PDA

View Full Version : A Question For The Skeptics



The One
21st January 2012, 23:13
Below is the vision and values of avalon

What is that Message and Vision?

In creating this new forum, we're encouraging all members who've been invited here to:

•Start or participate in community projects that will radiate out to the members' communities - or
•Post information and participate in regards to awakening; spirituality; healing humanity; galactic and earth changes; '2012' (whatever that may mean!); geopolitics; new science; hidden history; ETs and disclosure; what we are not being told by those who might wish to control us - and much else

So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers

modwiz
21st January 2012, 23:19
I like the way you think.

9eagle9
21st January 2012, 23:28
Well what sort of skeptic. De-bunkin skeptics which really aren't skeptics they are simply attempting to kick sand over anything that makes them uncomfortable. They won't be happy until anything the least bit odd or supernatural is swept under the kitchen rug. Their motto is "I must destroy anything that upsets my worldview."

Then there's the sort of healthy skepticism that allows people not be taken in by shills and BS and lots of that is posted anywhere, not just here. And it also prompts a certain amount of noise.

crested-duck
21st January 2012, 23:28
SKEPTIC: one who is critical or doubting------is it not true that unless one is skeptical, one will never seek to learn the truth about things--What exactly are you trying to say TheOne? Do'nt pussyfoot around! If you've got something to say, throw it out there, do'nt try to play word games with people.

9eagle9
21st January 2012, 23:31
For the record I was banned from the Alex Jones Prison Planet years ago for suggesting that gay people were not created by the CIA that they've been arond much longer than that.

Instant banishment.

That kind of skepticism in a forum that insists it's skeptical was not welcome.

NeverMind
21st January 2012, 23:44
I think you should define what you mean by "skeptic".
Because a true sceptic is simply, by definition, a person who doubts and does not accept things at face value.

It does NOT mean (again, by definition) a person who a priori denies the existence of anything beyond the physical senses or out of the "ordinary".

A true sceptic does not have an "agenda", and his or her mind is always open.
(The problem with many "alternative" communities, however, is that they seem to equate an open mind with a priori acceptance of "fringe" events, which, of course, is the opposite of an open mind. It's just a bias in a different direction.)
Of course nobody is totally free of preconceived notions, but you don't have to be totally free of them to be a true sceptic (or anything, really).
Just being aware of them is usually enough when calibrating a response to any given phenomenon or event.

Therefore, such people are the greatest boon to any "alternative" community.
By trying to weed out errors or ignorance, they help uphold the validity of extra-ordinary events and phenomena in general, and keep them from being discredited en bloc.

This is, after all, the reason why the Vatican employs an advocatus diaboli. :-)
When faced with something out of the ordinary, you can only test its soundness by pushing against it and pounding it as hard as you can.
If it resists, it's sound, therefore worth investigating and pondering upon.

We need light, more light, all of us.
Closing one's eyes to all and each of the possible explanations for extra-ordinary events is not a good way to let light in. :-)


P.S. Just so there are no misunderstandings: I am not talking about anyone in particular here.

chancy
21st January 2012, 23:47
Below is the vision and values of avalon
What is that Message and Vision?
In creating this new forum, we're encouraging all members who've been invited here to:
•Start or participate in community projects that will radiate out to the members' communities - or
•Post information and participate in regards to awakening; spirituality; healing humanity; galactic and earth changes; '2012' (whatever that may mean!); geopolitics; new science; hidden history; ETs and disclosure; what we are not being told by those who might wish to control us - and much else
So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.
Cheers

Hello TheOne and everyone:
This is an interesting question if you are trying to find out who is possibly here under false pretense.
I would suggest that there are only 2 types of people on this planet.
Those that know the truth and all the rest of us! The reason people come to avalon or any other forum is to find out more truth. Some of us may be more serious than others but everyone is here for more truth. Even the skeptics, the false truthers, the story tellers and everyone else in between. We all are wanting to know what really happened before we came to this earth? Why we are here. Where we will be going after our shell or body is place in the grave. Our spirit goes somewhere. Everyone wants to know exactly where that is?
Some say no where, Some say heaven. Some say hell. Some say nothing. What it comes down to is everyone is here to know the truth. Strip away the stories. Strip away the rhetoric and we all want to know exactly what the truth is.
Remember "the truth shall make you free"

Everyone have a great weekend
chancy

The One
21st January 2012, 23:58
The burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the concept that it is up to those making a claim to prove it, or provide good supporting evidence for it, rather than for others to disprove it. This is the same concept as how a court of law operates. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty; it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.

This is the approach to claims that skeptics take. A claim presented will be doubted (presumed unproved) until the evidence in support of it can be examined. If the evidence supports the claim, either completely or beyond reasonable doubt, the claim will be accepted; otherwise it will be rejected unless or until further evidence is presented


Bunk is another word for nonsense and means the opposite of something that is true or factual. To debunk something means to remove the nonsense from it and reveal what is true. Skepticism is not about debunking per se, but debunking is a consequence of critical inquiry. In fact, contrary to popular understanding, the best way of showing that something is true is that it can resist attempts to prove it false: attempting to prove something false is a robust way of testing its validity.

The misconception here is not that skeptics sometimes end up debunking claims; but that the word 'debunker' is often used as a pejorative term. Debunking nonsense ideas, scams, hoaxes and misleading claims is of positive, not negative, value.

It should be made clear, however, that skeptics do not set out with the purpose of debunking claims (i.e. holding a preconceived and unjustified position of a claim's falsity). Some claims will simply end up being debunked as a consequence of skeptical inquiry. That's an important distinction to understand

So i ask the question once again if you are a skeptic why did you come here.

For answers ?

ghostrider
22nd January 2012, 00:08
some are comfortable in their box, secure with what they know, I feel if skeptics hang around long enough the light will turn on and they won't swim upstream but, instead go where the water takes them.

crested-duck
22nd January 2012, 00:11
I like the way you think. Could you please explain what he was thinking, I was left wondering what was the message he was trying to convey, what exactly was he asking? Never mind he posted answer while I was typing slowly with the PPP method-peek ,pick,peck

The One
22nd January 2012, 00:14
I like the way you think. Could you please explain what he was thinking, I was left wondering what was the message he was trying to convey, what exactly was he asking?

Simple

If you are a skeptic what brought you to Avalon

Its thats simple on sign up what did you say you had to give to the forum then

Oh i think we are going to have some fun with this

And chill out :mullet:

crested-duck
22nd January 2012, 00:18
I like the way you think. Could you please explain what he was thinking, I was left wondering what was the message he was trying to convey, what exactly was he asking?

Simple

If you are a skeptic what brought you to Avalon

Its thats simple

Oh i think we are going to have some fun with this

My insatiable quest for more knowledqe!!

The One
22nd January 2012, 00:20
I like the way you think. Could you please explain what he was thinking, I was left wondering what was the message he was trying to convey, what exactly was he asking?

Simple

If you are a skeptic what brought you to Avalon

Its thats simple

Oh i think we are going to have some fun with this

My insatiable quest for more knowledqe!!

Great answer

Ellisa
22nd January 2012, 01:59
There is really no such thing as 'A Sceptic'. I am sceptical about some things, unsure about other things, and convinced about the remainder.

I like to have proof, but belief can be present without proof. I definitely enjoy the previously unknown. I enjoy reading something that sounds preposterous, researching it and discovering another new layer.
But I am hard to convince and do not readily adopt unsubstantiated information.

Why am I here on Avalon? Because I like new ideas. I like to think outside the usual information of the mainstream publications. Although I am sceptical sometimes, I do not often challenge another's personal beliefs, though I may comment on the context of those beliefs.

The tone of the original post was almost accusatory to those who, like me, wish to extend our knowledge whilst not necessarily adopting the ideas we encounter here on Avalon. I enjoy the variety of views and information, whilst retaining my right to approach them with my usual degree of interested scepticism.

Rahkyt
22nd January 2012, 02:28
I've been called a skeptic before due to my reluctance to believe certain things without proof. I've personally seen discarnate entities, strange lights in the sky, have communicated telepathically, have bi-located and many other things others would be quite skeptical about, and yet, still, there are a few other things that even I believe are a bit 'out there' because I have not personally experienced them. This is not to say that I disbelieve them, but that I want to see the full argument for them.

Mike Gorman
22nd January 2012, 03:04
I am wondering if you had any particular Avalonians in mind The One?

humanalien
22nd January 2012, 03:15
A lier brought me here at the beginning. (Cough cough, Charles)

sandy
22nd January 2012, 03:22
The only thing I'm skeptical about is your reality NOT MINE :)

lightseeker
22nd January 2012, 03:35
This is an interesting thread The One, I have followed Kerry and Bill's work almost since it began. I stumbled on Project Camelot by accident, (correction: there is no such thing as accident).LOL. After having read and listened to almost their entire library of videos, I came to understand that the world I thought I lived in just did not and does not exist, it became a heck of a lott bigger and more interesting. I have since recovered from that initial shock, and am much happier living my life in a far more interesting and richer world that I could have imagined. I guess Imagine is a good word, because that's how we create our world with our thoughts. I finally decided to become a member of this wonder forum. I have not posted that many times, unless I felt I had something to offer. I have learned so much on this site from everyone. Your comments and wisdom and differing points of view have helped me greatly to expand my own boundries on many subject areas of my own reality. There is no going back, only forward, on this exciting journey with all of you. I do not necessarily agree with every comment or perspective that I may have read on Avalon, but I certainly respect people's views and because of that my own conciousness has expanded, to think more out of the box and look at things from many different perspectives. Thank you all for helping me on this interesting journey we call life.

onawah
22nd January 2012, 03:40
I like to see skeptics here on Avalon.
It's the cynics I have trouble with.
They have axes to grind, which does not lead to intelligent discourse, but often does lead to the grinding down of the more naive folks who are attracted here for instruction and sharing, and get ground to powder instead.
I came here because I had already found so many things I had put my faith in to be not at all what I thought them to be, via my exploration of the Internet.
In the process, which was disillusioning at first, I came to realize there were many much more growth-enhancing subjects to explore with other open minds than I thought I would ever have the good fortune to be exposed to.
I knew there were many more rabbit holes to jump into.
And I thought there was a good chance I could continue with that process here on Avalon.
Though the road gets rocky here on Avalon at times, there always seem to be gems to be found along the way.
It's been a real education.

58andfixed
22nd January 2012, 07:42
I like where you are going, yet I will digress to make an associated point that some may get.

In the beginning of my questing, I had not experienced a lot of clarity on the part of other questers. If someone knows that it is "seeking the Truth that will set them free," and they know NOT where that path will lead, nor the subsequent steps, they are not a skeptic. They are deeply curious, and deep curiosity is a powerful intention that takes one far down the narrow path of wisdom.

Most don't know what they are, and I would 'label' [I don't like labels just like most people don't, yet for sake of making a simple point I shall pick a generalized paint-brush] most as 'playing the devil's advocate' and seek to assess arguments to prepare to 'beat' or 'win.' Tire kickers. Not committed to any path, but will carry a pointy stick to poke with. Or simply bring their stick to further sharpen for the next available target.

Nearby this shingle I find myself noticing those that 'think they know' and are just 'believers with conviction' that one book calls "the blind who lead the blind."

It took me some 30 years of just wanting to understand before I discovered anything of substance. A perspective that brought cohesion, harmony and sense of a wide range of different issues.

Then I stumbled across the other side of the coin that goes along with "seeking the Truth, for It shall set you free."

It is the "now what" step. I've been in this stage of progress for about 15 years. My past 15 years won't be the same as someone else's, because I have different talents and different 'cracks.'

I have been pleased with my efforts.

You won't find me on a stage with a microphone. I'll be in the audience paying attention. I'm just looking for younger versions of me and attempt to give them a 'leg up.'

Meanwhile, I'll be looking for fertile soil to plant seeds, plowing around the stumps.

The seeds I plant are powerful enough to provide the clarity of thinking to create turncoats, just like Bill Wood, or like the movie "Sleep Dealer" (2008). It takes patience and trusting my notions. Some of my seeds were still growing some 5-10 years later.

I don't mind skeptics at all. However most that call themselves skeptic really aren't. Most don't really want to know the answers to some questions, and value mere opinion, mostly theirs.

- 58



So i ask the question once again if you are a skeptic why did you come here.
For answers ?

modwiz
22nd January 2012, 08:06
Skeptic may be softballing the description, but smirking poop-flinging monkeys has the ring of an ad hominem attack and, however closer to the case that description is, it must be rejected. We are left with the less than accurate, but acceptable, word skeptic.

David Trd1
22nd January 2012, 08:18
while i advocate the above list.
Skepticism should be based on curiosity and as such be open to change,fluid and consistantly updating said belief,perspective based on new information.Therein lies this site quality and uniqueness in my view,information sharing in a supportive atmosphere

i mean to ever truly believe,wholeheartedly in one particular viewpoint will close doors of thought later in experience.which will never find truth,in my view.I mean thats ultimately why were all here right...the truth:)

therefore, ''TRUE'' skepticism should be embraced.

peace:)

music
22nd January 2012, 08:21
So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers

Some will be here on assignment, obviously.

crosby
22nd January 2012, 08:40
Skeptic may be softballing the description, but smirking poop-flinging monkeys has the ring of an ad hominem attack and, however closer to the case that description is, it must be rejected. We are left with the less than accurate, but acceptable, word skeptic.

"...smirking poop-flinging monkeys...." i like that. sometimes i refer to them as bed wetters. but your description has a nice ha-ha quality about it. i will remember that phrase....... may i use it at a later date, should the occasion arise?
regards, corson

Bollinger
22nd January 2012, 08:43
From a logical stance questioning one’s scepticism is a meaningless and futile exercise because we are all sceptics in some form or another. Here is the proof. Gather up a sample from any population group you like, (even exclusively from Avalon will do), and then prepare an exhaustive list of questions that belong in the “esoteric” set. Now ask every one in the group what level of credulity (say 0 to 10) they attach to the particular subject on which the question is based.

Do you really imagine you will get a 10 for every question? Even if you chose a small sample of just one person (yourself), do you really think it is possible achieve a perfect score? No. So by definition, we are all sceptics and so are you.

Now for the question: why come to Avalon? It’s a fair one because there must have been a reason for going through the registration process and waiting to be “accepted”. Here is mine. If you witness a situation where post after post, comment after comment, people are repeating some mantra and thanking each other endlessly on how much it all “resonates” with them and how “blessed” they are for having encountered whatever it is they are discussing, naturally there is a tendency to be curious; unless of course you are a complete moron, and there are many millions of those too, who dismiss everything instantly with a score of 0, without a second thought.

It is a bit like the street salesman who appears to be shouting his head off about unbelievable things he is giving away and you notice a large crowd of people around him listening intently to what he’s saying. So you approach and join. Arranged on his table are all sorts of goodies. There is an impressive array blurry UFO videos, pseudo-scientists, healers, mind-readers, insiders, outsiders, abductees, telepathists, sensitives, Christians, Buddhists, Spiritualists, meditators, mediators, predictors, 2012’ers and conspiracy theorists of all shapes, sizes and colours. Without naming any names, I think even Jesus himself is here! I simply couldn’t resist it.

Jokes aside though, the real reason for joining is that far too many people were leading or being led up all sorts of dodgy garden paths based on faulty assumptions and reasoning and where I catch one that is so blatantly obvious, I try to speak out, for whatever it is worth. It isn’t going to win me any popularity contests but then if that was my intention, I’d have a quiet word with myself and sort things out, as it were.

Hope that answers it.

modwiz
22nd January 2012, 08:55
Skeptic may be softballing the description, but smirking poop-flinging monkeys has the ring of an ad hominem attack and, however closer to the case that description is, it must be rejected. We are left with the less than accurate, but acceptable, word skeptic.

"...smirking poop-flinging monkeys...." i like that. sometimes i refer to them as bed wetters. but your description has a nice ha-ha quality about it. i will remember that phrase....... may i use it at a later date, should the occasion arise?
regards, corson

By all means, feel free to use it.

David Trd1
22nd January 2012, 08:59
So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers

Some will be here on assignment, obviously.

wheres waldo?! :laser: :)

joedjemal
22nd January 2012, 09:24
Well, I suppose that on some things you could call me a sceptic, it depends on what it is. My main reason for being here is to learn. I love it when I come across a subject I haven't encountered before. When I do I start searching out all the information I can find about it and start trying to put together a coherent picture about it.

I know UFOs are real because I've seen quite a few myself but that doesn't mean that every video on youtube saying it's of a UFO is.

There are a lot of people out there putting out false information as well, either they have an agenda like the illuminists, seeking more power, or they want money through views on youtube, or it's just for an ego boost. The trick is trying to filter out that false information so the true stuff gives you a clearer picture of what's going on. The One, you put up a lot of UFO videos and sometimes i comment on them, usually when I spot an obvious fake or something that is a natural phonemonon that I know about which has been mistaken as a UFO.

My purpose isn't to debunk all UFOs it's to help filter out the false information. I'd love to know what the aliens or mds are up to. It's one of the main things I'm searching for here at Avalon but I have yet to find it. There isn't a clear picture yet. Sometimes you can get a picture of what the disseminators of false information are doing by putting together a picture of what their information is creating. It gives you an insight into their minds and agendas so the false stuff can be just as valuable as the real stuff, you just have to try and work out which is which.

In any case my purpose here is to find as much truth as I can both from genuine info and from patterns created by disinfo. Both are valuable if viewed objectively.

Edit: sometimes you can find the truth by seeing what the disinformation is pushing you away from.

Mike Gorman
22nd January 2012, 09:34
I like 58andfixed's answer a lot, as Socrates famously said: 'The unexamined life is not worth living'-and Socrates was a
vigorous skeptic, often annoying 'experts' with questions that clearly demonstrated they actually knew very little, but were too dishonest to
accept-he was forced to drink Hemlock for his 'attitude'. You can't possibly accept everything on face value, any intelligent person has to
evaluate what they are seeing, hearing. I strongly believe there is a whole lot going on we do not understand, we have been manipulated and outright lied to
by TPTB-but I do not accept every 'alternative' explanation or Video presented. You have to be discerning with all information-that does not make
you a 'non-believer' or guffawing faeces flinging primate-we want quality, true information yes?

modwiz
22nd January 2012, 09:47
I like 58andfixed's answer a lot, as Socrates famously said: 'The unexamined life is not worth living'-and Socrates was a
vigorous skeptic, often annoying 'experts' with questions that clearly demonstrated they actually knew very little, but were too dishonest to
accept-he was forced to drink Hemlock for his 'attitude'. You can't possibly accept everything on face value, any intelligent person has to
evaluate what they are seeing, hearing. I strongly believe there is a whole lot going on we do not understand, we have been manipulated and outright lied to
by TPTB-but I do not accept every 'alternative' explanation or Video presented. You have to be discerning with all information-that does not make
you a 'non-believer' or guffawing faeces flinging primate-we want quality, true information yes?

You are seriously missing my point. This is not about skeptics. Skeptics are fine with me. This is about those whose only mission is to distract and break up a good debate with poo flinging. My point is that the word skeptic got used but it was not the right word.

I hope my point is clearer now. Appreciation of subtlety seems lost here.

onawah
22nd January 2012, 09:57
The word you want may be cynic, Modwiz.
Cynics who cannot even believe in the sincerity of another, and so must make fun of everything that is sincerely expressed.
They are truly sick, but how can you reach a cynic?
Harder to reach than a fool, I think.



I like 58andfixed's answer a lot, as Socrates famously said: 'The unexamined life is not worth living'-and Socrates was a
vigorous skeptic, often annoying 'experts' with questions that clearly demonstrated they actually knew very little, but were too dishonest to
accept-he was forced to drink Hemlock for his 'attitude'. You can't possibly accept everything on face value, any intelligent person has to
evaluate what they are seeing, hearing. I strongly believe there is a whole lot going on we do not understand, we have been manipulated and outright lied to
by TPTB-but I do not accept every 'alternative' explanation or Video presented. You have to be discerning with all information-that does not make
you a 'non-believer' or guffawing faeces flinging primate-we want quality, true information yes?

You are seriously missing my point. This is not about skeptics. Skeptics are fine with me. This is about those whose only mission is to distract and break up a good debate with poo flinging. My point is that the word skeptic got used but it was not the right word.

I hope my point is clearer now. Appreciation of subtlety seems lost here.

Update: apologies for now-corrected typos.

crosby
22nd January 2012, 10:04
one is not supposed to "accept every 'alternative' explanation or Video presented." it is because we are capable of using our gift of discernment that we are separate from the "guffawing faeces flinging primate." being skeptical about new information is healthy. it is when it is taken to the next level that is becomes a tiring situation.

when an idea or theory is presented on this forum, or any other forum, it is presented so that one can learn from it. one must do his/her own homework and dig deeper to learn more. sometimes, threads are presented as a lighthearted gestures not to be taken quite so seriously. there is NO thread that gives anyone of us all of the answers...... as Pie said in his thread: there is no instant enlightenment. you will not have the answers handed to you. you must do your own work.

i think the bottom line here is: if you do not resonate with the information presented in a particular thread, by all means, move on to another thread. find something to your liking, something that you would want to research more. there are too many times that members stick around, castigating the op because of their own subjective opinion. or other nominal points of interest, i.e., "i don't like the title", it has been happening all to often. hence the phrase, ...smirking poop-flinging monkeys.... i have found that silent solidarity works well when disagreeing with someone else's opinions. if i don't like what i'm reading, i move on.
regards, corson

being a skeptic is a good thing. we all have the capacity to use our critical thinking skills to our utmost ability.

joedjemal
22nd January 2012, 10:28
one is not supposed to "accept every 'alternative' explanation or Video presented." it is because we are capable of using our gift of discernment that we are separate from the "guffawing faeces flinging primate." being skeptical about new information is healthy. it is when it is taken to the next level that is becomes a tiring situation.

when an idea or theory is presented on this forum, or any other forum, it is presented so that one can learn from it. one must do his/her own homework and dig deeper to learn more. sometimes, threads are presented as a lighthearted gestures not to be taken quite so seriously. there is NO thread that gives anyone of us all of the answers...... as Pie said in his thread: there is no instant enlightenment. you will not have the answers handed to you. you must do your own work.

i think the bottom line here is: if you do not resonate with the information presented in a particular thread, by all means, move on to another thread. find something to your liking, something that you would want to research more. there are too many times that members stick around, castigating the op because of their own subjective opinion. or other nominal points of interest, i.e., "i don't like the title", it has been happening all to often. hence the phrase, ...smirking poop-flinging monkeys.... i have found that silent solidarity works well when disagreeing with someone else's opinions. if i don't like what i'm reading, i move on.
regards, corson

being a skeptic is a good thing. we all have the capacity to use our critical thinking skills to our utmost ability.

I don't agree that one should simply remain silent, especially when what is being presented is obviously disinformation or is being presented with an ulterior motive. Information should be publicly analysed in my opinion so that its origins and purpose become apparent. I don't, of course, mean that this analysis should extend to ad hominem attacks on the poster.

When the originator of a piece of information is presenting it simply to manipulate the reader, that manipulation should be made clear by those that see it. If someone can show me that any particular belief of mine is incorrect with reason or evidence I'm delighted because it makes my whole world view closer to the reality of it.

crosby
22nd January 2012, 10:43
yes, but how do you know it is being presented to simply manipulate the reader? it could very well be that original posters' true belief. in your opinion it may very well be balderdash, but.....not everyone else will agree with that. everyone here is capable of discerning the information presented on their own. they do not need it to be made clear. they already see it. silent solidarity sends the message that this piece of particular information is not ringing true to the readers....... quite frankly, it seems impossible to post your analysis on every single new thread that appears warning others that it is not true.
regards, corson

kemo
22nd January 2012, 10:51
I hesitate to weigh in on this as this could easily become a game of semantics. What is meant by "sceptic" everyone will have slightly different views on. The self-confessed sceptics in my local UFO society refer to people who consider that UFOs to be reality (like me) as "believers", I myself regard sceptcism as a belief system in itself, though sceptics often don't like to admit it. If you approach matters with doubt or incredulity that is not keeping an open mind, though in reality very few people have a truly open mind on everything.

I slightly object to being regarded as a "believer" since it seems to me that there is a perfectly reasonable basis for the hypothesis that UFOs are physical objects, some of which come from other star systems and that there have been "close encounters" between ETs and humans - even between ETs and governments and military. There is simply too much evidence in millions of eye-witness reports, photographs/videos, plus personal testimony of abductees and whistleblowers. But if Richard Dolan, to name but one, is a "believer" then I'll also put my hand up.

It is impossible however to sort all the wheat from the chaff and so one just has to accept that one's perspective is bound to be incomplete and imperfect.

One of my UFO group dismisses "anecdotal" evidence and stated that if I were to say that I had seen a UFO at close hand or had had an abduction experience he's be interested but wouldn't believe me. I don't like the term used - anecdotal - as it implies a story to me. What we are talking about is eye witness reports. Bear with me and you'll see where I am going with this.

Here we have problem. We are dealing with what are generally referred to as paranormal phenomena. While we would all like scientifically verifiable proof, the fact is we are dealing with things that are outside our science. Moreover if you claim to have made a scientific discovery you publish your data so that others may verify the experiment. We are not in that situation, it is indeed more like historical study or a court of law where you need to sift through all the evidence available. If you dismissed "anecdotal" evidence it would be hard to convict anyone. If someone says they witnessed someone commit a crime then attention would turn to the reliabilty of the witness and their account of what they saw. You certainly would not dismiss the testimony out of hand or the legal system would be in big trouble.

There is certainly much UFO evidence of the types mentioned but, to take my UFO club friend, the fact is that no amount of evidence short of ET landing in front of his house would convince him. It's true that photos can be faked, witnessses may be lying, delusional etc. Physical evidence i.e. crashed saucers is hard to come by because if there were any such you know for a fact that it would not be left lying around for people to pick up souvenirs, but would be and has been spirited away. Evidence from pilots sighting UFOs and communicating with the ground crew while chasing the UFO, simultaneously picked up on radar in some cases, can hardly be dismissed as "anecdotal" and some of the older photos are less likely to be faked since they didn't have photoshop then! But for some people the evidence will never be enough. My UFO club friend could no doubt cite Occams Razor or the scientfic approach, in a way it's easy peasy to say "prove it". The problem with such approaches in relation to paranormal phenomena is that the simplest explanation for any paranormal phenomena will always be trick of the light, swamp gas, delusions etc. Moreover few of us have the resources to investigate incidents and must eaither rely on that is reported in the media or on reliable researchers like Rich Dolan. The kind of sceptic I am talking about remains perpetually sitting on the fence. As I say no evidence will be sufficient for some and I can only conclude that this is a result of their own belief system or because they are not comfortable with the conclusion which the evidence leads to. Also I hate to say it but this mindset smacks of a certain laziness: evidence is available if you look for it. Maybe not absolute proof, maybe not even conclusive beyond all reaonable doubt but certainly on the balance of probabilty. So my question to my so-called sceptic colleague was "well what's the point then, why bother at all?"

Enough from me I think.

joedjemal
22nd January 2012, 10:53
yes, but how do you know it is being presented to simply manipulate the reader? it could very well be that original posters' true belief. in your opinion it may very well be balderdash, but.....not everyone else will agree with that. everyone here is capable of discerning the information presented on their own. they do not need it to be made clear. they already see it. silent solidarity sends the message that this piece of particular information is not ringing true to the readers....... quite frankly, it seems impossible to post your analysis on every single new thread that appears warning others that it is not true.
regards, corson

Sometimes things are obvious lies. If I were posting something that someone else here knew to be a lie I'd expect them to tell me so and why they think it is so. My purpose is to find the truth as I suspect is most people's purpose here. I'd expect to have false beliefs demolished. I'd be quite annoyed if I were to find out that people were deliberately leaving me believing in a delusion or a lie. Wouldn't you?

Or would you prefer to continue believing in the nonsense simply because you were more comfortable there? And if so why would you be in a truth seeking forum?

joedjemal
22nd January 2012, 10:58
I hesitate to weigh in on this as this could easily become a game of semantics. What is meant by "sceptic" everyone will have slightly different views on. The self-confessed sceptics in my local UFO society refer to people who consider that UFOs to be reality (like me) as "believers", I myself regard sceptcism as a belief system in itself, though sceptics often don't like to admit it. If you approach matters with doubt or incredulity that is not keeping an open mind, though in reality very few people have a truly open mind on everything.

I slightly object to being regarded as a "believer" since it seems to me that there is a perfectly reasonable basis for the hypothesis that UFOs are physical objects, some of which come from other star systems and that there have been "close encounters" between ETs and humans - even between ETs and governments and military. There is simply too much evidence in millions of eye-witness reports, photographs/videos, plus personal testimony of abductees and whistleblowers. But if Richard Dolan, to name but one, is a "believer" then I'll also put my hand up.

It is impossible however to sort all the wheat from the chaff and so one just has to accept that one's perspective is bound to be incomplete and imperfect.

One of my UFO group dismisses "anecdotal" evidence and stated that if I were to say that I had seen a UFO at close hand or had had an abduction experience he's be interested but wouldn't believe me. I don't like the term used - anecdotal - as it implies a story to me. What we are talking about is eye witness reports. Bear with me and you'll see where I am going with this.

Here we have problem. We are dealing with what are generally referred to as paranormal phenomena. While we would all like scientifically verifiable proof, the fact is we are dealing with things that are outside our science. Moreover if you claim to have made a scientific discovery you publish your data so that others may verify the experiment. We are not in that situation, it is indeed more like historical study or a court of law where you need to sift through all the evidence available. If you dismissed "anecdotal" evidence it would be hard to convict anyone. If someone says they witnessed someone commit a crime then attention would turn to the reliabilty of the witness and their account of what they saw. You certainly would not dismiss the testimony out of hand or the legal system would be in big trouble.

There is certainly much UFO evidence of the types mentioned but, to take my UFO club friend, the fact is that no amount of evidence short of ET landing in front of his house would convince him. It's true that photos can be faked, witnessses may be lying, delusional etc. Physical evidence i.e. crashed saucers is hard to come by because if there were any such you know for a fact that it would not be left lying around for people to pick up souvenirs, but would be and has been spirited away. Evidence from pilots sighting UFOs and communicating with the ground crew while chasing the UFO, simultaneously picked up on radar in some cases, can hardly be dismissed as "anecdotal" and some of the older photos are less likely to be faked since they didn't have photoshop then! But for some people the evidence will never be enough. My UFO club friend could no doubt cite Occams Razor or the scientfic approach, in a way it's easy peasy to say "prove it". The problem with such approaches in relation to paranormal phenomena is that the simplest explanation for any paranormal phenomena will always be trick of the light, swamp gas, delusions etc. Moreover few of us have the resources to investigate incidents and must eaither rely on that is reported in the media or on reliable researchers like Rich Dolan. The kind of sceptic I am talking about remains perpetually sitting on the fence. As I say no evidence will be sufficient for some and I can only conclude that this is a result of their own belief system or because they are not comfortable with the conclusion which the evidence leads to. Also I hate to say it but this mindset smacks of a certain laziness: evidence is available if you look for it. Maybe not absolute proof, maybe not even conclusive beyond all reaonable doubt but certainly on the balance of probabilty. So my question to my so-called sceptic colleague was "well what's the point then, why bother at all?"

Enough from me I think.

I don't belive Occams razor is a valid way of analysing things. The universe tends to complexity not simplicity, all you have to do to see that is to look at life.

kemo
22nd January 2012, 11:08
Cannot gainsay that joedjemal.

vortexpoint
22nd January 2012, 11:42
Personally I have learned to make a distinction between Skeptics and Pseudoskeptics. There's no problem with a real skeptic who questions everything (even their own views). Unfortunately most contemporary people calling themselves skeptics are in fact pseudoskeptics. Pseudoskeptics operate strictly in the so-called consensus paradigm. They consider only theories and views that are officially correct. As tools they use ridicule, ad hominem attacks and semantic games (such as 'extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence' which can be used to refute any evidence as insufficient).

This site nails it pretty well:


Therefore, in truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics (who call themselves "skeptics") are NOT open minded truth seekers who question things and are attuned to possibilities. Rather, they are ridiculers and prosecutors of anything that strays outside the status quo or challenges the official version of things. They are defenders of orthodoxy and materialism. And they will distort, dismiss, obfuscate and play "verbal hopscotch" to get their way.

They've hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses the act of questioning, rather than to the questioner himself. In doing so, they've pretended to be the opposite of what they are to hide their true agenda, which is to protect the agenda of the status quo power elite and keep people remaining sheeple.

Source: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

NeverMind
22nd January 2012, 12:48
Personally I have learned to make a distinction between Skeptics and Pseudoskeptics.

Absolutely. Pseudosceptics is the term I use to describe such people. (The amazingly obtuse Randi comes to mind.)


The word iyou want be cynic, Modwiz.
Cynics who cannot even believe in the sincerity of another, and so must make fun of everything that is sincerely expressed.
They are truly sick, but how can you reach a cynic?

Indeed. Cynics are deeply wounded people. Colin Wilson used a wonderfully accurate (in my opinion) term to describe such self-styled "sceptics": they seem to be in a state of "arrested development". (Again, Randi comes to mind; he's a prime example of such a person.)


but smirking poop-flinging monkeys has the ring of an ad hominem attack

Absolutely. But keep in mind that such people are on both sides (or however many sides there are) of the fence.
While browsing through the forums of different "alternative" communities, I have seen quite a few "love & light" poop-flinging monkeys, especially towards the sceptics in their midst.

More important, however, is (I think) the intention behind the perceived "poop-flinging".
Sometimes, when you really, really, desperately, passionately and furiously, want to believe something, the most reasonable thing to do is to subject that pretty new "car" that you want so badly to a merciless "crash" test. Without ad hominem attacks; that's a given. But relentlessly. So that when you finally give in, your conviction will rest on solid grounds.


we all have the capacity to use our critical thinking skills to our utmost ability.

Alas, we do not.
As difficult as it may be to believe, there are people whose critical thinking skills are severely lacking, or their ignorance (as in: lack of basic information about the mechanics of the world) is so overwhelming they cannot think "critically".


yes, but how do you know it is being presented to simply manipulate the reader? it could very well be that original posters' true belief.

By subjecting the proponent to intense scrutiny of the sceptical kind. That's exactly the role of sceptical inquiry. To keep things clean and credible.


It is impossible however to sort all the wheat from the chaff and so one just has to accept that one's perspective is bound to be incomplete and imperfect.

:amen:
Spoken like a true sceptic. :)

And finally, my own answer to the OP's repeat question.

Having experienced (from day one of my life) too many inexplicable events to even remember them all, let alone count them, I set out to see just how truly in-explicable they are.
Not because seemingly inexplicable events make me "uncomfortable" in the least - for the first eighteen years of my life I thought everyone experienced them (no, really) - but because I want to KNOW. And even though I know that knowing is impossible, in the sense that even the best human understanding is probably extremely limited face to the whole reality of all there is, at least I want to keep my mind as open as possible. And that means accepting the fact that there may be "logical" explanations, undetected by me, for any event that seems to transcend the ordinary.
It's just a question of mental hygiene. :-)

And one way of examining the realm of those in-explicable experiences is observing - and testing, when deemed necessary - the beliefs of those who, like myself, tend to believe in such things. Like many people on this forum.
So there. :)

BestLion
22nd January 2012, 13:33
Then there's the sort of healthy skepticism that allows people not be taken in by shills and BS and lots of that is posted anywhere, not just here. And it also prompts a certain amount of noise.
A lot of people are skeptical because they have been taken advantage of it the past..like I bought some Billy Meir works only to find it to be a total hoax. So it is GOOD to view all facts and info before we jump on any video about 2012 or UFOs..to view all sides-historical-footage etc..
Am I skeptical? On many things yes..esp UFOS and many UFO videos out there..most are deceptive and lies..I try to sort through all that and find the ones or the contacts that could be real.
About issues like 2012...yes this is a strong case, and needs to be taken serious! Egyptians, Mayans, Hopi all predicted this..and Egypt and Mayans through writings have all linked this year. I have read both sides-the debunkers and real people..I am mixed on it..but I am weary of 2012 on the cosmic scale.
Extra dimensional beings..? 100% real! fairies, elves, aliens, Bermuda Triangle, etc..this is how they mainly get to earth via other dimensions.
But as always we must be open minded and view all sides..esp stuff like what is floating around here on a 'Galactic Federation' of benevolent beings..That is very suspicious! 1sst the contacts..and then if benevolent..I think many beings are for self interest..even the gods in all religions are Megalomaniacs.

panopticon
22nd January 2012, 14:15
Below is the vision and values of avalon
What is that Message and Vision?
In creating this new forum, we're encouraging all members who've been invited here to:
•Start or participate in community projects that will radiate out to the members' communities - or
•Post information and participate in regards to awakening; spirituality; healing humanity; galactic and earth changes; '2012' (whatever that may mean!); geopolitics; new science; hidden history; ETs and disclosure; what we are not being told by those who might wish to control us - and much else
So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.
Cheers

G'day The One,

I watched all the Project Camelot interviews and after PA MKII came into being I decided to join (after a bit of procrastination).
Truthfully my reasons for being a member here are varied:

As a Permaculturist I enjoy and participate periodically in the 'Water and Food' and 'Shelter' sub-forums.
I also have a concern over the potential problems associated with the 2013 solar maximum so I enjoy and participate periodically in the 'Solar Activities, Reports and Discussions' sub-forum.
The consolidation of money, control and power into the hands of a relatively small number of "corporate entities", "families", "individuals" and "guilds" is also a major point of interest for me. I enjoy reviewing this from a historical perspective as I find it provides insight into some aspects of the present situation.
When I see something that I don't understand I investigate the "what, where, when, who, how and why" questions (not just in this forum by the way). If that is offensive I'm sorry to those I've offended, it's just the way I am.
I understand that my thoughts are confined and defined by my language and are the result of my interactions, personal experiences and experiences of others as related through the limitations of language (both my understanding of it and the understanding of it by others).
Humanity is not the sole sentient being on this planet nor do I believe that sentience is isolated to this planet.
The long record of "encounters" throughout human history seems to provide adequate evidence that "we are not alone".
I create threads and posts that are not "regurgitations" of others and try to provide an accompanying dialogue when I do post an article by another with reasons as to why I chose that particular article, and what I got from it, so as to provide possible insights into my perspective which may be different to others. I also appreciate others sharing their perspective on the varied subjects that are presented at Avalon and enjoy the various dialogues this creates. Without a variety of discourses, and perspectives, Avalon would become a place I would no longer frequent.

There are other reasons that I chose to be a member here but I don't want to be a bore. Just because sometimes I question things, does that make it wrong or is a more groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) perspective wanted?

I would just add that when the "doom sayers" tell me "the end is nigh" I remember the old Aussie poem 'Said Hanrahan' by John O'Brien (AKA Patrick Hartigan) and the saying it produced '"we'll be rooned" said Hanrahan'...


"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn, Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears, And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years.
"It's lookin' crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad, For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remark He squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt." "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out.
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain; From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain.
"They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry." The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass; There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak-- "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week."
A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark; And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark.
"We want a inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last; But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought, We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoon On iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elves On dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work, Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop; "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to fold A mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense, And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lass Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark, And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt; We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
I hope this is sufficient...
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Jenci
22nd January 2012, 14:47
In creating this new forum, we're encouraging all members who've been invited here to:

•Start or participate in community projects that will radiate out to the members' communities - or
•Post information and participate in regards to awakening; spirituality; healing humanity; galactic and earth changes; '2012' (whatever that may mean!); geopolitics; new science; hidden history; ETs and disclosure; what we are not being told by those who might wish to control us - and much else

So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers


Hi The One,

How about the skeptics who have come here, are Avalon's gift?

Very often in life we receive gifts but reject them because of the packaging because it is not how we expect a gift to look.

Our evolution as a species is realising our true nature (the One) and it is only done through burning through all ideas/beliefs/concepts which filter our perception of the truth of what we are. This is done through questioning of everything.

The more uncertain we are, the closer we are to that realisation. It's when we are certain or believing something that we can get led away from it. Some may say that they are reviewing information with an open mind but really they are reviewing information based on a foundation of certain facts and conditions which have been assumed true without questioning.

The skeptics are questioning these conditions which may have just been accepted as the truth.

Resistence to this questioning for many is part of the journey but if we are a skeptic or not a skeptic, then we can still be what we are, in a respectful way.

Jeanette

Mad Hatter
22nd January 2012, 15:05
Mad hatter gets ready to eat all his hats,

I am that which I cannot point to and say I am that...

Be sure to serve the hemlock with rasberry juice :p

9eagle9
22nd January 2012, 15:41
There's also discernment, which is not exactly skepticism but using one's powers of accessment. Not judgement just the ability to access a situation or information. Does it contradict itself? Is filled with opposing core values? How much does this information integrate with what I've already observed?

Some provactive fodder is provided and people with discernement can say "Oh thats interesting, I'll file that away for future reference'. Regardless if I believe in any of this stuff, some of it's interesting. It may not be releveant to me in the now (or ever) but still interesting. Humans like to have their curiosity picqued. When curiosity is fulfilled is when we start running into trouble. We equate satisfying with truth. Conversely we equate non satisfying with 'false'. It's curiosity that is the problem though.

I had war with myself over alternative media. Stop watching that stuff! I felt like I was banged around all over the place,and I took all of it with a grain of salt, but I realized regardless if I believe any of this stuff or not,....it's our natural curiosity.

Those who are deeply attached to the fodder, for what ever reason, will rigidly defend or deny based on what sort of attachment they have to the information.

We don't have to attach to any information.

People with discernment choose not to make any information a belief, that keeps the mind open. They aren't choosing it as truth or false. People with discernment can accept what is obviated or at least demonstrated. And choose to relegate speculations as interesting possiblities but they don't glom onto it as a beleif system. Lots of stuff I'm skeptical about and with a sound reason but it's still interesting.

There's nothing out there we have to embrace as a belief system.

crested-duck
22nd January 2012, 15:53
I am wondering if you had any particular Avalonians in mind The One? I'm wiiling to bet he does, as do all of us here. But I feel that is a question better off asked and answered in your head, rather than spoken out loud.

The One
22nd January 2012, 15:57
Hi The One,

How about the skeptics who have come here, are Avalon's gift?

Very often in life we receive gifts but reject them because of the packaging because it is not how we expect a gift to look.

My friend thats the point i never said skeptics wernt useful far from it,Just getting peoples opinions and what brought skeptics here.There are many differnet types of skeptics, some useful some not :cool:

mountain_jim
22nd January 2012, 16:47
Reposting something I posted elsewhere, as I like the writer Robert Anton Wilson's take on healthy skepticism, belief systems, and most important to me, open-mindedness to possibilty.

That said, I also feel I have had to try and dodge a flung poo or two here of late. A few of Wilson's quotes from his writings:



The Western World has been brainwashed by Aristotle for the last 2,500 years. The unconscious, not quite articulate, belief of most Occidentals is that there is one map which adequately represents reality. By sheer good luck, every Occidental thinks he or she has the map that fits. Guerrilla ontology, to me, involves shaking up that certainty. I use what in modern physics is called the "multi-model" approach, which is the idea that there is more than one model to cover a given set of facts. As I've said, novel writing involves learning to think like other people. My novels are written so as to force the reader to see things through different reality grids rather than through a single grid. It's important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world. My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. If one can only see things according to one's own belief system, one is destined to become virtually deaf, dumb, and blind. It's only possible to see people when one is able to see the world as others see it. That's what guerrilla ontology is — breaking down this one-model view and giving people a multi-model perspective.
////////////
Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover will prove. And if the Thinker thinks passionately enough, the Prover will prove the thought so conclusively that you will never talk a person out of such a belief, even if it is something as remarkable as the notion that there is a gaseous vertebrate of astronomical heft ("GOD") who will spend all eternity torturing people who do not believe in his religion.

//////////

I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.

//////

Obviously, the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become. Resistance to new information, however, has a strong neurological foundation in all animals, as indicated by studies of imprinting and conditioning. Most animals, including most domesticated primates (humans) show a truly staggering ability to "ignore" certain kinds of information — that which does not "fit" their imprinted/conditioned reality-tunnel. We generally call this "conservatism" or "stupidity", but it appears in all parts of the political spectrum, and in learned societies as well as in the Ku Klux Klan.

////

Animals outline their territories with their excretions, humans outline their territories by ink excretions on paper. /////

Following Korzybski, I put things in probabilities, not absolutes... My only originality lies in applying this zetetic attitude outside the hardest of the hard sciences, physics, to softer sciences and then to non-sciences like politics, ideology, jury verdicts and, of course, conspiracy theory.

music
22nd January 2012, 20:47
So Skeptics if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers

Some will be here on assignment, obviously.

wheres waldo?! :laser: :)

Don't forget Wenda, I think I recently had an exchange with her on another thread.

christian
22nd January 2012, 21:08
99% of you here are sceptical about the ways on earth right now, governments, religions, name all the institutionalized branches of control.

So why did you come to earth then?

To make it a better place, to teach people, to experience and all the rest of it, I suppose.

---

And just as there are folks on earth right now, who have another agenda, same is true for this forum.

Cidersomerset
22nd January 2012, 21:49
You have a point Chiquetet.....If You Are Skeptical, About Skeptics !! You Must Be A Skeptic !!!

http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/graphics/obamahitler.jpg


I'm a little high on Annie at the momment...LOL...

RWzRKxhpPA0

Don't worry about me I'm having fun......steve

58andfixed
23rd January 2012, 04:44
This thread is a bone with real meat on it!

I don't like the idea of being someone who is going to "change the world" or "make anyone think a certain way."

What I prefer doing is to evoke deeper thought, and permitting people the freewill choice to manifest changes that are better for themselves, because they see a bigger circle of connection between choices & consequences.

There typically is some time lag between the introduction of a thought that sticks in the mind, and the embracing of the thought because of its relevancy and importance.

So I introduce the idea that ideas are simply information. Information vetted, challenged & examined can become a belief, although many have been socially engineered by Public Schools, MSM, Organized Religion, Political System, Financial System and Justice System to simply accept an authority as something they will accept as their personal belief - with no examination.

There are others who find benefit to being fully invested in some one belief or another, the belief not being examined, or think their belief fully examined, limit any examination by their cognitive bias, and be part of the choir, or a 'believer with conviction.'

I submit that a person who is fully committed to seeking the truth, wherever it leads them, goes beyond mere belief, or even belief with conviction, when that idea transcends into a mode of living. They understand the idea and it is more important than to leave it as an idea, a 'mere belief.' The idea discovered and vetted needs to be acted upon and lived. And yet, there may yet be something that they don't know they don't yet know.

There is potential for an error not yet discovered. This would be true freedom. Nothing wrong with this process. We are human. Better an idea examined and tried with effort than merely toyed with.

Is this mere pontification of just an intellectual brain fart ? Let's see if I can summon up a point of reference that reflects some deep thinking.

I dig up out of the Internet archives a court case going back to the Vietnam War, and one Dennis Murray Cummins, some information of which can be found here. (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/425/646/175194/)

I select the following:

¶4 "(1) the registrant's claim of conscientious objection is viewed to be more moralistic and philosophical than religious in nature, "

¶38 "A prima facie case of the registrant's sincerity is not made merely by a statement of his beliefs, without more, for his earnestness may be called into question by the very untimeliness with which the alleged opposition to war..."

¶43 "Beliefs which are essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code do not satisfy the statutory conscientious objector exemption test, and even though the registrant sincerely holds the beliefs which he described .."

Not relevant to my point, however I include this as I know the issue is of major interest of late:

¶7 "Every citizen, including youthful registrants under the Selective Service laws, is entitled to be substantively informed as to any governmental action which may affect his liberty or life. No governmental procedure may stand which fails to provide such information. To be both fairly and timely advised is fundamental to the basic concepts of due process. 'Clandestine due process' has never found favor or constitutional basis in courts of law."

So I put before my fellow participants here on PA, those that seek to understand issues and concepts relative to belief, skepticism, conviction, making, accepting and mode of living the following summary:

- opinion & mere belief are simple intellectual forms of toying with life.
- conviction may seem to be a deeper demonstration.
- until one commits to living life after having found a truth, to test the validity of it, doubt and error are ever a potential - and it's OK to make these kinds of mistakes.

The last step is the one where more questions and perspectives will be found, and tweaking is permitted. Points of reference for this are numerous, however in the interest of brevity, I'll leave these aside unless asked for some.

I discovered the about Court Case through an PodCast by Patrick Timpone with George Gordon (http://library.georgegordon.com/). George has been interviewed a number of times, this (http://www.oneradionetwork.com/%E2%80%9Chow-to-be-free-in-an-unfree-world%E2%80%9D/living-with-out-the-government-pay-less-taxes-thursday-january-20-9-am/) would be one.

I trust everyone on this thread will enjoy the clarity I enjoy on these issues.

I could have picked any one of a number of posts to reply to, and I hope that 9eagle9 appreciates my collaboration on this thread.

- 58
There's also discernment, which is not exactly skepticism ...

We don't have to attach to any information.

There's nothing out there we have to embrace as a belief system.

Borden
23rd January 2012, 07:07
Hi, The One,

I consider myself skeptical, but not cynical. Like many others I came here having seen that Charles interview, and because I was interested in it. Pretty soon though I found myself skeptical about that, and ever since then I've had the feeling that disbelieving certain things posted here is frowned upon by some members. I disbelieve a lot that is posted here, but I still come here because of the stuff that I do find credible and interesting.

I don't like cynicism any more than I like idiotic credulity. I also think that some members feel afraid to voice doubts about certain assertions and fan clubs here because they know they will be attacked by believers. I haven't been attacked in that way, not so I've noticed anyway, but I know some have, and it's depressing.

If I voice doubts about something here it's not out of a need to shoot down anything that doesn't have scientific proof, it's because I don't want a place for good information to also be a dumping ground for every flake, nutcase and con-artist on the Internet. There are other forums for that!

In terms of the list in your original post, several of those subjects interest me, but not all. I tend to just avoid the threads about subjects I'm not interested in, obviously. If I wanted to read threads that I'm not interested in, or which are about subjects I find silly or only for the gullible, then I would consider myself a mean-spirited git for commenting. But if I am reading about a subject that does interest me and I disagree with or doubt something, then I'll consider mentioning that, because as other posters have said, I'm interested in the truth about those subjects, and part of that process must surely be filtering out the lies and the nonsense.

If Galileo had come out and said, "Hey, guys ... I think the world might actually be round" ... and a load of people had sided with him, adding things like, "Yes" And it's made of toffee!" ... or "You're correct, because the great toffee gods have told me so in my head" ... then I don't think he or the truth would have got very far.

Is there really anyone who comes here only to debunk? Or is this simply the suspicion of those who would like to spout nonsense unimpeded? Just to clarify ... I'm certainly not accusing you of that! Your original post says nothing of the kind, I know, and I found it an interesting question. But I think it's possible that some around here are a little too quick to shout 'disinfo agent' or 'sponsored debunker' merely because they don't like to be disagreed with. Or worse, they insinuate it, which creates a climate of paranoia and unfriendliness. Well, it would be just as easy to go around shouting 'dribbling lunatic' or 'credulous flake' ... but we don't do that because it's bad manners.

I'm interested in, and have experience of some subjects that if I talked about here I could well understand people thinking I was a dribbling lunatic or a credulous flake. So if I do choose to post here about them it will probably be when I have something to back it up with, or at least with the reasonable minded preface of "Look, I know this sounds nuts, but please hear me out."

I like the fact that I can pick and choose here, and stay away from the things I have no interest in. It's a good thing in this grim world of evil paradigms and mass hypnosis. However, someone who is skeptical of absolutely nothing is an idiot. As with my Galileo example, they sort of let the side down. In fact, if we're going to be suspicious of anyone here, I think it should be those who not only present the most outlandish 'information' but brook no disagreement or doubt. Hmmm.

So I guess I'm here because I'm looking for information that gets me closer to the truth about those subjects I'm interested in. And I do find it here sometimes, otherwise I wouldn't still come here.

Borden

Kindred
23rd January 2012, 15:57
I like to see skeptics here on Avalon.
It's the cynics I have trouble with.
They have axes to grind, which does not lead to intelligent discourse, but often does lead to the grinding down of the more naive folks who are attracted here for instruction and sharing, and get ground to powder instead.
I came here because I had already found so many things I had put my faith in to be not at all what I thought them to be, via my exploration of the Internet.
In the process, which was disillusioning at first, I came to realize there were many much more growth-enhancing subjects to explore with other open minds than I thought I would ever have the good fortune to be exposed to.
I knew there were many more rabbit holes to jump into.
And I thought there was a good chance I could continue with that process here on Avalon.
Though the road gets rocky here on Avalon at times, there always seem to be gems to be found along the way.
It's been a real education.

I see there are lots and lots of words to describe this basic jist of skeptics vs cynics. I feel I came here as a 'skeptical cynic'... I've progressed to being a simple skeptic - there is too much that I Don't Know, for me to outright dismiss anything. But, yes, gaining sufficient information to be able to Discern something that is truthful, vs something that is disinformation, takes much practice, and requires both a logical assessment, AND an Intuitive assessment.

Particularly the use of Intuition - the connection with our higher selves to assist us in this process of discernment, IF we allow this connection - this is a 'right brain' connection. I feel many who are unbending cynics have not opened up this connection to their higher self, and look primarily to the 'knowledge/logical' (left brain) source for their acceptance of information, thus holding them back from the greater truths that surround us.

This is to be expected... our whole educational 'machine' is directed in making us think in only a 'logical' left-brain mode, and this is enforced by the discounting of Any acceptance of intuitive or esoteric knowledge, except within limited boundaries (particularly music and arts - just look at the attempts to dismiss Nassim Haramein, and others - [also UFO's - The Disclosure Project]).

As an example, I'll offer this recent post I made on another thread: This is 1978!!! So.. where did this information go??? In the trash bin like so much of alternate knowledge...
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39102-Autistic-Girl-Expresses-Unimaginable-Intelligence...&p=408994#post408994

Ultimately, the first question of The One's OP deals with the idea of "What have you Done with the Knowledge gained from your membership here?"

For myself, I've made every attempt to start discussions on all the subjects presented on PA with everyone I meet. Obviously, I only do so with those who seem 'open enough', or whom I feel just need the 'bump' to get them to open their minds enough to question the conventional paradigm being promoted. It has proven to be a sometimes daunting task. But, I do have some great experiences.

Here's a PM I made to Bill last week:
In my opinion, the site has become a 'corral' for those interested in the vast array of alternative views and understanding humanity's circumstances. By keeping these open-minded people 'occupied' in this forum through online discourse and 'arguments' , they are diverted from expressing their views to the general populace.

There is enough reluctance in the 'outside community' already, so if you can discourage and redirect those who have a desire to express divergent ideas, you can effectively redirect these 'alternate thinkers' into a forum such as this, thus keeping these ideas from the general public.

I say these things, not for the first time ( I had responded to a recent thread by Unified Serenity with such an observation), based upon a chance encounter just yesterday.

It was with a young 'dark skinned' man who I happened to meet during normal discourse of my days events. We got to talking, and, although he was a "minority, low-income, blue-collar" individual, he was Immensely Interested in the happenings of our world. He expressed a strong scientific inquisitiveness and was eager to hear of some of the things I was able to offer him, particularly 'free-energy', conspiracy topics, etc, but even to the spiritual-scientific connection. However, even though he had a computer, and did extensive 'research' online, he was Not aware of PA, nor other alternative news outlets.

This points to a disconnect Somewhere. I strongly suspect it may be at the search-engine level. (TED.com recently had a video on this by a young 'techie' - can't remember his name...)

Mind you, this is Not a criticism of the PA or it's objective, but, rather, I feel it's important that those of us who Do wish to 'get the news out', to do so within our own communities and direct, eye-to-eye 'people connections'.


SO... here's a question for everyone - What have You done to Enlighten Others?

christian
23rd January 2012, 16:13
What have You done to Enlighten Others?

I let them by themselves, encourage them to find their path to enlightenment.



'How can you make men's minds good?'
The reply was,
'Take care how you meddle with and disturb men's minds. The mind, if pushed about, gets depressed; if helped forward, it gets exalted. Now exalted, now depressed, here it appears as a prisoner, and there as a wrathful fury. At one time it becomes pliable and soft, yielding to what is hard and strong; at another, it is sharp as the sharpest corner, fit to carve or chisel stone or jade. Now it is hot as a scorching fire, and anon it is cold as ice. It is so swift that while one is bending down and lifting up his head, it shall twice have put forth a soothing hand beyond the four seas. Resting, it is still as a deep abyss; moving, it is like one of the bodies in the sky; in its resolute haughtiness, it refuses to be bound; -such is the mind of man!'

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi10-.html#11

Kindred
23rd January 2012, 16:37
What have You done to Enlighten Others?

I let them by themselves, encourage them to find their path to enlightenment.



I take some issue with this approach. As described in my above post, in many instances, knowledge is Withheld from Many for the Express Purpose of Keeping them from the truth, even to the point of Redirecting any quest for alternate knowledge to something less 'offensive'.

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

Tony
23rd January 2012, 16:59
It's a kindness to show what choices there are.
Warning....if you come anywhere near me...you are now part of my karma, and I yours.

Consider yourselves loved-up!

CD7
23rd January 2012, 17:00
Disscussing skeptism is hilarious!...it reads like a page in Alice in Wonderland! <-----------opps is tht too skeptical :) nooooo, just an observation :eyebrows:

onawah
23rd January 2012, 20:06
Thanks Borden, Kindred, Chiquetet and others for your insightful input.

When I look back at who I was before I discovered Camelot, and subsequently moved on to Avalon, I am amazed at how my world view has changed since then, how differently I process information, communicate with others, arrange my priorities, and probably a few other things I haven't noticed yet.

But I have faith in the larger process, and think people will find whatever they need to take their next steps, whatever that might be.
There are as many reasons for incarnating on this planet at this time as there are people, and not all of those reasons are necessarily going to parallel those of the kind of truth seeking that brings people to Avalon.

For example, I have a friend who is very intelligent, intuitive and awake, but who has absolutely no interest in the Internet or Conspiracy Theory.
I cannot fault her one iota for her lifestyle, which is devoted to other people and learning how to connect with them in ever more respectful, loving and nurturing ways.
She works with seniors in nursing homes, and is a part time Clown.
I cannot imagine where she gets the strength and energy to do what she does, but her Light just grows and grows.
I'm sure she cannot fathom why I would choose to spend hours in front of my computer screen every day when I could be out in the world having direct contact with other people.
And I'm beginning to think I may actually be moving more in that direction. :smash: :wave: :lol:

But not because I want to tell them about Avalon, etc.. :director:
I used to think I actually should do that, but I found very little, if any, receptivity to that.
I think now what I know and who I am will communicate itself to others in much more subtle ways.
Whereas having an agenda about communicating to people what I THINK they should know, can really just get in the way.
Who am I to say what others need to know?

Unless they ask, or there seems to be an obvious opening for information I have, for example, at an Occupy meeting or a UFO Conference or whatever, I think I will do much better to just observe and see what I can learn about how other people are progressing through the changes WITHOUT all the information I am privy to.
I might learn something about humanity that I didn't know before.
It seems people are finding their own way, at their own pace and awakening in a million different ways.

I've still got a very long way to go myself.
I can in some cases, walk with them for awhile, possibly contribute, guide and inform...and certainly also receive...
But one thing I know for sure is it's not for me to say what path another should follow.
If the Shift is happening, it's happening on all levels and will be affecting people in all kinds of ways, even if it's not immediately apparent.

It's connecting some of us with ETs and EDs and connecting others more closely with the earth and all her life forms.
It's connecting others with science and other fields of knowledge that will enrich the future, revealing our REAL history, and changing the way of life on this planet.
It's all working together and what we see here is only a tiny part of the whole picture.

I have a friend who is just waking up to the kind of information we see here every day.
He is about to explode with all the new information he's getting.
I know the feeling, but I don't feel that way so much anymore.
I think I got a lot of that COMPULSIVNESS out by participating here.
I realized I had a lot to learn how to exercise discernment, discretion and courtesy in communicating with others.
And still do.

crosby
23rd January 2012, 20:09
thank you onawah. that was very poignant and gets right to the heart of the matter. again, thank you.
regards, corson

Borden
23rd January 2012, 20:38
Well said, onawah,

I'm sure some people will differ and think it a responsibility to spread whatever word they feel is important ... and I can't really disagree I suppose. But all too often, as I used to find, it's a mistake. So many of the subjects we discuss here are such an assault on the mainstream view of the world that to assert them can be destructive. It closes people's minds, because what they don't want to hear is now being inflicted on them, and therefore it's a simple step to view assertion as attack.

Far better to resonate something that makes people want to ask you. Your attitude sounds rather more constructive than I've often been in the past.

Borden.

christian
23rd January 2012, 20:51
What have You done to Enlighten Others?

I let them by themselves, encourage them to find their path to enlightenment.



I take some issue with this approach. As described in my above post, in many instances, knowledge is Withheld from Many for the Express Purpose of Keeping them from the truth, even to the point of Redirecting any quest for alternate knowledge to something less 'offensive'.

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

I see your point, yet I am convinced that 'telling others what's up' is a delicate issue as you can probably confirm. I met enough people, who didn't do research, who just kept their heart simple and random chatter in the mind quiet and they knew the basic theme just like that.

The subtleness of this is the whole trick. When it comes to people being triggered to make an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the bigger picture, people could be responsive to any subtle picture, phrase, situation and what-have-you, it surely could be factual information about all the topics discussed in here, but that might even be a hindrance for some, as most of us here have experienced at one time or the other. So that's for the trigger, now when it comes to avenues of learning, it's just as diverse and does not have to be book learning, article reading and documentary watching, I met people who would just do astral travel to any place - any time to find out or who would speak with nature spirits or who would just observe their everyday surroundings or who would just have an insight from what could be called the higher self. - People are so diverse and so are their ways, so it's a tough job to keep flexible to reach people effectively, yet I'm totally with you, I appreciate the genuine effort of everyone who is intent on helping others to truly tap into their potential and creatively express it without being limited by control freaks seen and unseen.

To me it seems apparent, that we have the same basic intent and debate about how to get it right. That's the same old thing with humanity, folks frequently started feuds on such a basis...

---

Having learned about all this stuff not mentioned by the presstitutes, one has a great deal of knowledge surely, if one can discern all that info. There's a proverb, that goes like "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". You cannot hit everybody with this knowledge, even if it is discerned properly. - I bet there are people who would love to teach people here some really cool stuff, but we might just not be mature enough to realize that yet.

Cidersomerset
23rd January 2012, 23:25
Hi All ,,,,I better give post a proper answer to view my on skeptics.....

sceptic
Pronunciation: /ˈskɛptɪk/ ( archaic & North American skeptic)
noun
1a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist.

2 Philosophy an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
adjective another term for sceptical
Origin:
late 16th century (in sceptic (sense 2 of the noun)): from French sceptique, or via Latin from Greek skeptikos, from skepsis 'inquiry, doubt'

I have no problem with genuine sceptics and constructive questioning and disagreements are essential for 'Free Thinking' education imho.
Passions can run high and before you know it it is easy to say something you may regret later, we have all done it and that is part of forum
life....This field in particular is so vast and there are so many threads it would not be natural if we all agreed on everything ....
So thats where patience and eticate comes in and as my mother taught me it cost nothing to be polite and and say please and thank you...

None of us have all the answers and the main common denominator for getting us to congragate here is Bill and Kerry's interviews
I have posted quite a few threads and contributed or commented on many others, my view if i am going to disagree with the subject
matter I try to give a constructive reason......

If you are here to be a' irritant' or 'attention seeker' or are a paid 'troll' to cause mischief that is up to you....but remember the vast
majority of people on here are just looking for 'truth' and answers to the unending questions of 'The meaning of life'..
So be Sceptical at times, but not blind to the quest for enlightenment......Steve

Strat
24th January 2012, 00:25
what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

(Before I start, modwiz is right: I think this is more about trolls than it is skeptics.)

Why I am here is fairly simple. I watched Project Avalon videos a while ago and thought I want to be around that crowd of people and hear what they have to say. I believe there is more to this life than what is obvious, this place may provide me with answers. If nothing else, it points me in the right direction.

Folks may label me as they see fit. Maybe I'm a skeptic, maybe I'm a loony. Label me if you find this necessary. I think 75% here will call me a skeptic. I don't believe anything, I assign percentages. I don't "believe" the sky will be blue tomorrow, but there is a 99.9% chance based on consistency that it will be.

So when someone offers a UFO video and it is simply a light in the sky, I put very little credence in it being an alien craft or government 'device'. Especially if I don't know the person. I will, however, store the information and compare it to other videos. If I find consistencies then I will consider the videos to be more credible. Neil Degrasse Tyson is right, "Don't forget what the 'U' in UFO stands for."

Oh, and I don't "call people out." If I think their information is questionable, I'll let it be. If some people choose to believe it then it is not on me to convince them otherwise. If there is anything I despise, it is people pressing their beliefs on others. I can't stand that, so I don't do it.

kcbc2010
25th January 2012, 00:26
In a lot of ways, a skeptic is someone in search of a teacher that can actually teach them something. A lot of people try to answer questions, but what they know is limited and trite. That's the reason why a lot of people get turned off by things like religion. A person who is questioning isn't going to accept the same answer as someone who's been practicing the faith for years and years and just accepts whatever their spiritual leader says.

I know that I'm skeptical about some of the stuff on PA; however, I also know that I was skeptical about some of the stuff that I now accept as fact because I've done the research and I can't logically deny these things anymore.

There are a lot of people who see the disconnect between what they are told and what they are experiencing, but they aren't ready to see the full picture. (Hell, I'm not ready to see and accept the full picture some days!) The thing is that each of us is here because we have something to learn from each other. We should never be afraid to question........

BestLion
26th January 2012, 10:27
Posted by The One (here)
what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.
I came here because i am putting together a personal puzzle, I have half the pieces but still lack many. I'm on my own journey in search for truth. i try to sort out the nonsense and rubbish, and hoaxes along the way to build my case for all this unexplained phenomenons.
I think most people here do believe in UFOS-or extra dimensionals, Most here do feel the many megalithic monuments are much older then stated, and were built by a once great lost civilization. Most here are also on a personal journey to find their pieces of the puzzle. And to be skeptical on many things I feel is healthy.
In the UFO community, their is a LOT of garbage, pure hoaxes, hucksters etc along the way "from my observation about 95% of this stuff is in this categories" thus we must sort throw all this stuff. About EDs also many hoaxes etc..(like the The Cottingley fairies).
Also skeptical is good. I am extremely skeptical on modern day archeology..which claim ridiculous dates and ridiculous means to build certain monuments. For example..I am 100% skeptical that Giza was built in 20 years by bronze age people in order to build a tomb for a dead Pharaoh. And i feel most people are skeptical on modern text book history.
So we just have to sort it all out..and along the way use wisdom to decipher real from hoaxes.

DarMar
26th January 2012, 11:29
First i want to start with a question:

who are you to judge?
then..
who gave you power to label people, and why you feel better over those which you labeled?
and
why do you think you should choose where should they be?

To be perfectly clear here, "normal" lets say systematic christian people find people like you VERY skeptic, and they label you as some mad skeptic scientic and youre no worth to them..
HEY! hear this funny thing, you think same way of them! and there goes loop..

Not only you, this post started by question why they are here and for few post they are poo sniffers, garbage, scum..... bah .. and what should we expect in back? flowers? moar flowers? ;)

I really dont get this kind of gathering to label and underprice brother human which is on same planet in same s*** as you. You think you know more? ... well youll be surprised if your mind can evaluate this kind of thought pattern

i personally would be greately ashamed even starting this thread, now im ashamed that i need to explain it to people i thought they already knew that

if i were you i would stop laughing and underpice living beings and learn more about them before labeling. But thats my choice and yours is this post and im fine with that.
Just as some cynical skeptic joined forum, just because he could.

mahalall
26th January 2012, 12:21
reflecting
DiODdt8l108

Omni connexae!
26th January 2012, 14:20
Below is the vision and values of avalon

What is that Message and Vision?

In creating this new forum, we're encouraging all members who've been invited here to:

•Start or participate in community projects that will radiate out to the members' communities - or
•Post information and participate in regards to awakening; spirituality; healing humanity; galactic and earth changes; '2012' (whatever that may mean!); geopolitics; new science; hidden history; ETs and disclosure; what we are not being told by those who might wish to control us - and much else

So Belivers, if the above is not your cup of tea then what brought you here in the first place to Avalon.

Cheers





Do you see how this makes no sense? What are you trying to imply?

For random example: posting information about why I think some version of a 2012 theory is not based on reality, is participating in the topic, is it not? How is saying I'm skeptical of something any less participating than saying I believe in something?

Would you prefer it if people did not question things here?

Am I reading you wrong? Perhaps you should elaborate if so? If you have a point, it's rather vague.




Why is it people seem so eager to perpetuate non existent labels and divisions every step of the way? It serves no purpose besides binding us against each other.

You see, there are no skeptics, there are no believers.

There is simply learners. We all feel skeptical about something, and we all believe in something, whatever those things may be.

You seem rather skeptical of the 'skeptics'.