Skeptics who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


So given that you now accept that some of those you listed do claim that aliens are visiting the Earth do you agree with this view? (This is on topic and very important in relation to the next two questions).

If not then how can you justify attacking other people for not agreeing with them?

If you do agree with them can you please respond to my initial criticisms of personal testimony on page 2?

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

So given that you now accept that some of those you listed do claim that aliens are visiting the Earth do you agree with this view? (This is on topic and very important in relation to the next two questions).

If not then how can you justify attacking other people for not agreeing with them?

If you do agree with them can you please respond to my initial criticisms of personal testimony on page 2?

It could be possible that aliens are visiting earth. Although I keep an open mind, I can't come up with a logical answer to that question. All of those astronauts are in a better position than me to know, therefore I do not doubt their testimony. But its a pretty healthy attitude to stay neutral so that the scientific process can take place and prove or dis-prove those claims. I certainly am in no position to argue with men with greater knowledge than myself or defame their character if I did not believe their statements.

As I said in the original post...I think its healthy to have a sense of skepticism when weeding out fact from fiction. Referring to the idea that everyone should use discernment.

But that's not what my thread is about. If you read the Original Post carefully, I was referring to the types of people who believe that THEY ARE in a position to defame, ignore, and argue with these men of greater knowledge because they simply do not agree with their testimonies (except when it comes to our politicians because they have been proven liars.) Now, to you it may have sounded harsh. But the people I was trying to attract to this post was the debunkers...not the skeptics. I've talked with quite a few real skeptics on this thread who figured out quite quickly who I was addressing. Its even discussed several pages back. The skeptics got it and left. The debunkers are the one's that stay to defend their honor, make attacks, demand proof even from an opinion, and demonstrate aggressive behavior that resembles a weaker form of sociopathic behavior. This has been my personal study. Hook, line and sinker...you, and a few others, took the bait. That is also a quote from a few pages back. Its all been right in front of you.

The other thing I also said a few pages back was this...The reason I know that you don't get the point of the thread is by the way that you consistently respond." The whole point was to expose the debunkers from the skeptics. This was discussed earlier, but, you didn't get it. Why do you think it was so easy for me to agree with earlier fellow skeptics? I told you that I kept my mind open. A good argument is a good argument. This thread was not about whether you were a believer or not, it was about the volatile behavior that is rampant on this site.

You may want to re-read everything. EVERYTHING.

It could be possible that aliens are visiting earth. Although I keep an open mind, I can't come up with a logical answer to that question. All of those astronauts are in a better position than me to know, therefore I do not doubt their testimony. But its a pretty healthy attitude to stay neutral so that the scientific process can take place and prove or dis-prove those claims.

Which is a sceptical point of view in the exact same vein you attacked in your first post. *

If you had just said that people who deny even the possibility of something without considering the evidence then I would have agreed with you but you didn’t say that. You said that to not accept what these people said was to be a fool.

This is what is wrong with what you are saying, you may think that you’re being clever by attracting what you call “debunkers” but in fact you are actually wrong in your very definition. That is what I am arguing against and that is why your whole “study” is flawed.

And before you go assuming anything about me take a look at my posting history and you’ll see I have had practically no involvement with the Aliens and UFO board so to assume I have any interest in defending a belief on the topic is erroneous. My issue isn’t with whether anyone believes or not, my issue is the vitriolic way you attack logical thinking with illogical arguments.



* I would argue that you do doubt their testimony since otherwise you would believe it by definition; if you don't believe it you doubt it.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by Mike_A]

I would like to point out that original poster did fix his (or hers, i don't know) stance from a direct attack to a more meaningful and true statement "pure debunkers are a pain in the ***". Why is that so hard to accept that people write it wrong sometimes and then some of them care to fix their stances, yet only their original posts are cited.

I would say that certainly great majority of ATS readers do want to believe, but many of them refuse to go with faith alone. Basically then most of us are on same mission to find out the truth, whatever it is. Our methods differ, and some have very strong personalities. It is something we will have to accept if we ever want any good results. Until that happens, we don't get the results done because nobody can work together to achieve that. Nobody's going to get it done alone anyway.

It is also in plain daylight for everybody to see, that people are desperately trying to build bad brand about skeptics just to promote their own beliefs on matters. It is very primitive behaviour that we haven't got rid of yet. We propably never will, but it does turn away very capable people who might actually be otherwise able to write stuff in a way that is very difficult for debunkers to touch.

reply to post by rawsom

I would like to point out that original poster did fix his (or hers, i don't know) stance from a direct attack to a more meaningful and true statement "pure debunkers are a pain in the ***".

The problem is that he lumps people who don’t accept, what he defines as, credible testimony in with these “pure debunkers”. It’s not the statement in your quote that I disagree with but who comes under it.

Originally posted by Mike_A

It could be possible that aliens are visiting earth. Although I keep an open mind, I can't come up with a logical answer to that question. All of those astronauts are in a better position than me to know, therefore I do not doubt their testimony. But its a pretty healthy attitude to stay neutral so that the scientific process can take place and prove or dis-prove those claims.

Which is a sceptical point of view in the exact same vein you attacked in your first post. *

If you had just said that people who deny even the possibility of something without considering the evidence then I would have agreed with you but you didn’t say that. You said that to not accept what these people said was to be a fool.

This is what is wrong with what you are saying, you may think that you’re being clever by attracting what you call “debunkers” but in fact you are actually wrong in your very definition. That is what I am arguing against and that is why your whole “study” is flawed.

And before you go assuming anything about me take a look at my posting history and you’ll see I have had practically no involvement with the Aliens and UFO board so to assume I have any interest in defending a belief on the topic is erroneous. My issue isn’t with whether anyone believes or not, my issue is the vitriolic way you attack logical thinking with illogical arguments.



* I would argue that you do doubt their testimony since otherwise you would believe it by definition; if you don't believe it you doubt it.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by Mike_A]

This is great...Mike A has been told the purpose, shown how he's been dragged through the mud after being hooked by his own ego, and yet...he's still defending his position, attacking others, asking for proof etc.



You got to love that NEVER DIE attitude. Wait, whatever you do, don't jump off the TITANIC...WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT, ITS UNSINKABLE!!!

You should be my own personal study because your inability to see logic is confounding.

Yep...in my OP I admittedly made some wild accusations bashing those of a skeptical mind, regardless of my true stance. BAIT. Then I followed it up with some opinions...HOOK. And then I casted out my line...POST THREAD.

And then you did the rest when you bit the worm. Pretty easy little set up wouldn't you say???

[edit on 26-7-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

[edit on 26-7-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by rawsom
I would like to point out that original poster did fix his (or hers, i don't know) stance from a direct attack to a more meaningful and true statement "pure debunkers are a pain in the ***". Why is that so hard to accept that people write it wrong sometimes and then some of them care to fix their stances, yet only their original posts are cited.

I would say that certainly great majority of ATS readers do want to believe, but many of them refuse to go with faith alone. Basically then most of us are on same mission to find out the truth, whatever it is. Our methods differ, and some have very strong personalities. It is something we will have to accept if we ever want any good results. Until that happens, we don't get the results done because nobody can work together to achieve that. Nobody's going to get it done alone anyway.

It is also in plain daylight for everybody to see, that people are desperately trying to build bad brand about skeptics just to promote their own beliefs on matters. It is very primitive behaviour that we haven't got rid of yet. We propably never will, but it does turn away very capable people who might actually be otherwise able to write stuff in a way that is very difficult for debunkers to touch.

I thank you for coming in to defend the situation. Your post is highly appreciated. However, I purposefully used the word skeptics on the OP so that debunkers, like Mike A, would come in with their guns blazing. I am an admitted skeptical believer, and found that the only way to truly attract the debunkers was to incite a discussion based on symptoms of their own actions.

To me, true skepticism is needed in order to discern the truth. But, unyielding attacks against someone of credibility when there is no just cause is behavior that should not be accepted. This thread addresses and exposes those particular issues. They just don't get it, the more that the debunkers respond, the more they expose themselves for whom they are. I'm pretty sure you got the point actually. I just felt the need to explain it to someone who is actually using their mind for good purposes.

Thanks for your post and have a good one.

You have addressed nothing that I have said.

in my OP I admittedly made some wild accusations

Was lumping people who question the people who you described with “debunkers” one of these wild accusations?

If you explicitly retract that then there is no disagreement between us. If don't then what you are saying is demonstrably hypcritical.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
You have addressed nothing that I have said.

in my OP I admittedly made some wild accusations

Was lumping people who question the people who you described with “debunkers” one of these wild accusations?

If you explicitly retract that then there is no disagreement between us. If don't then what you are saying is demonstrably hypcritical.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Mike_A]

I hope you're not worried as to whether there is a disagreement between us. It doesn't bother me if you hated me to the end of time. I don't tick that way, but, some do. The issue has been retracted over and over. Questioning people is one thing. That's fine. I think I've been explicit on that point. Attacking and defaming their character is a whole different story. Those are the people I've been addressing. I've told you that a few times now.

However, I've never had hard feelings on a single person who has added their opinions to this post. YOU INCLUDED. It was my personal study to incite and create the same behavior that I have witnessed time and time again here on these forums...ATS being one of the many. By inciting the behavior, it becomes exposed for everyone to see. And, I think I was quite successful.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

Questioning people is one thing. That's fine. I think I've been explicit on that point.

Well no you haven’t. Your OP and subsequent posts have made it pretty clear that to question them was wrong. You haven’t retracted this until now.

Here’s what you have said, perhaps this is the cause of the confusion. The last quote in particular is very clear.

“My point of logic is to say, if you can't believe and astronaut, who then will have enough credibility to sway your opinion.”

…

“If we cannot believe people who have established true credibility, then who do we believe?”

…

“If we cannot believe the stories of people who have achieved greater things than us, then we are on the wrong track as a society.”

…

“However, questioning and tearing down those who have developed a lifetime of credibility in their particular fields is a different story altogether. Logically, I cannot begin to question someone like Buzz Aldrin who has amassed tons of information regarding possible extraterrestrial activity because I don't know what he knows, and I have never experienced a moon/space walk.”

You can see my confusion when one minute you can’t begin to question these people and then the next it’s perfectly fine and you do it yourself.


Of course if this has all been one big misunderstanding and you agree that questioning these people is perfectly legitimate and that to do so does not make one and unreasonable “debunker”; then we are agreed.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by Mike_A]

Looks like this thread is officially dead!!!

Thanks to everyone who participated. I appreciated all responses!!! C-Ya!!!

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


hahahahaha love this post so so true all the people getting hot and botherd !!!! by what .. themselfs ... get over it your only holding yourself back !!

Originally posted by flowersgirl
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

hahahahaha love this post so so true all the people getting hot and botherd !!!! by what .. themselfs ... get over it your only holding yourself back !!

Thank you. I am in total agreement which is the reason why I posted this thread in the first place. It was my attempt to show the behaviors and weaknesses of the debunker and how they set out to disprove anything that others choose to believe in.

In the end, they debunk to protect their OWN beliefs as opposed to attack the beliefs of others. It was a great study.

Well I've only been on this forum for 1 day now and I must say I've had my fair share of naive people who challenged me as well. I do agree it is indeed healthy to keep a skeptical mindset at times otherwise you will fall right down a rabbit hole. I checked out the 9/11 forum and it had a denying skeptic there too.

From my personal experiences with debunkers and skeptics on youtube, yes youtube. Seems like a much unreasonable and juvenile place to debate. I would assume it would be very much the same here on ATS. After all I do have a friend on ATS who told me about his experience with debunker/troll. So I hope this can bring me a little bit of legitimacy.

So on from what I've seen and experienced the skeptical debunkers or mainly just deniers that they are nothing more then stubborn trolls who dont want to believe the evidence that supports the truth. Of course we do have the rational types. Yet when it comes down to denying good evidence and they deny it they must be unable to comprehend the evidence, they dont want to believe it, or they really dont like the post and are trolling. They never crossed me as people that will let you think what you want when you represent an idea. Of course this can only be connected to 1 or 2 of the explanations I just said.

As mentioned in your post where it states that we arent sold to everything that flies in the sky as being a ET. Apparently denier extremist have a very thick mindset, thats not an opinion.

The average troll denier will either accept you as either a person that believes in UFO's, any conspiracy, or believe that there are secret societies and therefor your a gullible conspiracy theorist that believes every little spectrum of the false accusations of it as such or your a person that denies everything that seems out of the norm of what you believe.

"MANY ARE SO HOPELESSLY DEPENDENT ON THE SYSTEM THAT THEY WILL FIGHT TO PROTECT IT." Ahh, true so very true. It would be as if they are unable to question the reality which they already know. Its against their nature, who they are.

Good post! And I do agree. What will it take to convince them something MAY have been too disparate from their original way of thinking when representing plausible evidence?

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by flowersgirl
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

hahahahaha love this post so so true all the people getting hot and botherd !!!! by what .. themselfs ... get over it your only holding yourself back !!

Thank you. I am in total agreement which is the reason why I posted this thread in the first place. It was my attempt to show the behaviors and weaknesses of the debunker and how they set out to disprove anything that others choose to believe in.

In the end, they debunk to protect their OWN beliefs as opposed to attack the beliefs of others. It was a great study.

Thank you for your response and welcome to ATS. Even though people have differences of opinions, it seems that the first thing that many of these debunkers do is attack as opposed to debate. There is no amount of evidence that is good enough or scientific enough to suffice their queries. I thought this thread would be excellent in exposing some of those symptoms.

Originally posted by Kadzait
Well I've only been on this forum for 1 day now and I must say I've had my fair share of naive people who challenged me as well. I do agree it is indeed healthy to keep a skeptical mindset at times otherwise you will fall right down a rabbit hole. I checked out the 9/11 forum and it had a denying skeptic there too.

From my personal experiences with debunkers and skeptics on youtube, yes youtube. Seems like a much unreasonable and juvenile place to debate. I would assume it would be very much the same here on ATS. After all I do have a friend on ATS who told me about his experience with debunker/troll. So I hope this can bring me a little bit of legitimacy.

So on from what I've seen and experienced the skeptical debunkers or mainly just deniers that they are nothing more then stubborn trolls who dont want to believe the evidence that supports the truth. Of course we do have the rational types. Yet when it comes down to denying good evidence and they deny it they must be unable to comprehend the evidence, they dont want to believe it, or they really dont like the post and are trolling. They never crossed me as people that will let you think what you want when you represent an idea. Of course this can only be connected to 1 or 2 of the explanations I just said.

As mentioned in your post where it states that we arent sold to everything that flies in the sky as being a ET. Apparently denier extremist have a very thick mindset, thats not an opinion.

The average troll denier will either accept you as either a person that believes in UFO's, any conspiracy, or believe that there are secret societies and therefor your a gullible conspiracy theorist that believes every little spectrum of the false accusations of it as such or your a person that denies everything that seems out of the norm of what you believe.

"MANY ARE SO HOPELESSLY DEPENDENT ON THE SYSTEM THAT THEY WILL FIGHT TO PROTECT IT." Ahh, true so very true. It would be as if they are unable to question the reality which they already know. Its against their nature, who they are.

Good post! And I do agree. What will it take to convince them something MAY have been too disparate from their original way of thinking when representing plausible evidence?

It appears that I answered another member twice when I was trying to address you. Sorry. Welcome to ATS, and your post is an excellent reflection of the point that I have been trying to make. The last post/reply that is just above this one was for you. Sorry I made an error.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Thanks for the welcome. I apologize for my grammar, I couldnt believe I typed that. I left that post before checking out the other pages of this thread which consist of mainly skeptics and people in disagreement. It appears I might have a lot of responders.

Originally posted by Matyas
Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Agreed. It doesn't matter which side of the fence that you sit on. Debunker, or believer, speak softly and carry a big stick is advice that is intrinsic by nature and should be looked at by everyone.