It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptics: Do you want to be alone in the Universe?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I doubt even the most hardened skeptic would want to be alone in the universe, I also doubt they even believe that we are.
I'd imagine most accept that there is life out there somewhere, even in our own galaxy, I've certainly never heard anyone say otherwise.
I think most of the issues come from a lack of evidence, hard evidence, of either Visitations or of Finding life on other planets.
But at least on the latter, we're certainly getting closer.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And...I agree with you...not sure why you are arguing with me.

Edit to clarify; For all readers:
The star distribution is hilarious in this thread. Some serious opinions! Hmmm I wonder why....

We just started looking deep into space.

Hubble launched in 1990.

Kepler launched in 2009.

Do we need a list of our satellite launches and discoveries? A little perspective maybe? Keep things in context? Or just an absolute opinion?

This is why I ask maybe you prefer to be the only life in the Universe.

edit on 27-3-2014 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

game over man
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And...I agree with you...not sure why you are arguing with me.

Edit to clarify; For all readers:
The star distribution is hilarious in this thread. Some serious opinions! Hmmm I wonder why....

We just started looking deep into space.

Hubble launched in 1990.

Kepler launched in 2009.

Do we need a list of our satellite launches and discoveries? A little perspective maybe? Keep things in context? Or just an absolute opinion?

This is why I ask maybe you prefer to be the only life in the Universe.

edit on 27-3-2014 by game over man because: (no reason given)


I don't doubt that we will eventually (soon?) have the ability to find signs of life processes in the atmosphere of far-off exoplanets via spectral analyses of their atmospheres. I'm thinking most of the planets that may have life do NOT have intelligent life, and even if they, they may not be a technological civilization. HOWEVER, having said that, I realize that it is possible that we may in fact find evidence of industrial pollution in those atmospheres, suggesting a technological society.

The only thing I wonder is how far off will those planets be? Would they be close enough to us for them to have ALSO done the same analysis of Earth's atmosphere to discover that we are a technological civilization? And if they did, would they have the means to visit us? If they aren't space-faring, but were still able to send us a message, has that message had enough time to get here?



edit on 3/27/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Well we did have signatures of methane from Mars, but later was concluded it did not come from a biological source?

I'm not sure if exoplanet researchers know exactly what to look for in terms of bio signatures that indicate life. We can only look for signatures that match Earth for carbon based life, but we can have different types of lifeforms? So we could discover a planet of a different makeup than earth but we would be unaware that life is present there?

We also cannot detect moons orbiting giant gas planets that also may harbor life.

How can an intelligent civilization send a signal in distance of light years? That is a great question that only an expert could honestly answer. How can the two civilizations use the same means of communication to relay messages back and forth? One would have to determine how to communicate this. So far all we can send and listen for is radio signals? I think these are some of the reasons why people don't like SETI.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Alien visitation is something I'd like almost more than anything else, but I'm not convinced its happened, and I have done quite a bit of research. But these "you're a skeptic so you believe X" and "you're a believer so you believe Y" threads don't really get us anywhere. Every one looks like every other one and nobody changes their opinion.

Instead of framing it as a this-or-that categorical distinction between 2 groups, why can't we just accept that we're all on a spectrum of what we accept as solid evidence?
edit on 3/27/1414 by conundrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by conundrummer
 


That is the issue about solid evidence. Some people mistake the word evidence as proof, on both sides of the debate.

Maybe a discussion of what is considered good evidence?

I'm skeptical but not dismissal to AA theory or UFO sightings. Some people are dismissal but claim skepticism.

I've come to the conclusion after years of researching ufology that it is unreliable information. I'm more interested in our space studies. I am optimistic that space science will discover proof of aliens before ufology. I'm hopeful AA theory will gain more momentum. Or unknown discoveries in our ancient history in general. I don't know what happened to ufology.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Not so much. The Drake "equation" isn't math as much as it is a thought experiment allowing you to plug whatever assumptive variables in it you want for funsies to see a result.

I'll see your Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox. Bottom line, I have no idea and I have yet to believe anyone else does, either. Claims and anecdotal evidence and channelers and abductees to the contrary.

I'm a 'skeptic' which means I continue to look. Skeptics aren't sure, they're ... skeptical. If I was sure, I'd quit looking.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




Yea, I pretty much start ignoring people when they start talking about the Drake equation like some holy scripture that proves their has to be life.


several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are on solid ground, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but as we move from the left to right in the equation, estimating each succeeding factor becomes ever more speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.


It shows the level of research and thought they put into the matter in the first place, simply by misunderstanding the very equation they are trying to use as proof.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

game over man
That is the issue about solid evidence. Some people mistake the word evidence as proof, on both sides of the debate.

Maybe a discussion of what is considered good evidence?

That discussion seems to be ongoing in a dozen different threads at any given time.


I'm skeptical but not dismissal to AA theory or UFO sightings. Some people are dismissal but claim skepticism.

I've come to the conclusion after years of researching ufology that it is unreliable information. I'm more interested in our space studies. I am optimistic that space science will discover proof of aliens before ufology. I'm hopeful AA theory will gain more momentum. Or unknown discoveries in our ancient history in general. I don't know what happened to ufology.

Regarding AA theory, I feel that its most likely bunk, but I feel that I've given it a fair chance as well. Read books, researched authors, read the criticisms, and ended up feeling that its mostly charlatans and storytellers who bend the truth to fit their agenda. But there are also those who have done none of the research and come to the same conclusion. I feel that is misguided.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by conundrummer
 


Well not to go case by case account of the AA theory, but I have gone to Peru and visited many ancient sites. I flew over the Nasca lines and every local called him the astronaut man. It is also the most difficult drawing because it is the only one not on a flat surface but on a mountain side. Some may debunk him as the owl man, but no one said that when I was there.

Now my problem with science is someone coming up with a logical explanation for something ancient, confirming that to be the truth, when the answer is truly unknown. Nasca is an example.
edit on 27-3-2014 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by conundrummer
 


Well not to go case by case account of the AA theory, but I have gone to Peru and visited many ancient sites. I flew over the Nasca lines and every local called him the astronaut man. It is also the most difficult drawing because it is the only one nor on a flat surface but on a mountain side.

Now my problem with science is someone coming up with a logical explanation, confirming that to be the truth, when the answer is truly unknown. Nasca is an example.


Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Bingo. I've been reading so much of this lately. This is how people "want" to see things. So I ask do you want to be alone in the Universe?

If you don't "want" to be, then please help out or at least expand in more detail of your "skepticism".



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

amazing

Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.




Unless you are directly responding to someone actually making those statements these are nothing but straw man arguments.

And what is wrong with a skeptic saying they do not know?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Well they usually don't...They are otherwise convinced. I'm guessing usually too lazy or not interested enough to discuss aliens without evidence.

However evidence to a skeptic is proof to a believer.

We have large amounts of methane detected on Mars. This is evidence of life. But it is not proof. We look at the evidence and decide. Majority of skeptics don't look at evidence, they wait for proof. This is why skeptics always say, "there is no evidence."



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Well they usually don't...They are otherwise convinced. I'm guessing usually too lazy or not interested enough to discuss aliens without evidence.

However evidence to a skeptic is proof to a believer.

We have large amounts of methane detected on Mars. This is evidence of life. But it is not proof. We look at the evidence and decide. Majority of skeptics don't look at evidence, they wait for proof. This is why skeptics always say, "there is no evidence."



Usually? Generalizations abound.

Methane on Mars is a far cry from Super-intelligent Aliens piloting ships to Earth and abducting people from their beds. I'm afraid you won't get around those pesky calls for evidence when making that claim.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

draknoir2

amazing

Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.




Unless you are directly responding to someone actually making those statements these are nothing but straw man arguments.

And what is wrong with a skeptic saying they do not know?


There is no straw man argument here. I'm not making stuff up and you know as well as I do that skeptics stick to dogma as much as believers and that both deny the facts and don't look at the data. There is nothing wrong with a skeptic saying they don't know. The problem is when skeptics or believers say that they do know....when both should be saying they don't know. Not railing against skeptics but railing against the brand of skeptics that assume they know the truth and act as if their opinions are anything more than opinions. You see what I'm saying and I'm not making stuff up so ...then the question is why would you bring up a derogatory term like "straw man" to invalidate my points? Questions or statements?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Haha! Are you joking? I never jumped to that conclusion. There are better places to hide than in methane producing locations on Mars.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

amazing

draknoir2

amazing

Well this gets to, in my opinion, the whole point of the thread. Skeptics, come up with a plausible or possible solution and then stick to that as a hard truth instead of saying they don't know. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything but skepticism takes a bad turn when it says...all abduction cases are sleep paralysis, all lights in the sky are planes and let's not forget swamp gas. That's taking the lazy way out and that is NOT denying ignorance but spreading it.




Unless you are directly responding to someone actually making those statements these are nothing but straw man arguments.

And what is wrong with a skeptic saying they do not know?


There is no straw man argument here. I'm not making stuff up and you know as well as I do that skeptics stick to dogma as much as believers and that both deny the facts and don't look at the data. There is nothing wrong with a skeptic saying they don't know. The problem is when skeptics or believers say that they do know....when both should be saying they don't know. Not railing against skeptics but railing against the brand of skeptics that assume they know the truth and act as if their opinions are anything more than opinions. You see what I'm saying and I'm not making stuff up so ...then the question is why would you bring up a derogatory term like "straw man" to invalidate my points? Questions or statements?


"Straw man" is not a derogatory term. It's describes a logical fallacy whereby an argument is made against a fabricated or hypothetical position [the straw man or effigy] rather than an actual argument made by someone involved in the debate.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Haha! Are you joking? I never jumped to that conclusion. There are better places to hide than in methane producing locations on Mars.


And I never said you did. I am pointing out that they are neither equally plausible nor equally worthy of heightened skepticism.






And I never joke.






JK.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
No.
J ust
E qual
S afe
U nited
S ocieties

Focusing on the good of life following the 3 P's
Preservation of all life
Promotion of recovery
Prevention of it becoming worse.


Not hard really and guess what makes it all the better?
There doesn't need to be conflicts to achieve it.
It'll take one thing which is pretty hard at the moment.
Unity.

At present unity is made almost impossible. Impossible by those of the wicked system of things that is and has played us all off against each other for way way too long.

My message is this.
He's coming.
Have faith and be good or be good trying.

The divisions created either through colour, class, location, language or sex are all tools of leverage they use to achieve it, don't believe it.
You all know the truth.
You were all born with it.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

jazz10
No.
J ust
E qual
S afe
U nited
S ocieties

Focusing on the good of life following the 3 P's
Preservation of all life
Promotion of recovery
Prevention of it becoming worse.


Not hard really and guess what makes it all the better?
There doesn't need to be conflicts to achieve it.
It'll take one thing which is pretty hard at the moment.
Unity.

At present unity is made almost impossible. Impossible by those of the wicked system of things that is and has played us all off against each other for way way too long.

My message is this.
He's coming.
Have faith and be good or be good trying.

The divisions created either through colour, class, location, language or sex are all tools of leverage they use to achieve it, don't believe it.
You all know the truth.
You were all born with it.





Wrong forum, Elijah.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join