Skeptics and Believers need not quarrel in my opinion.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
who wish to place themselves upon a pedistal* above their chosen enemies.

What the hell does that mean? hehe

You sound rather combative...

A believer is labeled that because they rely on faith or very limited amount of proof to believe.

People tend to use the term believer/skeptic with negative indignations.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


And you sound like you're trying to change the subject.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Nice post, but the biggest problem I've seen is not the skeptics unwillingness to accept a hypothesis as possible, or even probable given enough evidence, but the believers unwillingness to admit his hypothesis may not be the only, or most probable solution.

I keep a very open mind, but when I see blurry pixels used as proof of bases on Mars I have to laugh. I am open minded to the idea of bases on Mars, however improbable it may be, but the believer is already set on that as the only possible interpretation of his 'evdence'. How do you argue with that?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Everyone here should be proud to be a skeptic on this board. Everyone is so skeptical of the "MSM" or "TPTB", but as soon as an alternate explanation for an event comes up, they jumps on the bandwagon. I think this place would be a lot better of if they were as skeptical about the theories cooked up here as the ones they get from the government/news.

Most people's default is to accept what they hear on the news and radio, and they are called 'sheeple' mockingly by other forum members here. Well it seems most people's default on this board has become to automatically except everything they hear on the news/radio as false, and what they read on here as true. And they think they are better than the 'sheeple'.

Honestly, you have to be careful to keep yourself in check, and you can't just assume things as true/false. Everything should exist as a possibility, either large or small, until it has been ruled out completely. Distrusting any source blindly or refusing to be open-minded about other possibilities is just as dangerous, if not more-so, as blindly believing everything you hear.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
That is a pretty good description of proper skepticism. In short, I find true skepticism to be the condition of demanding to be convinced by the evidence.

I have found ATS to be a site in which true skepticism is often met with hostility and pseudo-skepticism always and deservedly so. I'll have to disagree on the contention that ATS is a site where people search for truth. "Believers" in most anything operate without the need for indisputable evidence and often operate to serve a confirmation bias, reinforcing beliefs. Conspiracy theorists flourish here by assembling disparate facts and making conclusions on their assembly. Such people have little interest in arriving at truth, only to confirm preconceived notions. Believers and theorists are notoriously hostile to skepticism in any form.

With this dynamic in play, quarreling is inevitable. Such quarreling is also necessary to arrive at the truth or eliminate the spread false beliefs, and to provide stimulating discussion (the purpose of forums). The ideal situation would be to simply try to reduce the emotional petulance which often accompanies such quarreling.

This is exactly how I've felt since I started lurking around here a year or so back. Instead of starting with the evidence and working towards a conclusion, nearly every thread on here starts with a conclusion, and works backwards to find evidence that fits with his conclusion. It is impossible to argue logically in these threads, because they are already so set on their hypothesis being correct. Anything supportive, no matter how subjective is boasted as proof, while anything contradictory gets hand waved away.

I have also noticed so much appeal to emotion. When threads tell you "You should be outraged!" or say things like "They are murdering our children's future!" you really need to take a step back and try to separate the facts out to avoid falling victim to the fallacy of this argument. It is very easy to overlook the facts or errors in the post and get all worked up about it. But how do you counter an 'argument' like this? If you are not outraged, they are already asserting you are wrong, no matter how ridiculous their premise is.

At the core of a belief is the prospect of dissapointment.

Skeptics determine that believers are simply yet to be dissapointed, because the validation of naieve or childish beliefs is a pheomenon that is rarely if ever actualised.

reply to post by AceWombat04



Did this response in this fashion to save space... I hope AceWombat04 sees this.

Loved your post on defining the differences.