Believer vs. Skeptic

skeptic-believer...well i guess i am a skeptic, but i want to believe. but with all the disinfoers out there it makes it hard to trust the real stuff is really real.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by twosandman]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by twosandman]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by twosandman]

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Whenever I hear the term believer, I think of faith or religion. I do believe extraterrestrials have been here, and there is evidence to support that belief. I do not believe all the claims, and question the contactees, channelers, and abductees. Another words, there has to be some evidence to back up the claims. Is there a separate category for people who believe the theory and the best cases with the best evidence?

I do not believe the Billy Meier or Travis Walton case. Does that make me a skeptic? Or do I have problems with fake photos and failed lie detector tests (plus other discrepancies in the stories)?

In short, I don't think the majority of us here at ATS can be put into two categories. Or how about these categories:

1. Faithful believers: Those who do not question any claims.

2. Believers of the theory: Those who believe and note the evidence of certain cases.

3. Skeptics: Those who are open, but want to see more evidence/proof.

4. Debunkers: Those who don't have an open mind to the possibility of extraterrestrials.

The vast majority fall into the 2 and 3 category of people.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
In short, I don't think the majority of us here at ATS can be put into two categories. Or how about these categories:

1. Faithful believers: Those who do not question any claims.

2. Believers of the theory: Those who believe and note the evidence of certain cases.

3. Skeptics: Those who are open, but want to see more evidence/proof.

4. Debunkers: Those who don't have an open mind to the possibility of extraterrestrials.

The vast majority fall into the 2 and 3 category of people.

I think this is more or less right, when you're talking specifically about UFOs.

One of the problems is that I would class myself as 3). However, in my approach to evidence that's posted, I move to 4). It's not out of malice or denial, but I want to see evidence/proof, so no other explanation will do. If there's another possible explanation, then it's not good enough.

Do you see what I mean? I see a few posts saying "you've not proved it's not a spaceship", and I just scratch my head at that (sympathetically). I'm not looking for something that could be an ET UFO. I want it to be something that couldn't be anything else! At the very least, I want it to be genuinely inexplicable.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy


If everyone was a little more skeptical of their OWN beliefs, I think it would make for a more honest world.

i hope im not taking things out of context here, but doesnt that mean that skeptics should also imagine the scientific method as 'incomplete'

surely our scientific method cannot encompase the unknown aspects of our universe and the occupants thereof.



[edit on 11/3/2008 by LordThumbs]

Originally posted by LordThumbs

Originally posted by HankMcCoy


If everyone was a little more skeptical of their OWN beliefs, I think it would make for a more honest world.

i hope im not taking things out of context here, but doesnt that mean that skeptics should also imagine the scientific method as 'incomplete'

surely our scientific method cannot encompase the unknown aspects of our universe and the occupants thereof.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by LordThumbs]

Of course they should!

100 years from now, our 'modern' practices are going to be so antique they will most assuredly begin to be looked at as barbaric. I just hope I haven't been called to the mother ship before that happens, it will be an exciting time.