CT Discussions - Facilitating Believers & Skeptics

Aye Matey!

I've been reading this forum for quite some time. The discussions are engaging but often handicapped by personal attacks. "Prove this, verify that or stop talking."

Proof is important to all debates though its absence should not permit the ruling out of a theoretical proposition or the repeated bullying of its advocates. Ferdinand Magellan wouldn't have set sail off the edges of the earth if the absence of empirical proof was enough of a deterrent.

I suggest that the CT forum be partitioned as follows:

I Want to Believe: Facilitates only members who intrinsically believe the essential but not trivial connotations of an individual thread topic.

I’m a Skeptic: Facilities both members who intrinsically agree and disagree with the essential and/or trivial connotations of an individual thread topic. This represents the CT forum as it currently stands.

The Christianity Charter invokes that:

Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated. Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!

Christianity is a belief. A conspiracy theory is a belief. It would be nice to see the beliefs of CT forum members protected in such a manner. The "Prove this, verify that or stop talking." approach just wouldn’t fly within the Christian threads. Should it fly here?

I appreciate that certain forums undergo different ownerships and that certain rules are proprietary. This doesn’t mean we should not strive for enhancing a forum and redefining the rules or forum structure when necessary. Even if it’s not a possible feat I’m still interested in the opinion of all members on this matter.

I don't have a whole lot of faith in the reliance of PHP based polls. If you’re a skeptic like me simply post you’re answer to the thread.


<edit> Hi Guys

I just noticed that the Poll was Public, So I changed it to Private

I also decided to make it a timed poll, so it will close 5 days after it was started.

if anyone would like to keep it open for longer then PM me and I will consider it.

The Poll will not be public however.

Mahatma
</edit>

nyarlothothep

Imo its not necessary, the drama that goes on here is entertaining anyway, it makes for a much livelier CT forum, although I'd prefer if it was more serious sometimes. I can see how conspiracy theories operate in a similar way to religions, I guess a believers forum would be nice. I don't know. 50/50.

Aye Matey!

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The drama that goes on here is entertaining anyway.

Drama exists on every forum and social networking site. People are allowed to disagree but lets call a spade a spade. I've seen members torn apart and shot down when their only intention was to discuss a topic with like-minded individuals.

The partition could resolve this forums issues of conflict and attrition.

Saibh

Aye Matey! wrote: »

"Prove this, verify that or stop talking."

.

This is my first post here , but the above is why I haven't posted here before because when a thread is started with no proof etc., someone comes along (not in all threads, but some I have noticed) and says where is the proof etc instead of maybe adding their own proof for or against the topic.

Mahatma coat

technicaly the partition already exists

there is a separate skeptics forum in the hosted>society section

course it dosent get the same interest as here

Aye Matey!

I suspected as much Saibh. Hopefully we can resolve the issue and see a lot more of you and others.

Aye Matey!

Thanks for pointing that out Mahatma coat.

A draft of its charter invokes:

To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.

This sounds painfully familiar. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists don't share the same version of critical thinking. Thats the fundamental problem. A simple alteration of the CT forum charter would legitimatley redirect the more skeptical members to a forum of more affinity based on their collective standpoints.

Mahatma coat

ah but you see, I dont believe in partition, I'd go so far as to say both Fora should be merged into one, balance is what we should be seeking, however this wil require a bit of give and take on the skeptics side too

Aye Matey!

Mahatma coat: The partition is but one solution. Division rather than further merging is the answer.

miju

I fundamentaly disagree with a partition. "Prove this and prove that" requests etc are all part of the debate.

You are entitled to your belief and someone else is also entitled to come in and challenge that belief. Take many of the run ins me and Diogenes used to have we both challenged each others beliefs and backed them up with research & proof to back up our points to try prove the conspiracy / non-conspiracy.

Thats the point of having a "forum" and besides apart from anything else. Whats to stop the non-CT believers crossing over into the CT believers forum and vice versa? Will we just hand out bans for people doing that and kill / stifle any reasonable debate in the forum in the process?

Not only is it unworkable it's against the very ethos of CTs. And besides as Mahatmas said theres already a skeptics forum.

Thats my 0.02 cents anyways

Aye Matey!

Miju: You meant 0.02 Euro right? :pac:

Would a third thread not solve the issue? Call it the CT Extremists forum. Limit it to the instrinsic believers and draft a charter that dissallows the skeptics.

Many CT'ers would like to see a thread topic progress beyond a platform of inquisition. Many CT'ers believe in theories that can't be verified though they're still eager to discuss it with other fellow advocates.

Here's the balance:

Irish Skeptics: +1 Skeptics

Conspiracy Theories +1 Skeptics +1 Extremists

CT Extremists: + 1 Extremists

K-9

Saibh wrote: »

This is my first post here , but the above is why I haven't posted here before because when a thread is started with no proof etc., someone comes along (not in all threads, but some I have noticed) and says where is the proof etc instead of maybe adding their own proof for or against the topic.

Don't really post here much but do lurk. The above does happen but it is up to the person who starts the thread to provide SOME basis for the theory. When that happens usually somebody will post something to counteract the theory. Don't see anything wrong with that.

The point about CT being similar to religion is valid. If you are a true believer, no amount of questioning is going to change it, indeed it may even reinforce your belief!

Eg. Somebody posting something as FACT of a New World Order etc. Somebody points out that the FACT is wrong. They'll just say that 's the NWO putting us off and misleading us!

humanji

I'd be against the division. I think the problem lies with peoples inability to deal with each others beliefs that's the problem.

If someone says there's a conspiracy, they should have some sort of evidence (I won't say proof as that would fly in the face of conspiracies ). And they shouldn't be surprised if someone questions the evidence. The problem then arises that instead of discussing things, it all gets a bit heated. The debunker can't believe that someone would believe that and is dismissive of everything that's said by the CTer and the CTer can't believe someone doesn't believe this and dismisses everything said by debunker.

People should just be a little less on the attack in this forum, IMO. If you believe in a conspiracy, don't just claim you're right and everyone else is wrong. Try to say something along the lines of: "Here is a theory, what do you all think?" If there's evidence, present it. And be prepared to discuss the matter.

On the debunker side of the debate, don't just dismiss the theories as "crazy". If you have an issue with some of the evidence, then voice your concerns. If you have your own evidence to the contrary of the theory, present it.

The basics of that is there already, but the key that should be remembered is that there is pretty much no hope in hell in getting someone on the other side of the debate to change their mind. There's no point letting things get heated. The purpose of the forum isn't to force your opinion on others or to try and change someones beliefs.

So, what my meandering post is trying to say is: relax. It's just the internet.

But of course if those guys with all the lizard talk come back, then everyone should rip the piss out of them. Those freaks are fair game as far as I see.

Sofa_King Good

I used to just browse this forum in work because it was entertaining to read, in a pantomine kinda way. It wouldn't have caught my interest at all if there was there were no skeptics, and therefore no conflict.

Also, it would probably be a little bit dangerous if slightly mental or paranoid people were feeding off each other with no counterweight. I've no problem getting shot-down, but if there is a situation that exists that puts off new posters sharing their ideas for fear of ridicule that is a problem in itself.

Having said this, potential new posters will witness the automated refutations and zero tolerance levels of any view not of their own, with some unneccesarily nasty rebutalls of some but not all skeptics. It is easy to predict what every posters input into any topic will be before they post, some none, and it turns into a merry-go-round of pointlessness with skeptics at times vaguely departing from their own beliefs just to sound clever and counter-punch, and this gets tiresome.

I would disagree with any partition, as skeptics points are equally valid and backslappers in seperate forums would be pointless. Also, it does encourage you to get your points straight first if you know it will be scrutinised. And purely for the entertainment.

So no partition! didn't work in the north; won't work here.

Aye Matey!

humanji wrote: »

Those freaks are fair game as far as I see.

:rolleyes::P

humanji wrote: »

People should just be a little less on the attack in this forum, IMO. If you believe in a conspiracy, don't just claim you're right and everyone else is wrong. Try to say something along the lines of: "Here is a theory, what do you all think?" If there's evidence, present it. And be prepared to discuss the matter.

On the debunker side of the debate, don't just dismiss the theories as "crazy". If you have an issue with some of the evidence, then voice your concerns. If you have your own evidence to the contrary of the theory, present it

Isn't that just a case of describing the water?