Skeptics who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

*Second post* WOO!

In my opinion skeptics and debunkers are critical to those who believe. They pose questions that drive believers to question or reinforce their beliefs witch is a good thing.

However, I suppose some people would rather blindly follow their beliefs with absolutely no objectivity and what does that remind you of?

Originally posted by bloodline
These threads are tiring.
Thank you,
Bloodline
Department of Redundancy Department

And yet...

You found it necessary to support and bump the thread with your redundant statement. And people wonder why I say "Silly Lemmings"



What we really need is new terminology because not all skeptics fit the category of the OP. Debunkers has been used but we need a new scale with blind believers at one end and equally blind debunkers on the other end.

I am willing to bet that many true skeptical posters know EXACTLY the type the OP is referring to and are probably just as fed up with them as we are but won't admit it openly

I had one thread about NASA tapes found in an abandoned McDonald's with a pirate flag in the window... go look at the first few pages... every one of the 'regular list debunkers' made their appearance blasting the thread, the topic, me and anything else they could reach.

Funny thing is the story was absolutely true. But the debunkers didn't catch on to that because they didn't bother to CHECK... they were so sure of themselves that it MUST BE BS therefore it was...

Later when it became obvious (the actual people involved posted) they quietly slipped out of the room with never ONE WORD like "Oops I was wrong... sorry" They just ran like coackroaches when the lights go on.

Only ONE actually wrote me a U2U and apologized, but did not do so in the thread

What sucks is that this kind of behavior generates pages of BS posts, and all the newbie trolls latch onto the regular debunkers and make it worse.

In the end when they can no longer crash the party... the tread vanishes into obscurity as no one has anything to add

I recall this chart from another thread like this many months ago

Illustrates that 'type' of debunker very well

Originally posted by easynow
i might be wrong but i think the Op has just used the wrong words and he really meant debunkers.

in my opinion there are different levels of skeptism and there is nothing bad about being a skeptic. i am a believer but i am also skeptical of many claims.

i think anyone that is a member of the skeptic society is just a debunker masquerading as a true skeptic.

Yes, I have to admit I might have mis-worded my post. However, using the word skeptics on the topic is what brings the debunkers. That was exactly what I was trying to achieve.

I agree with your post though.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
This is at least the third thread this week about the evils of skepticism. And that is not counting the threads that, while not necessarily about skepticism, take a swipe at it in the opening posts. How many do we really need? How does attacking skeptics with ad hominems advance our understanding of the UFO phenomenon?

It seems when redundant threads are created, the mods either close or merge them? Perhaps the same should be done here.

Oh...sorry if you've been insulted. But hey, its America isn't it??? The right to free speech is protected by the constitution.

Actually, in America the right to free speech only says the the government can't limit free speech. It's perfectly legal for free speech to be limited in converstations among private private individuals. For example, my boss can legally stop me from saying anything I want in the office, and the owners of ATS are legally allowed to censor what appears on their website (that's not to say that ATS should censor this thread).

...back on topic:

It seems to me that on ATS, skeptics are unfairly treated like second-class citizens by the "blind believers". The blind believers outnumber the "good and thoughtful" skeptics by such high numbers that those skeptics quickly get a "beat down" by the blind believers on some threads, even when that skeptic brings up fair and valid points.

That's simply my personal observations, for what it's worth.



[edit on 7/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I can somewhat agree with your post. And in my opinion, blindly believing anything is downright dangerous. My initial point was to address how skeptics/debunkers intentionally beat down credible people who come forward to tell their story. Some of those people are listed on the original post. 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.

Thank you for your post. I like your logical and common ground approach to the post.

Originally posted by spines
So, to sum up the original post:

"Blah, blah, blah [...] I apparently don't understand how incredibly ironic this thread is."

About right?

Irony is the cornerstone to any good society.

Originally posted by Omega4eva
In my opinion skeptics and debunkers are critical to those who believe. They pose questions that drive believers to question or reinforce their beliefs witch is a good thing.

Skeptics yes.... debunkers... no debunkers add nothing but noise. And with the amount of one liner 'thumbs up s&f' posts and the newbie trolls the signal to noise ratio is already bad enough. Really adds nothing to the conversation for a debunker to say 1000 times 'it's only rocks... your nuts"

The ones that really get me are those that state it's their 'mission' to save the ignorant from being converted Some even have it in their nick name

However, I suppose some people would rather blindly follow their beliefs with absolutely no objectivity and what does that remind you of?

Lemmings... on both sides of the fence Sheep are at least smart enough not to blindly run off a cliff

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry However, using the word skeptics on the topic is what brings the debunkers.

Hmmm I see your point. Hook line and sinker as they say

Mind if I quote your OP It was well stated

[edit on 24-7-2009 by zorgon]

Come, on then EvolvedMinistry, who by your very choice of nickname are a shrinks delight, no sign of a super ego there is there?...

Answer me why when the skeptic say... show me the data ..and the data is presented, as in the Shag Harbour case, there is a deafening silence from you and your compadres? Gawd knows I've tried to get a few threads started on such incidents and they are dead inside a day because there is absolutely no counter evidence posted at all.. Why is that?

Have you read the post i added to the Bob White object research where i conclude that. I can find no corrabarative evidence to support the loss of a single British Spitfire over Denmark, during WW2? Where I point out how unusual it would be to have Spitfires over Denmark and how it could only have happened to a standard Spitfire after November 1944 and how i went through the complete archive held in Denmark and contacted a couple of Luftwaffe ex servicemen organisations to ask if any pilots or flak groups might have a record of bringing down a Spitfire over Denmark...

My conclusions on that should leave no-one in doubt about my serious approach and my willingness to provide data , even when it might not support the tale being told..

So what have you in your advanced state of understanding ever done, in terms of empirical research ion the subject? Are you like me, a trained interviewer? Do you regularly, as i do, because i have a certain way about me, have people tell you stories about their lives they haven;t even told their families or partners?

I don't believe anything at all, i only accept models that seem to fit best. That is actually what science does. it is not as many would have you believe a base line of credible provable facts... If in 1947 you asked astronomers where life might exist outside Earth in the Solar System , the vast majority would have picked Venus or Mars and told you you were barking mad to suggest one of the Gas Giant's moons might actually be the best bet...

The objection many of us who have actually studied the UFO phenomenon to a large number of the so called skeptics, is simple. They are often just arrogant idiots who believe they are experts on UFOs based wholly on the premise that *It's a stupid idea therefore, i know they can't be true, ipso facto, all data pertaining to UFOs, is either hoaxed or wrong*

That is as much a belief system as following the Great prophet Zarquod whatever, you might like to dress it up as..

Back in the early 70s, all UFOs were swamp gas or methane etc etc.. Then came the UFO researcher who identified triboluminescence/fractoluminesence do you know what his name was what the book was called? You should because your fellow skeptics are only too happy to use his explanation time after time, funny how i have never once seen a single one of them quote his work , or for that matter, his name. And no, looking up those terms on wiki won't help you..

if you cannot see the ultimate irony in skeptics using the guys research after they had been saying for all those years, *The UFO phenomena has absolutely no scientific value at all" you are indeed, condemned to forever be a total prune

[edit on 24-7-2009 by FireMoon]

reply to post by FireMoon


Nice long post... but you missed the point. Its not about skeptics who research their position and present their case. Its about those who don't

Originally posted by Omega4eva
*Second post* WOO!

In my opinion skeptics and debunkers are critical to those who believe. They pose questions that drive believers to question or reinforce their beliefs witch is a good thing.

However, I suppose some people would rather blindly follow their beliefs with absolutely no objectivity and what does that remind you of?

Hmmm yes. I think you pose a balanced question and a good response. Blindly following anything is just silly. 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. He is privy to information from NASA and the government that you and I will never see. Its one thing to take the word of some guy sitting next to you or a fellow ATSer, its another to hear Buzz Aldrin entertain the possibility of an extra-terrestrial civilization based on his experience and research.

Thanks for showing some intellect and leaving out unnecessary attacks. You are what ATS needs.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
I think this is simple

The extreme believers and the extreme skeptics share their unwillingness to look past their point of view.

for example

An extreme believer will not consider an incident to be a natural phenomenon or manmade scenario.

An extreme skeptic will never consider an incident to be ET in origin.

Then there are those on both sides who will actually consider all alternatives, of course their opinions may lean one way or the other but they will not completely rule out the opposing opinion.



on a side note, with all of the witnesses from all walks of life. It should be an accepted belief that there are things in our skies that we "joe public" know nothing about, whether manmade or otherwise. But I am sure some will of course disagree.

Well stated.

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

A few centuries BC Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth.

Anway, if you're getting at the dream of manned space flight to the far flung corners of our universe in the OP I can certainly understand your frustration.
We're cutting ourselves off at the knees by not investing in space programs to the maximum. Space travel is such an overwhelming challenge, the problems that it poses provides the impetus for discovering and developing the next levels of technology. If you're not, sorry that I misinterpreted.

another good post!!!

I'm not skeptical about everything. Just about the stuff with little or no factual information and verifiable data to back it up.

Why? Because I would like it to be true! But I'm not going to make that last leap over that gap between "maybe" and "is" just because that's what I'd like.

If I found what I thought might be a gold nugget up in the hills, it wouldn't be enough for me to just believe that it was a gold nugget. I'd want it verified by an expert that it was actual gold. Some people don't care, though. They'll say, "Well, it looks like a gold nugget to me, and that's all the matters!" So they're happy, because as far as they know, they're rich. Good for them. Some people are happy to live in a fool's (gold) paradise.

I'd like my gold to be real, that's all.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Well said, EvolvedMinistry! In a universe as infinite as ours, it's the height of ignorance/conceit/whatever you want to call it to believe we are alone...

Anyway, there's healthy skepticism, and then there is outright ignorance. Not that skpeticism achieves anything, at the best of times...for the most part, all it does is bring us around in circles...

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by bloodline
These threads are tiring.
Thank you,
Bloodline
Department of Redundancy Department

And yet...

You found it necessary to support and bump the thread with your redundant statement. And people wonder why I say "Silly Lemmings"

What we really need is new terminology because not all skeptics fit the category of the OP. Debunkers has been used but we need a new scale with blind believers at one end and equally blind debunkers on the other end.

I am willing to bet that many true skeptical posters know EXACTLY the type the OP is referring to and are probably just as fed up with them as we are

but won't admit it openly

I had one thread about NASA tapes found in an abandoned McDonald's with a pirate flag in the window... go look at the first few pages... every one of the 'regular list debunkers' made their appearance blasting the thread, the topic, me and anything else they could reach.

Funny thing is the story was absolutely true. But the debunkers didn't catch on to that because they didn't bother to CHECK... they were so sure of themselves that it MUST BE BS therefore it was...

Later when it became obvious (the actual people involved posted) they quietly slipped out of the room with never ONE WORD like "Oops I was wrong... sorry" They just ran like coackroaches when the lights go on.

Only ONE actually wrote me a U2U and apologized, but did not do so in the thread

What sucks is that this kind of behavior generates pages of BS posts, and all the newbie trolls latch onto the regular debunkers and make it worse.

In the end when they can no longer crash the party... the tread vanishes into obscurity as no one has anything to add

I recall this chart from another thread like this many months ago

Illustrates that 'type' of debunker very well

This post is brilliant. I like the flow chart because it adequately illustrates much of the behavior here on ATS. Thanks for posting!!!

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry However, using the word skeptics on the topic is what brings the debunkers.

Hmmm I see your point. Hook line and sinker as they say

Mind if I quote your OP It was well stated

[edit on 24-7-2009 by zorgon]

Absolutely...use what you need. I appreciate your posts.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Come, on then EvolvedMinistry, who by your very choice of nickname are a shrinks delight, no sign of a super ego there is there?...

Answer me why when the skeptic say... show me the data ..and the data is presented, as in the Shag Harbour case, there is a deafening silence from you and your compadres? Gawd knows I've tried to get a few threads started on such incidents and they are dead inside a day because there is absolutely no counter evidence posted at all.. Why is that?

Have you read the post i added to the Bob White object research where i conclude that. I can find no corrabarative evidence to support the loss of a single British Spitfire over Denmark, during WW2? Where I point out how unusual it would be to have Spitfires over Denmark and how it could only have happened to a standard Spitfire after November 1944 and how i went through the complete archive held in Denmark and contacted a couple of Luftwaffe ex servicemen organisations to ask if any pilots or flak groups might have a record of bringing down a Spitfire over Denmark...

My conclusions on that should leave no-one in doubt about my serious approach and my willingness to provide data , even when it might not support the tale being told..

So what have you in your advanced state of understanding ever done, in terms of empirical research ion the subject? Are you like me, a trained interviewer? Do you regularly, as i do, because i have a certain way about me, have people tell you stories about their lives they haven;t even told their families or partners?

I don't believe anything at all, i only accept models that seem to fit best. That is actually what science does. it is not as many would have you believe a base line of credible provable facts... If in 1947 you asked astronomers where life might exist outside Earth in the Solar System , the vast majority would have picked Venus or Mars and told you you were barking mad to suggest one of the Gas Giant's moons might actually be the best bet...

The objection many of us who have actually studied the UFO phenomenon to a large number of the so called skeptics, is simple. They are often just arrogant idiots who believe they are experts on UFOs based wholly on the premise that *It's a stupid idea therefore, i know they can't be true, ipso facto, all data pertaining to UFOs, is either hoaxed or wrong*

That is as much a belief system as following the Great prophet Zarquod whatever, you might like to dress it up as..

Back in the early 70s, all UFOs were swamp gas or methane etc etc.. Then came the UFO researcher who identified triboluminescence/fractoluminesence do you know what his name was what the book was called? You should because your fellow skeptics are only too happy to use his explanation time after time, funny how i have never once seen a single one of them quote his work , or for that matter, his name. And no, looking up those terms on wiki won't help you..

if you cannot see the ultimate irony in skeptics using the guys research after they had been saying for all those years, *The UFO phenomena has absolutely no scientific value at all" you are indeed, condemned to forever be a total prune

[edit on 24-7-2009 by FireMoon]

Yes...attack the ego. Excellent chess move. I like it, unfortunately, its pretty unoriginal. That usually is a person's last ditch effort before they start throwing punches. Just so you know, I didn't bring up the Shag Harbor case. That was done by another poster, therefore, the use of Kryptonite is ineffectual.

Now, as far as my advanced research...I haven't done any. And, as it were, I don't need to in order to have an opinion. That is what this post is addressing...my opinion. If you need research on this particular topic, my suggestion is to go to any UFO or conspiracy forum on ATS to find the many examples of the issues that I am addressing. Its all right here.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Very eloquently stated and noted. I'm glad there are others
who get this particular post.

...

Thanks.

I'm quite sure most reading here, get your points.

I feel, many readers remain lurkers,
because it is actually too boring having to engage
the same debunkers/naysayers,
if not the same stale arguments over and over again.

The "thought-policing" effort is a real killer when it comes to
sharing thoughts/feelings/experiences/knowledge.

The typical behavior of many debunkers/naysayers
would not be tolerated by any off-line civilized company,
for more then 5 minutes.

Yelling out loud interrupting any decent ongoing conversation
with drivel and mind games.

There is the door, out you go!

...
..
.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Sol12 for spelling]

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Sol12]

Originally posted by VergeofObscene
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Well said, EvolvedMinistry! In a universe as infinite as ours, it's the height of ignorance/conceit/whatever you want to call it to believe we are alone...

Anyway, there's healthy skepticism, and then there is outright ignorance. Not that skpeticism achieves anything, at the best of times...for the most part, all it does is bring us around in circles...

Thank you very much for your response. I'm glad that others are getting the point of this thread.

Originally posted by Nohup
I'm not skeptical about everything. Just about the stuff with little or no factual information and verifiable data to back it up.

Why? Because I would like it to be true! But I'm not going to make that last leap over that gap between "maybe" and "is" just because that's what I'd like.

If I found what I thought might be a gold nugget up in the hills, it wouldn't be enough for me to just believe that it was a gold nugget. I'd want it verified by an expert that it was actual gold. Some people don't care, though. They'll say, "Well, it looks like a gold nugget to me, and that's all the matters!" So they're happy, because as far as they know, they're rich. Good for them. Some people are happy to live in a fool's (gold) paradise.

I'd like my gold to be real, that's all.

I can relate to that. Good post with some insight intact. Thanks!!!