionally misinform people? I'd like to point out something in one of your own threads, Skyfloating.
In your own analysis of ancient extraterrestrials you made a point about devolution in Egypt. The way you presented it is incorrect.
There was a centuries old protodynastic period in Egyptian history that proves itself in art and construction to be the precursor to dynastic rule. This was before Egypt was unified into one kingdom instead of north and south. The last rulers of this period were Narmer and King Scorpion. The early hieroglyphs and burial mounds were basis of the later Egyptian culture.
So you used incorrect information to prove your case. Are you saying this shouldn't be questioned and skeptically reviewed?
Maybe you can explain to me how skepticism stifles open mindedness (which does not mean having faith or being creative or study without rigid facts or proof). Let's be honest, so many threads about open minded pseudoscience read like very bad science fiction.

Well to start, you're doing exactly what you're claiming skeptics are doing which is attacking another persons beliefs based on YOUR perception of reality.

Let's be honest, we can only live in one reality at a time and within that reality, there is only 1 truth. The only difference is our perception of that truth.

From my experience, most skeptics simply ask for evidence to support claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence should be to support it and 9 times out of 10, when the person making the claim is asked for evidence that their claim is real, they cannot provide it. The result is that those involved in the discussion, feel as if they've been sent on a red herring.

So now my question to you is, why is it so bad to ask for evidence of one's claims?

If I use "truther" logic, I could make the following claim.
The world is run by a flying, invisible, purple wombat.
I would then say at this point, prove I'm wrong.
The reality is that skeptics simply ask that I would provide evidence to support my wild statement.

I don't really understand why it's so "wrong" to ask for evidence?????

reply to post by jfj123


If you read the entire thread you would have seen that I had stated numerous times that I had no problems with skeptics asking for evidence. That is what this site is all about.

What I am talking about is the people who just go on attacking believers saying things like "that is impossible, you are ignorant and stupid for believing that." Also they offer no evidence to the contrary. These posts offer nothing to the discussion and just stifles it. At no point in the thread did I say I didn't agree with skeptics asking for evidence.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by bringthelight]

Now before I get a bunch of replys from you hardcore skeptics saying, "well if it weren't for us, we would have no solid definition of what reality is!!", just stop. ~ OP

That's not at all what I was thinking. What I'm thinking is that you're completely insane for thinking there's apparently nothing beautiful, amazing, or awe inspiring in the natural universe that you have to turn to poorly written fiction to get your dose of awe and wonder.

Skeptics don't debunk to rain on your parade. They debunk because delusional fantasies taken and spread as fact aren't healthy for the individual or the society.

reply to post by Lasheic


Hows about putting words in my mouth! I never said there is nothing amazing about life and what we currently have. I have had some of the most amazing experiences just sitting quietly in nature and taking it all in.

What I am saying is there are many amazing things that have yet to be discovered and if we look at everything with a closed mind we will never be able to enjoy them.

I guess in my OP i should have clarified that not all skeptics were like that because most replies im getting are very defensive as if my OP insulted them. I in no way meant to offend, just make a few people think with an open mind before jumping to conclusions.

reply to post by bringthelight


I'd phrase the question differently: "Do believers ever get tired of believing everything without any evidence?"

It's not about skeptics trying to disprove the amazing, but rather them pointing out that there is no evidence it is amazing in the first place. Your question assumes, rather incorrectly, that the amazing is a fact. It isn't. It's the stuff of guesses.

As Carl Sagan put it:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

And the lack of extraordinary evidence on this site is simply staggering. It's fine to think something is a possibility, like ancient extraterrestrials, and discuss it as a hypothesis, but as soon as anyone starts believing in something as fact without the slightest shred of actual, tangible, objective evidence, then they've crossed a line into the preposterous.

Belief without evidence is faith. It's religion. It involves guesses and nothing else. We cannot possibly learn from people's opinions, other than that people hold said opinions. That's it. The modern world wasn't built by guesswork and half-assed opinions framed as truth - quite the opposite. Beliefs without evidence are what drags humanity down, wastes time, corrupts viewpoints, and clouds our collective knowledge.

I find it funny you can type an attack on skepticism on a computer, a pinnacle of science, when skepticism is the stock and trade of all science. No scientist says "this is my guess - accept it as fact or I'll launch a whiny tirade calling you names". They put up, or shut up. And we as a species learns. The scientific method starts with an observation, which is then phrased in a hypothesis, which can be determined to be true or false by means of experimentation. Nowhere is this hypothesis raised above logical scrutiny - if it were we'd never know if it was correct or not. Of course it's more fun to think of amazing things as being true, but unless we know, what separates it from fiction? Nothing.

I'll finish this post by quoting Carl Sagan again:

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

I think the title is wrong in skeptics do not try to disprove anything. What they do is ask for Proof and further reasonable support when there is not enough empirical evidence for "proof positive".

If supporters of an Idea, Observation, Hypnosis, Theory etc would keep their support in those forms then endless discussion could take place, but what normally happens is someone claims "proof" or that something is undeniably real with flimsy evidence at best. The old X files line “I want to believe” is something every skeptic lives by.

The other side of all this is based on how much evidence does one need to believe. One person can read a story or watch a TV show and they will go to their grave that something is true, while another person will say show me more before I will fully believe.

How many of you would believe that I have a fairy friend from me just posting here and showing a blurry picture of light near my head? How many would further believe if that picture showed fairies in perfect focus floating around my head and I got 20 people to say it is real with a news story on it? Now how many would believe if I walked up to you with a fairy on my shoulder for you to see and talk to…

You see we are all skeptics, and so it is just what level of evidence we feel we need to totally believe. Remember that the Theory of Relativity has just been that all these years…a theory, and not until these last few weeks with the super collider do we think there is now proof of this theory, and so it can become a law.

If a person provided what they have and presented their case as best they can without screaming “proof” in some form then it can be discuss without the fighting that sometimes goes on. In the end though, that person needs to realize that they most likely do not have enough empirical evidence yet and so they need to keep the discussion in the proper format that it should be in.

The bottom line here is who is the culprit for creating arguments? I would say it is not the skeptic in the majority of cases.