Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

[NinjaPuppy]

Hi Ellie. This forum was originally created for basic discussion on the 'believers' side of the topics. For some reason, the skeptics just LOVE us to death and can't get enough of us most days. I haven't done a count but I think we have more active skeptics than we do believers.

[Ellie]

Oh right, I get you now - however, I think i'm what you would call a 'believer' but what I would call a 'sceptic'. But for me (and for science), scepticism is about retaining the belief in possibilities until proved otherwise. Is that ok, or am I just being difficult?

[ProfWag]

[Ellie]

I never really consider things as "proven". More "interesting" and "not disproven" - more fun and progress is had that way

[NinjaPuppy]

[Twain Shakespeare]

I have a hard time keeping the teams straight here. One person's "Skepticism" is another credulity. I try to stay on the "agnostic" "twain" side, myself, since my "beliefs" as the term is used here, are both outre, and mutable, and cover "all possibilities". "there are more thing on heaven and earth than (can be) dreamed of in...philosophy!" Shut up, Shakespeare!

[caniswalensis]

Since the word "skeptic" is used in this forum interchangably to describe both a true skeptic as defined by the organization known as SCEPCOP and the polar opposite known as a pseudo-skeptic, I agree with twain that it is hard to keep thing straight here.

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

Yes, it gets very confusing here; especially with the board's owner tossing in so much supposition tied to radical conspiracy theories as being the "real deal". I've mentioned it to others, the fact that this is the sort of thing that not only sours the pot but likewise prevents others from either being active or even joining the forum in the first place... it's too "Out There".

On the other end of that pole we have those that are so critical in their thinking and world view that I'm confident you could turn them into a diamond factory (we'd need to double check with their proctologist however, to confirm the fact that they are a tight ass... and not in the good way). Let's face it, fanaticism is everywhere and when it comes to the need certain self-ordained skeptics have to be superior to one and all, it's easy to see where their evangelic manner comes from. Similarly however, this same kernel is what brings about the ridiculous from within the "believers" side of things.

My view is more Hermetic; it's all the same thing, separated by degree. What you consider to be hot might only be warm to me and vice versa; the same thing, just different points of view.

This is a view that gets reinforced regularly, as I find "science" putting out new words and points of view that more or less "prove' elements behind the paranormal (ESP, Psychics, Magick, ghosts, etc.) but from a supposedly contrasting point of view; they are saying the same thing taught by the educated students of the occult/metaphysics, just using different terms and theoretical points of view. At the end of the day, I think we are all due to wake-up sometime down the road, to realize this and thus, come into a state of agreement. It can't happen however, until humankind learns to find the median in things vs. seeking out a black & white rigidity that simply don't exist in the Universe -- life & existence is grey, always has been. This is one reason why I tend to stand in the middle on things more than not. Granted, there are issues that irritate the hell out of me when it comes to the paranoia and/or delusions presented by both sides, with the "believers" getting a bit ridiculous at times... again, when it comes to belief in Big Brother and Secret Society agendas and such.

It's not a lack of belief on my part, just the fact that I don't need to allow such things to control or absorb my life. After all, they are much bigger and more influential than I am, been around longer than any of us and thus far, they've actually done a halfway decent job tending to the care & feeding of billions of worker bees.

[caniswalensis]

[capri2]

The thing about skeptics is that they all ask the same questions;
Q1) What did you see?
Well if the person knew that they wouldn't be worried would they.
Q2) Did you consider you were threatened?
Well of course you might have, but in reality this is a matter of public interest.
Q2) Why should I believe you?
Because DUMMY you haven't asked the right questions in the first place. So for all the skeptics here are the questions.

Q1) What didn't you see?
Answer: Well it wasn't an airplane or a balloon or a helicopter or anything else I have ever seen in my life. So really I don't know.
Q2) You weren't threatened so why ring us?
Answer: Well you are the authorities aren't you? You look after this stuff? If I didn't know who am I supposed to ring?
Their answer: Yes. Right now we are going somewhere.
Q3) So what did it actually look like?
Answer: Well great now we are really getting somewhere! This is what it looked like........................
Our Question) Well what are you going to do about it?
Their Answer) I don't really know.

Skeptics want US to tell them what we DID SEE, well if we knew that we would tell them BUT we don't know. What we do know is what we didn't see. And here we come to the logic the skeptics have to prove it. Not even in Blue Book did they ever asked the right questions, read the information, the questions are all the same-WHAT DID YOU SEE!!!
It comes down to the three things
1. You saw something you couldn't identify;
2.You had a legitimate reason for being where you were; &
3.You have absolutely no ulterior motive.
Having a camera or recording device today means nothing, everyone owns a mobile phone. And just by the way for the skeptics the number of UFO photos has increased dramatically since these devices have been on the market, contrary to popular belief.

[ProfWag]

[Eternally Learning]

Haven't read through all 117 posts, but how would one go about identifying who was a "skeptic" reliably? Some are self-identified sure, but you're basically talking about banning those who express dissenting viewpoints from your own. I think banning people should be strictly on a case-by-case basis and based off of behavior primarily. If someone wants to be obtuse and unreasonable in your estimation, then simply ignore them and they'll give up. If they insist on trying to provoke you then ban them. Seems simple to me.

ETA:
Forgot to mention, this is your forum so you make the rules. If you want some sections to be off-limits to debate, then make that a rule and restrict those who violate it.

[Arouet]

One thing I'll give scepcop credit for is allowing people with opposing views to post . He may ignore them, but he'll allow it!

If skeptics were banned from this site there would be very few people left posting!

[Eternally Learning]