Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
In short, these pseudoskeptics are materialist fundamentalists driven by fanatical beliefs and views which they seek to proselytize to the world. Regardless of facts or evidence, they ALWAYS start and end with the following dogmatic positions:
* Paranormal claims are all bunk and cannot be true. There is no evidence for them.
* Conspiracies are all false. There is no evidence for them. Official sources are not to be questioned.
* Anything that challenges the status quo and materialism is wrong and must be debunked.
* Only natural materialistic explanations are acceptable. Paranormal ones are not.
They begin with those precepts and ALWAYS come back to them, regardless of the facts or evidence in any investigation or debate, EVERYTIME. That's one consistent thing you will notice about them. And they will resort to playing games, ridicule, denial, even deliberate distortion to maintain these core positions. That's why they are not really capable of serious honest discussion. Instead, they play games and cheat at them in order to win. I've seen them do it time and time again. It doesn't matter how much proof orevidence you have. All of that is irrelevant to them.
They will never admit that they've lost, even though technically they have. When cornered by facts and reason, they resort to denial or ad hominem attacks. Or they even will spin your ownarguments against you, without basis. It's like winning a chess game against an opponent, and even though the rules say they are checkmated, they still refuse to admit defeat. That's not fair, honest, or decent behavior.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Great humor here. Actually it runs like this:
What scientific evidence is there for the paranormal. So far none. So it appears to not exist.
What evidence is there for conspiracies? For many of them none. So it appears they do not exist.
So those that try and defend these notions that have no evidence do the following:
And do we have evidence of this? Absolutely.
Scepcop runs away from questions.
Scepcop has called me names on several occasions.
Scepcop is uncomfortable when his logic fails him when it is turned around.
So when Scepcop refuses to answer questions, finds his argument position untenable, and resorts to name calling he has stated what it means. It means "not fair, honest, or decent behavior."
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests