Guest HairyGreek Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I think Ace's last post nailed it. +1 for him. Maybe I am not giving some folks as much credit as is due.
Guest BuzzardEater Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I remember when I was about three, realizing Santa made no sense in the real world. I was still smarting from an earlier incident, misunderstanding the term "guerilla warfare", so I proceeded slowly. I subtly questioned my parents, carefully skirting the larger issue of self-realization that I knew they would bring up. For a time I eagerly embraced denial, but this crumbled in the face of hard facts. Then, I entertained the arcane explanations before reason led me to conspiracy theories. Eventually, I worked my way through it to the truth (Santa is paranormal!). Skaptics want to be won over. They yearn to believe. Hope everlasting resides within them. The faint hope that there is a Santa or a leprechaun or a unicorn to lessen the burden of crushing reality. Merry Christmas!
Guest Forbig Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Eventually, I worked my way through it to the truth (Santa is paranormal!). I'm so glad to finally here the truth that was such a hard time for me as a kid.
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 There seem to be lots of answers to why skeptics are interested, but I don't see any reason for obsession. For witnesses, that cognitive dissonance is very motivating, and I get that. Boy, it's can really get you thinking and fretting. But for those who have not seen a bf? I do wonder what drives that. I expect personality type plays into it. And spare time available. How much time do regulars who are skeptics spend here? Hey skeptics, how did you test out on the Meyers Briggs? And how about average posts per day? Now, as probable shadow chaser, I must remark that I do see them in pictures. I don't see that much in person and never saw a footprint. I don't really notice sticks, stick piles, never found for-sure squatch-poo. Saw a whole one once, and I do see head tops, foreheads, a bit. Seems they forget how tall and poinky their heads are. It's kind of like those magic eye pictures. Some people just can't see them. I attribute the fact I DO see them to a long time spent on a job looking at stuff and having to pick out even the very smallest errors. You develop an eye, so to speak. I have always been good at that kind of thing. If I do see them and you doesn't, it needn't mean they are not there. On the other hand... are they there? Here is an interesting idea: To test shadow chasers, as they were called.... Do you think it would be worthwhile to show the shadow chaser crowd some pictures and have them each indendently pick out where they think the bf is/are? Then compare their results?
gigantor Posted September 23, 2011 Admin Posted September 23, 2011 A skeptic isn’t in denial. A skeptic asks questions, inquires. I think, based on your question, you don’t know what it means to be skeptical, or to be a skeptic. I totally agree Ace. We often get uninformed wannabe "believers" who think because they heard a tree branch break, an owl howl, a coyote yelp, saw a bear track, a storm tree twist or squirrel hair, that a Sasquatch is there, chasing them out of the woods :lol: The main problem is not with skeptics, it is with gullible, naive, sheltered "witnesses" who day dream of.... I better stop. We all know about the outlandish claims, there is no need to point them out.
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Hope that post above isnt directed at me because you would be waaay off and assuming alot.
gigantor Posted September 23, 2011 Admin Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Well, I'm a skeptic and the original thread premise "would be waaay off and assuming alot" about skeptics. I normally don't address these kinds of threads, but I'll make an exception in this case. I keep trying to make sense of the following post: Now, as probable shadow chaser, I must remark that I do see them in pictures. I don't see that much in person and never saw a footprint. I don't really notice sticks, stick piles, never found for-sure squatch-poo. Saw a whole one once, and I do see head tops, foreheads, a bit. Seems they forget how tall and poinky their heads are. It's kind of like those magic eye pictures. Some people just can't see them. I attribute the fact I DO see them to a long time spent on a job looking at stuff and having to pick out even the very smallest errors. You develop an eye, so to speak. I have always been good at that kind of thing. If I do see them and you doesn't, it needn't mean they are not there. On the other hand... are they there? So, uuhhhh, how am I supposed to not offend someone and still convey the actual reality of the situation? I know I'm not politically correct, I try, yet I often get confused. Does reality matter? or should we just ignore it altogether and focus on feelings? Please help me! Edited September 23, 2011 by gigantor
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Wow Gigantor...did you have the reply to your post ready to go?
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) I admit I should have used a different word in place of skeptic in this thread title, I don't fall to the extremes on either side myself. I am skeptical of things that are found in the field, the words "Maybe" or "Possible" or "Interesting" is what I attribute to my descriptions of things I have seen or heard. I can't even comment on that confusing post you referenced above, good luck with that. Pictures are so frustrating, I don't even give them my time. When I glance at a new pic that pops up online and if it doesnt jump right out at me in a interesting way, I move on quick. It seems digital photography has actually hurt our chances at getting evidence IMO. My "Obsessed" meaning was just for the extremely negative folks that don't accept any of the evidence that has been presented and I find it a bit ridiculous but here they are posting away week in and week out but not supporting or providing any evidence only negativity to anything presented, their interest seems intense to hang around but not budge on anything and making comments like "Sasquatch" is not real, or there is "no" bigfoot. Well if saying conclusively something doesnt exist is just as bad as just saying it is, especially if you dont back it up. Everyone is not open minded about it but if they are on this forum, would they not have to be open minded? and if so, why only non supporting negativity or passive aggressive back ended comments? I probably should not even post here as I am used to hanging with more like minded self critical researchers in the field that are skeptical of any evidence found but not extreme on either end of the spectrum found here. I am in the middle but lean on believer side obviously but centered on some important self and peer skepticism.... regards.. Pot stirrer guy Edited September 23, 2011 by GEARMAN
MagniAesir Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) I was wondering when post #25 would arrive! When a person wants to post something and oh darn I didn't do a search and I am now subject to sarctastic but expected responses. Get over it. The line forms to the left. If you were "wondering when post #25 would arrive: indicates that you were looking to provoke the response. Well you got it, it appears that you really were not interested in why skeptics remain on this site, rather you just wanted to provoke. You registered on this site back in July, so in all likely-hood you have read or at least are aware of some of these similar threads before and you knew how many of them ended before you posted this one Edited September 23, 2011 by MagniAesir
Guest COGrizzly Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Interesting Art. I’d put it even more simply, like this: Believer – does not question Skeptic – questions Non-believer – does not question I think most people on this board are skeptics, even if they won’t admit it. Ace! What about the "Knower"? (I know some knowers and believe them, believe it or not...I know, right!) Had to throw that one out at ya!
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 COGrizzly, I think "Knower" falls into two of those three as in they Either "Know its all True!" or they "Know its all Crud!" But there is the Sheep, The ones who agree with the persons Point of view when they are with them, then walk away and have no opinion at all. Then there is the Wolves, They take up the opposite view Just to get you annoyed. :lol: :lol:
kitakaze Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Oy vey, another "let's label the skeptics and subtly insinuate that they have mental issues or they wouldn't be here" thread? What is this, the fifth on the BFF 2.0? I am very interested in bigfoot and have been since I was a boy. I would love for bigfoot to be real. Based on my examination of the evidence, I am unconvinced that such creatures exist. You can call me a skeptic, a scoftic, a denialist or whatever else floats your boat. +1
kitakaze Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 The skeptic can't turn a believer to a non-believer and the reverse seems true too.. Actually, no... Reliable evidence will return me to accepting Bigfoot as real. You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Is a skeptical interest in Bigfoot offensive?
kitakaze Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 While I think that some of the steadfast denialists are here just to get pleasure out of antagonizing others, I believe there are others that are here purely for the debate. Overall, I think this place needs the hardline skeptics, to keep it on an even keel. I can not dodge this bullet. I am such a person. I love informed debate. It's good for the mind. It makes one grow as a person. Bickering is abhorrent to me, but one can not spend any amount of time in this subject without sliding into that muck. What is really great and what I have experienced time and again is that mutual understanding that seems like it can not be. I enjoy this most of all, when one's mode of thought is diametrically opposed to the thought processes of another, yet somehow, someway, you find some common ground. I would love one day to be proven wrong about Bigfoot, but I will never stop enjoying the culture of the Bigfoot myth and a good debate in which people are respectful of each other.
Recommended Posts