I've spoken to many people over the years. Some believe in the paranormal whole heartedly, and others disbelieve just as passionately.

I found this web page and found it rather thought provoking.

Of course I know that the moon exists, that is not what I am talking about here.

The site is meant to be a parody of conspiracy theorists who make outlandish claims. What the author might not have meant to do is satire the classic "debunker" at the same time which is why I think this page is priceless.

I've read a few of his arguments and he uses very similar psuedo science that debunkers use to prove that the moon does not exist, yet we all know that the moon is up there.

Read and discuss.

How is this parodying debunkers? They're the ones excising the "bunk" from things like conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You got it backward.

Yeah they make wild claims but then make up scientific sounding arguments to justify them. That is why I say that the guy parodys both sides.

Look at the questions and answers part.

And also this

This reminds me a lot of that James Randi contest

Debunkers make "wild claims" and "make up scientific sounding arguments to justify them"? What? :confused:

The page is a parody of Holocaust denial. The only comparison to debunking is that it seeks to refute, albeit in jest, an existential claim. These are the sorts of games believers in the paranormal play when debunkers rain on their little parade. "Don't pay attention to those skeptibunkers. A true open-minded skeptic would take me at my word."

There's two sides to every coin, Andrew and Kiku. Dont act like there isnt. Debunkers can be just as fundamental and illogical, and often are, as any believer. If you're not one then good for you but dont pretend like every skeptic is a carbon copy of yourself. Far too many skeptics argue from points of view that they dont really understand and hide behind a pretense of scientific knowledge that they cut-n-paste from Wikipedia. They love to call believers unreasonable and illogical. Yet, their own arguments are often littered with logical flaws and poorly constructed. Call them on it and they, more often then not, have a little hissy fit, hurl insults and then stomp out of the thread like a petulant child. I've seen it so many times here at AU that I've begun to detect a pattern in their mannerisms. It seems like classic narcissism to me.

By definition, "bunk" is garbage in an argument, claim, belief, or practice. Skeptics aren't well-known for their 'wild claims', either, so I'm not buying any of Lenny's confused posts.

Let me explain myself because you are the one who is confused kiku. I never meant that skeptics make wild claims



The website makes wild claims ---> conspiracy theorist parody
The website makes up scientific sounding arguments ---> skeptic parody



Also notice that I never said the word "Skeptic" in any of my posts. Skeptics and debunkers are 2 different things.

Debunkers claim to be skeptics but simply refuse, or are unable, to consider that something can not be explained with modern knowledge.

:iagree:

Thanks 22 I knew that I could count on you!

You've always got my support, Lenny. You know, of all the people here, you're the only person took me up on my challenge. It doesnt matter what you came to believe...you were open-minded enough to get out and see for yourself. You'll always have my admiration for that!

The question on my mind Lenny, and I'm not being smug, is where does one draw the line between open-mindedness and naivety? Some of us can only be open-minded to a point, and then we need some plausable form of that dread word to some, proof...

I still don't see the sense in comparing people who deny the moon to be metaphors for skeptics. It's just not computing.

Wait, like what?

Lol! No, there is a difference in asking for evidence and believing in madness...

I think sometimes, we skeptics are seen as stick in the muds, or party-poopers, because we don't grab hold of things and say yes, that's just how it had to be. Thus, instead of folks saying, hey, it's good you ask questions and look for evidence and proof, we are labeled as debunkers and close-minded...

By the very nature of some phenomena it is hard to define what would be considered as proof.

Take spirits for example. There is evidence everywhere, almost all of it circumstantial and not completely solid.

People tend to listen to accounts of spirits from people and explain how it is not proof. You can go your whole life listening to ghost stories and finding holes in them. It may be because they are lying, have a mental defect or whatever. Perhaps they are just bad at sharing experiences.

You have to ask yourself what would be proof of spirits or other phenomena instead of deciding what isnt proof. I think that personal experience, thanks to 22 that must be taken as proof for yourself.

The only way science could validate paranormal phenomena is if it happened when they wanted it to, under the right conditions, and in the same way every time. If these things that we study on these boards were like that they wouldn't be paranormal at all.

UFO's, Bigfoot, Alien Abduction, ancient astronauts, the face on Mars, crop circles, the NWO, the Illuminati, Bohemian Grove nastiness, religion (some but not all skeptics are atheists), all republicans and/or democrats are evil, mind-control chemicals in our food, MIB's, ect.

I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out...

But, a doubt or no belief in such matters does not a debunker make? And to me, debunkering can go both ways. You know, a skeptical person can give a good counter example to a paranormal phenomenon, and a believer may wish to here nothing of it. And the example may be viable and very reasonalbe, and the believer with come up for a n excuse he or she has ratonailized to disprove that explanation. Now, doesn't that in way constitue a belver "debunking" a factual statement? A reverse of what you have said, a complete unwillingness to understand or even listen?

Debunkers, I'm comparing them to debunkers not skeptics. The websites method of poking holes in [lol]Moon Theory[/lol] by using physics that they hardly understand.

The websites show that people can believe anything, and that people can also explain away anything.

Yes. On the last ghost hunt I went to a girl took a picture that had an auburn "vortex" in it. It was a windy night, and the girl had long auburn hair that was frizzy. I told them that it was probably the girl's hair that caused the streak in the picture. They would hear nothing of it.

They actually got a little mad at me for explaining that it was possible.