Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
It is severely annoying and unproductive when syd or some like him doesn't even consider let alone acknowledge the known facts as valid. It's tiring too to be labeled constantly in a childish manner a pseudosceptic because we consider their take on the truth not to be the truth,but fabrications so they can retain their prior ideology. If ct'ers would actually bring compelling evidence then none of us would continually point out where they are wrong, especially where when it comes to the moon hoax and 9/11. Changing positions. An example of what I mean. Yesterday I read an article in Discover Magazine. The author was commenting that war may not be a natural state of humanity. My opinion has always been that it is according to history and personal experience, but the author through known facts presented a compelling argument to the contrary of what I believe. That now has caused me to rethink my position, war may not be a natural state of humanity. So if you want things to stop going round and round then those that believe in the extraordinary things written about on this forum then compelling evidence that stands up against what is known needs to be provided.
Hmmm, i think I've seen this message before: http://pleasureofdoubt.wordpress.com/20 ... s-vs-them/
How timely to come across this article: http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ ... page=0%2C0
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests