The members are sceptics

[thepsychoticseaotter 1]

I have read and found a trend to try and disprove everything on this site as if noone has an open mind. In fact in my opinion you are all sceptics. Tell me if I have misjudged this and tell me what you really mean if you can.

Read my sug about open minds there buddy.....

[MoonBaby 3]

sometimes, when you are skeptical about something, you find proof of something that you never even imagined. it's good to go through life skeptical because if you think you have it all figured out, your wrong. i apoligize if someone already said forum.

[Loonboy 14]

PS, I thought you were going to say 'you should have trained as a large'...

[The Proposer 1]

what anoys me is people who pretend to be open minded and scientific in their aproach,but already seem to have defined their boundaries between real science and pseudo science,and they make this their reference point.this standpoint is detremental to further understanding ,I think if people could disregard their preconceived ideas and just look at evidence,(phtographic,eyewitness,scientific and conclusions reached by rational argument)im sure we could advance rapidly.

[trublvr 0]

Hey, everybody,

As some have already remarked, there's skepticism and belief are in all of us (especially those of us who've contributed postings here!). And that's cool. Skepticism and belief work well together. In fact, we are only skeptical in light of our beliefs. So as soon as we express skepticism towards something, we are inadvertently testifying to our beliefs in something else. These can be general beliefs about the way the world works physically or metaphysically, or these can be solidified convictions, doctrines, or dogmas (I'm not using "dogma" in the negative sense here.).

There are trends to the dialogues and mini-dialogues we've been having, though. We are not into "TRUTH" as much as we are into "truths". Following the advice of Chris Rock's Rufus from Dogma we are not so much into beliefs and convictions as we are into ideas (remember how Rufus advised the Last Scion at the movie's end?). Science and proof are mentioned casually as great criteria for discerning TRUTH/truths, but at the same time we are quick to attest to our unequivocal beliefs in things that we can't prove scientifically. Honestly, I think we sometimes demand scientific proof for things we don't adhere to, while never submitting our own beliefs to the same scrutiny. I know I've done this to folks in my life before! Then they put my beliefs under the same microscope, and I have to live in the petrie dish of my own making!

Truth that arrives entirely on our terms is usually truth of our own making. And then we are merely worshipping at the altar of ourselves. We need other voices not merely to borrow from, but to listen to, and to form us. Grace & peace to all ya'll. Love listening to you and learning from you! --trublvr

[buggyelfmaiden 0]

Skeptics? Where? Oh... Hm... I'm a bit of one. I believe in Ghosties, Goblins and all the Sh... Stuff that goes bump in the night.

With Ghosts though... If I see a photo of one. I have to make sure that it's not a fake, because it's hard to get good pics of one. I know a little about photography since my dad's a Professional Photographer and I spent much of my youth playing with cameras, and in the dark room. I know how to fake a photo (Which the computer Technology has only helped make things easier) And I know when some 'Unexplained' are just dust bunnies or water drops.

With other beings... I'm a firm beleiver of the creaters of the Fey. (Fairies for those of you who got lost.) I personally have never seen one, but who says they can't exist?

Magic's another thing I beleive in. This world is full of it. To me Magic is the very 'soul' of the earth herself. Magic can be something as simple as a plant sprouting from a sead to a grand waterfall. It can happen anywhere.

Gods I'm sounding corny now aint I? Sorry for the rambling. Tend to get carried away. I think that's why I like writing so much....

[The Proposer 1]

youve just reminded me there about an article i read about George Adamski and his videos and photos of Venusian ships,at the time of these the film studios couldnt even produce realistic ships and you could always spot tampering,so Adamski could have made a fortune working for one of the studios,and yet investigators reported obvious fakes of the ships (were these planted to discredit Adamski)

I think the brain and eye are rarely fooled and believe I can spot most computer generated images or tell when somethings not quite right,but some of Adamskis photos are too good to be true,it is hard to get video footage off net for free.

[buggyelfmaiden 0]

It's hard to get good video period. I've seen a lot of vids claiming to be true, but you can see they're edited.

I just think it's funny that one site I found of peoplle claiming to be ghost hunters would show faked photo's and vids on their site. I mean these were pretty bad. Then again... They were a bunch of kids (They said they were only ten and eleven)

[The Raven 4]

I am open minded to most things, but everyone is skeptical about something or you would beleive EVERYTHING.

[The Proposer 1]

i think we also should examine the driving forces behind the need to fake things,and realise that some anomalies would be in no ones interest to fabricate.

such as the ancient fossil records of civilized man existing before and during the dinosaur periods,I cannot see a reason for faking the fossil records as it would only bring ridicule on the scientists involved,although I can see reason why missing link fossils and skeletons would be faked as this would bring prestige among fellow archaelogists and scientists,plus a probable money making bonus.

[Seraphina 2]

*Is a very hardened skeptic*

At this point, I would like to point out that I've been driving for 10 hours today, and I'm very tired...I just wanna relax, now that I'm home, and go to bed, after I get my UM fix

So I'll apologise if I'm restating anything...my concentration is a bit off, and my mind is doing funny things...

There's a difference between being a skeptic, and not being open minded; and there's also a vast difference between being open minded, and believing everything is possible.

Being a skeptic simply means that you require some kind of evidence before you will accept something as fact. It doesn't mean you're unwilling to entertain the possibility of something being true, it just means you're not going to believe someone who tries to sell you some story, without a shred of proof to back it up...and why should you?

To me, believing something without evidence is how mistakes are made, facts are misunderstood, and history turns into a lie. Blind faith isn't a very good thing to have if you actually intend to discover the truth...it just means you end up believing whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true or not.

A healthy, skeptical attitude is what actually seperates fact from fiction, because we need to establish what's true and what isn't, rather than just accepting it. Skeptics, I've noticed, are far more willing to accept their mistakes also...the problem with blind faith is, because it doesn't require evidence to have it, evidence that disproves it usually gets ignored too

I'm very proud to be a skeptic

[Byuu94 0]

There are five types

Absolute Believer: believes their own area, often to the point of insanity, sometimes make hoaxes to make others believe.

Believer: believes most of an area, but not all.

Averager: uses common sense, indifferent to all areas, might change due to evidence

Sceptic: disbelieves most areas, does most research of all

Absolute Sceptic: usually attacks a specific area, would disbelieve, even in the face of irrefutabe evidence, might destroy evidence.

I'm about half way between Averager and Sceptic.

[Aslan 3]

As regards Seraphina's post, there is, however, the difference between being a hardened sceptic and disbelieving something on a point of principle, that point of principle being that hardened sceptics should never believe anything.

A healthy sceptical attitude does not separate fact from fiction. The division is always there, if it's discernable to us or not. Scepticism is simply a means by which the whole is interpreted. Plenty of sceptics have turned out to be wrong the same as plenty of believers have turned out to be wrong.

And I disagree with your statement that sceptics are far more willing to accept their mistakes. This depends on your interpretation of sceptic. You are taking it as some amorphous tag that means more or less 'a person who doesn't believe anything', whereas in fact the Catholic church was so sceptical of Gallileo's claims that he wasn't officially pardoned by the Holy See until the late eightees. Most Western countries were so relentlessly sceptical of a female human being's ability to make a value judgement that they weren't allowed to choose their leaders until well into the last century. Bin Laden is so sceptical of Western countries that he's trying to blow them all up, and will do until he's physically prevented.

It all depends how you choose to interpret 'sceptical'. I see value in it, but iI also see that following your scepticism wherever it takes you is no better than believing absolutely everything anyone says.

[Seraphina 2]

It all depends how you choose to interpret 'sceptical'. I see value in it, but iI also see that following your scepticism wherever it takes you is no better than believing absolutely everything anyone says.

I would assume, given the first post in this thread outlined the very fact, that we are discussing scepticism as it relates to paranormal activity That is, after all, the main subject of this board, right? If you're going to overcomplicate matters to that extent, you might as well claim that nobody, by definition, can be either a skeptic or a beliver, since there are so many areas of conflicting beliefs.

[Aslan 3]

Thank you. I'm well aware that the specific subject under discussion is scepticism as regards paranormal belief. And as it goes, paranormal belief is not the main subject of this board. The paranormal is the main subject of this board. The difference is subtle but crucial.

Claiming that everybody is either sceptic or believer, or neither, or both, is a moot point. I'm saying that sceptisicm is a way to interpret an answer rather than an answer itself.

[Angelfish 1]

It's not good to believe everything that everyone says, but it's also not good to not believe everything that everyone says. no one is either a sceptic or a believer. cus if they were then this forum (and the so many others like it) would just be arguments. Where's the fun in that. Humans need to believe, it's practically the basis of today's society. But if we're not atleast a little bit sceptical of any- and everything, we'd crash and burn. Most of the people here aren't really being sceptical, they're being logical. I've been here only a few months, but I've yet to see a thread where people attack someone else because of something they said the saw or experienced.

I'm not entirely sure that the senses and the mind can be trusted, cus mine betray me all the time. But for now, what people say happened is all we have to go on when dealing with the unexplainable.

I hope that made sense. (honestly, it kinda cunfuserated me )

[Gazz 0]

*Is a very hardened skeptic*

Seraphina, If you are such a hardline

skeptic, and are so ready to quickly

dismiss everything in an instant,

why the hell do you visit these forums

at all?

I think most here have an open mind

about most of the subject matter here.

But if you think that everything unexplained

is fake, why bother discussing it at all?

I find myself somewhere in the middle.

I am skeptical when I see something that

that has no evidence at all to back it

up.

But some like you seem to be on a mission

to disprove everything as being fake.

Not that that is a bad thing. I just

believe that life is much better and

far more interesting to go through with

an open mind.

Until you have been through one of these

unexplained events you cannot know what

is possible since you are a very hardline

skeptic.

And in my book, that must be a very sad

and boring life.

Gazz

[fearfulone 1]

Gazz, some are more difficult to impress or prove things to...i'm sure seraphina is very interested in the topics we discuss...she's just not believing them yet...give her a break...

[Seraphina 2]

Seraphina, If you are such a hardline

skeptic, and are so ready to quickly

dismiss everything in an instant,

why the hell do you visit these forums

at all?

You know, it's this exact kind of thing that I'm talking about

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, or simply dismiss it out of hand...it means that you need a reason to believe something. It means that you're not going to accept something as a fact unless it offers some kind of proof, or at the very least seems plausible.

As I said, there's a huge difference between being sceptical, and being closed minded I'm a hardcore skeptic because there's a great deal that I don't consider logical, and recquire evidence in order to understand or believe...not because I instantly dismiss things without even glancing at them.

When two arguements oppose each other, I choose the one that offers the most evidence It's not having a closed mind, it's being prudent

[Anirbas 0]

Well first and foremost you say that like it's a bad thing! Second who cares what you think - this is your one and only post - you don't like it here - you know where the door is don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

[trublvr 0]

Fellow Skeptical Folk,

I don't think that the whole distinction between skeptics and believers is as simple as some people needing more or less proof for things than others. If this were true, then there wouldn't have been so many "true believers" in God who were such great scientists and inventors! Skepticism and belief are more intimate than we may be assuming. As I've stated before (and others as well), skepticism and belief feed off of eachother, and that's a good thing.

Also, two things about all this proof we're clamouring for. First, the assumption in our time seems to be that, given enough proof, human beings will bring their lives accordance with the proven fact or reality. This is not true. There are all kinds of things on all kinds of levels that people have sufficient proof for, and yet they adamantly refuse to live in accordance with reality (ever been in a jacked-up relationship?????). The assumption that human beings will automatically align their thinking and living with proven reality fails in two ways: 1) an overly-positive view of human behavior which is not "proven" through our experience; 2) the reduction of the human being to an organism that only operates on the cerebral level. Emotions, commitments, perceptions can cloud our judgments concerning proof and reason. As Pascal said, "The heart wants what the heart wants." And on a more positive tip, we shouldn't strive to be cold, hard processors of data! It is great, sometimes, that emotions and commitments get in the way of living according to strict proofs! We can't "prove" things like love, but we wouldn't (I HOPE) disgard love just because it doesn't show up beneath a microscope!

Second, we are assuming that our world and our experimentation always provide the best environment for the establishment of proof. This is not always true. A person setting up an experiment to prove this thing or the other is an imperfect, subjective being. Their biases and imperfections inform the experiment and therefore the result (the proof). Taking all these things into account, we should seek out community, instead of the mythical, Western lone-soldier mentality of experimentation and proof-seeking. Two, three, and four heads are better than one because sometimes one head is wrong. REALLY WRONG!!! It'll take humility to subject oneself to this kind of scrutiny. In a scientifically arrogant and technologically hopeful age humility will continue to be a much-needed virtue for us.

[MisterBlueSkies 1]

Having been a victim of Hey! Look over there's and other bluffs & tricks pretty much all my life, I've had to become a skeptic to survive.

Sometimes people posting on this board have very convincing stories that seem very credible. Though I do admit they have to write in a way that doesn't seem to far out to even consider.

For example, if a person even mentions being able to see ghosts because they're "just a little bit psychic", I immediately discredit them, and seldom read the rest of their post. It seems harsh, but I don't think you need to be psychic or special just to witness stuff like that. The same goes for tobaccy-chewin' farmers who claim that a flyin' saucer dun sucked up their prized milkin' cow. I just don't buy it.

I've seen ghosts; therefore, I believe in them.

I've never seen an alien (unless you count the illegal variety), but I do believe they exist. I just don't believe they enjoy kidnapping people and prodding them or inpregnating them via sweet sweet alien luvin'. They're probably still on their own planet and wondering if there's other life out there, just like us.

I also saw a strange bird that wasn't a bird when I was younger, so i believe in the unknown or undocumented.

As for everything else...

MAKE ME BELIEVE.

Edited April 25, 2004 by MisterBlueSkies

[trublvr 0]

Mister Blue Skies,

I'm with you on expressing some level of skepticism towards any Joe Blow coming out with a UFO story. However, I think that there are good standards to discern truth from falsehood that don't necessarily involve me experiencing things for myself to figure out if they are true.

Some eyewitness testimony for alien encoutners--for example--is very good. Like the Betty and Barney Hill case from the 60's: Here you've got a black man married to a white woman, and they report that they've experienced missing time while on a trip somewhere. Subsequently, they have weird memories and experiences that compel them to seek out psychiatric help. They get hypnotized, and suddenly, they've got a UFO abduction on their hands (the abridged version of the Hill incident)!

Is the story fantastic? Yep. Beyond belief? Maybe. But here's what gives this story more than a little credibility: An inter-racial couple in 1960's America makes this up? I'm not saying that this means we've got to swallow whatever the Hills feed us. But the inter-racial factor, given the time period, should lend the Hills some sort of credibility. Now that's not all the evidence, nor is it the entirety of the Hill story, but I think you get my point. There can be very compelling things about witness testimony. It's a given that we can't know anything with absolute certainty and that we merely try to approximate truth as best we can. However, there are things that ring true b/c of witness testimony and the character of the witnesses, and this can and should be quite persuasive.

[DarkAngelh22eh 0]

Please remember i am new so easy on the chewout.

I wonder if you all believe in god, i mean if you can believe that there is an old man sitting in the heavens judgeing everyone. How can you not say there is all these other things? Some dude wrote a book and then everyone believes? Someone says i think there are aliens, and oh well that person is a story teller. I am sure that like the bible there are some bs storys, but really there seems to be more proof of ghosts then a god. But it is total exceptable to go to church and read about some dude and worship that? I mean if the bible was rewriten to hide things then why wouldn't other things be with held for people who really can't handle the truth?

As you may notice i am not a sceptic and will always be open minded. Are we really in 2004 and thinking that we are alone in spirit or in the universe. We are finding new things everyday. So everyone open up or we will never know the truths hiding in the world. Even if it seems as if someone story is shady, remember that that is one story and there are many other storys out there that are true and have proof. Maybe instead of everyone being sceptic, we should except the fact that there are alot of things we don't know about and shooting it down only shows why the goverment or people won't share there info. Ok i am so done, please no hard feelings, this is just how i feel on this topic.