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: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:48 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.

What you're describing is a debunker, not a skeptic.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 


What If's ruin the discussion IMHO. That's who I started this post, but then I stopped. I realized I may as well just say Santa Claus is real.

It's best to stick to the science. I think the science gives us lots of options, but it's tough work. The universe is sloooooowly opening up to us.

Just in our galaxy alone, there're probably trillions or quadrillions (or more?) of planets and dwarf planets and rogue planets and moons. We - as yet - do not know the capability of life to exist elsewhere. We only have guesses based on what we see around us here on Earth. This suggests to us there might be millions or even billions of potential sites for life to emerge in our galaxy. And what of in all time? It's possible life emerged billions of years ago elsewhere or is in the process of emerging somewhere right now. It's impossible to say right now.

They know comets can spread pre-life ingredients between stars. They know life probably can't survive the journey between stars. So it really all comes down to the requirements (or prevalence) for life to emerge from pre-life ingredients. This is why they say if we find a unique and seperate strain of life in our solar system this would greatly increase the chances for life elsewhere. keep in mind this solar system has 160+ moons and 9 planets and one or two dwarf planets and some dwarft-like planets in the belts outside hte main system.

I've heard recently life might have started on Mars and "migrated" to Earth.

The simple fact is there's a lot we don't know. We're like the people before Columbus sailed and discovered the New World and brought it home. We're like those map makers who depicted the ends of the world on the map. We similarly fill in gaps in knowledge with fantastic monstrous creations. Like them, one day we'll bring home a piece of the New World and greatly change our knowledge.
edit on 27-3-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

tsingtao
aliens but no God.
ok!
when u meet them, ask them about a creator?

If they have a better understanding of the way time functions in the universe, as a constant NOW vector worming its way back and forth and "sideways" forever, then they'll probably understand that the idea of anything being created from nothing at the "beginning" of the universe doesn't make any sense.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

draknoir2
Wrong forum, Elijah.

Ugh. Christian "cleverness" is just the worst kind of unimaginative puppetry. I pity the aliens that might eventually encounter these aggressively pious folk who hope to enlighten their newfound alien brothers as to the "truth."



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I'd just like to point out that people shouldn't be so skeptical of faster than light travel. Quantum teleportation is already working on this, and space travels faster than light, i.e. big bang theory.

m.livescience.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 




Quantum teleportation is already working on this

Quantum "teleportation" does not allow anything to move faster than light. Your source:

Whereas the result may sound like a way to send faster-than-light messages, it isn't, really, because you can't know the state of the entangled photon pair before it's measured; so there's no way to control it and make the photon at the other end take on certain states and use it like a Morse code telegraph.

m.livescience.com...

edit on 3/27/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow Phage, I'm honored....

I was thinking neutrinos, but a quick reminder search those claims were mistaken. Well the only way to beat faster than light travel would be a wormhole? Which would also take you to another time, and/or dimension. Thank you anyway

Here's another link in more detail of the experiment:

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



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueMessiah
 



Is that how you're going to brush this off, as all fantasy? Who said it was covered up for thousands of years? The Sumerians and Egyptians wrote and drew about the alien presence.


You're putting your own spin and misinterpreting these ancient drawings to fit into what you want to believe. More than likely though, you're believing what you're being told by "experts" like with the TV show Ancient Aliens. Shows that rely on selling advertising and not one of searching for facts. If they search for real facts, there's nothing there. There's nothing there means the show loses viewers in turn losing money. Finding aliens in everything is much more exciting and sellable than having nothing. People like you get caught up in this excitement and fantasy lore and unfortunately keep these shows alive.

If the Sumerians and Egyptians worked with aliens one-on-one, where are the artifacts? Any artifact found, given, or taken from one of these interactions would be coveted and treated godlike. If these weren't included in a pharaohs tomb or given the same level of respect, it would have been passed down for generations. According to you, this isn't a one time occurrence within one culture, it happened multiple times with many different cultures. Yet, still no physical evidence? What you'll do here is again excuse the reason we have no alien artifacts by citing some other unproven fact. It's an endless circle of excuses. It's only way to keep this phenomenon alive. If this was happening for a fact, there would be no need for excuses.


There is quite a deal of information about the shadowy secret gov. and it's affiliations with ET 's plus the secrecy behind it which has taken place since the 1940s.


Yes, even more secrets and more conspiracies of something. Aliens have only dealt with the governments of the world, or if they deal with the common citizen, the governments/military will sweep in and remove any and all traces of evidence. This has happened every time all over the world in the 65+ year popularity boom of this phenomenon, correct? That sounds completely logical to you?


You obviously want to remain oblivious to pertinent information that should be taken into consideration in favor of waiting on press conference level admission of the alien presence. Well keep on waiting.


No, I just have a clear understanding of the meaning and impact a race of alien beings visiting Earth would have. I refuse to accept less than and anecdotal evidence and make it into a commonplace, trivial event. That's exactly what you do by buying into this sensationalized garbage online and on TV. It becomes tabloid-like and should be treated that way. I demand physical evidence for a claimed physical event that has been going many times and for thousands (according to you) of years.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
It doesn't matter what I or anyone else "want to believe", because at the end of the day, we must cede to the facts at hand. Given all the scientific searches carried out thus far (SETI and its variants) along with the fermi paradox, I think it's realistically plausible that we are indeed alone in the galaxy as far as intelligent life is concerned even if intelligent life is prevalent throughout the observable universe.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 


I personally believe that the real definition of scepticism is that we don't know as we have not found any evidence. This is not the same as saying there is no evidence (would we actually recognise an alien artifact for example). There are many theories on the net which attempt to explain why SETI has not picked up anything, for example 'The Great Silence' by David Brin I think, someone correct me if I am wrong about the author!

Outright rejection of anything is bad scepticism.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 





Given all the scientific searches carried out thus far (SETI and its variants) along with the fermi paradox, I think it's realistically plausible that we are indeed alone in the galaxy as far as intelligent life is concerned even if intelligent life is prevalent throughout the observable universe.

If we are anything to go by the life of radio transmission is very short , we've been using radio transmission for about 100 years and are now using better technologies that use less power so are harder to detect by anyone listening out there , we are in effect going dark to ET.
This is the opinion of Frank Drake.

"Very soon we will become undetectable," he said. In short, in space no one will hear us at all.

What is true for humans would probably also be true for aliens, who may already have moved to much more efficient methods of TV and radio broadcasting. Trying to find ET from their favourite shows was going to be harder than we thought, Drake said.
www.theguardian.com...

So just because we don't hear them doesn't mean they're not there.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Redsceptic
 


So life on earth isn't enough evidence for you? You are in the camp that thinks we are the only life in the Universe by a slim chance? What about everything in the Universe started from something smaller than a single atom. We're the only life out of this infinite expanding Universe?

How do you think life started on earth? Panspermia or from natural processes on earth? Because either answer can therefore happen anywhere in the universe.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 



You're putting your own spin and misinterpreting these ancient drawings to fit into what you want to believe. More than likely though, you're believing what you're being told by "experts" like with the TV show Ancient Aliens. Shows that rely on selling advertising and not one of searching for facts. If they search for real facts, there's nothing there. There's nothing there means the show loses viewers in turn losing money. Finding aliens in everything is much more exciting and sellable than having nothing. People like you get caught up in this excitement and fantasy lore and unfortunately keep these shows alive.


LOL! This is not my "own spin" as you call it. I find it comical that you accuse me of following the Ancient Alien theories despite the original sources I listed earlier as being the precursor to a majority of the information they provide. I'm like 10 steps ahead of them. However I do commend the show for somewhat lifting the veil so to speak and opening the eyes and minds of those who were previously unaware.


If the Sumerians and Egyptians worked with aliens one-on-one, where are the artifacts? Any artifact found, given, or taken from one of these interactions would be coveted and treated godlike. If these weren't included in a pharaohs tomb or given the same level of respect, it would have been passed down for generations. According to you, this isn't a one time occurrence within one culture, it happened multiple times with many different cultures. Yet, still no physical evidence? What you'll do here is again excuse the reason we have no alien artifacts by citing some other unproven fact. It's an endless circle of excuses. It's only way to keep this phenomenon alive. If this was happening for a fact, there would be no need for excuses.


Most of the images and drawings are depicted to be symbolic representations but I won't even bother trying to explain because you'll probably brush them off as well. We do have monuments like the Pyramid of Giza whose stature and structure would be nearly impossible to construct by only modern homo sapiens back in those times. As for the lack of physical evidence, there are a number of rational explanations not "excuses": Destruction of evidence through constant geological Earth changes such as pole shifts, the great deluge, etc. There's also the possibility it hasn't been found yet. If you are in accordance with the ancient alien visitation theory, then it's possible that our visitors returned back to their homeworld and before leaving, decided to destroy, remove, or conceal evidence of their presence for unknown or covert motives. Let me guess....those are all just excuses too right?


Yes, even more secrets and more conspiracies of something. Aliens have only dealt with the governments of the world, or if they deal with the common citizen, the governments/military will sweep in and remove any and all traces of evidence. This has happened every time all over the world in the 65+ year popularity boom of this phenomenon, correct? That sounds completely logical to you?


No it hasn't happened every time but when tales of abduction or UFO observation come into play (literally thousands), it's is quickly dismissed. Even when this is presented, it's not accepted. We have whistle blowers pop up (William Cooper) who mysteriously die (murdered by law enforcement) under strange circumstances from time to time so what do you think of that? If you were to find a dead alien body, the TPTB who control the media outlets and also systems of law enforcement won't help blow the whistle for you. Remember the secret aspect that has to remain in place? This would have to be covered up and swept under the rug with threats made to preserve secrecy and the founder must be discredited. If you bothered to do any research (not watching Ancient Aliens), the whole dilemma would make plausible sense.


No, I just have a clear understanding of the meaning and impact a race of alien beings visiting Earth would have. I refuse to accept less than and anecdotal evidence and make it into a commonplace, trivial event. That's exactly what you do by buying into this sensationalized garbage online and on TV. It becomes tabloid-like and should be treated that way. I demand physical evidence for a claimed physical event that has been going many times and for thousands (according to you) of years


You can choose to accept what you want but I can't change your perception of that underlined part. I see it as a refusal to investigate for yourself and open up your mind to even the distinct possibility of this whole scenario. As long as that restriction is in place, I'm not expecting you to get the gist of the entire paradigm alleged to be happening. According to you, all of the sources (many which you can find free of charge online) were written and composed just for kicks and no kind of connections can be made or drawn from any of it nor can it be incorporated into any of the mysteries of mankind prevalent from prehistoric times to the present. Well allrighty then.

edit on 28-3-2014 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

amazing

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.


You do know the term swamp gas has in reality only ever been used, by an official for a supposed sighting that happened near a swamp and even then the person didn't say anything other than it was a possible cause? If you want to stick to a cliche that's fine, it's actually a little tired though and really shows up people who think they are being clever without actually having any real knowledge of the subject...

en.wikipedia.org...

When you say "taking the lazy way out" - you are right - for both parties. It's as lazy to say that twinkling light in the sky on a youtube video is an ET craft when some very quick analysis shows it's Venus.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


It is unfortunate that fake YouTube videos are posted still on ATS. It's disappointing these still make the rounds on the internet.

The easiest way to debunk the videos is to click on the channel and see if they post weekly UFO/conspiracy videos, then it's just a hobby to get views. It's the first thing I look for and I immediately discredit it.

The other thing is YouTube is a multi-billion dollar corp, I highly doubt any real video would slide. On the other hand who knows, they might support it. It's really countries or lawyers who block videos.
edit on 28-3-2014 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

uncommitted
When you say "taking the lazy way out" - you are right - for both parties.


I agree.

It seems there is often a post at the beginning of a thread where a believer tries to do a preemptive dismissal of all skepticism by saying something like "someone's gonna come on here soon and claim it was just swamp gas!"

It saddens me to see such poor debate tactics. They may think they are being clever, but it is just a lazy way to irrationally dismiss any subsequent skeptical investigative posts, and generally marginalize all skepticism -- even good and valid skepticism.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

uncommitted

amazing

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.


You do know the term swamp gas has in reality only ever been used, by an official for a supposed sighting that happened near a swamp and even then the person didn't say anything other than it was a possible cause? If you want to stick to a cliche that's fine, it's actually a little tired though and really shows up people who think they are being clever without actually having any real knowledge of the subject...

en.wikipedia.org...

When you say "taking the lazy way out" - you are right - for both parties. It's as lazy to say that twinkling light in the sky on a youtube video is an ET craft when some very quick analysis shows it's Venus.


Agreed, but you keep missing my point. The point is, that Self-proclaimed skeptics, not all, but most on these forums, take the lazy way out as often as the true believers. they'll find one plausible solution and stick to that as hard truth, saying things like. "It was most likely" when the true statement would be. "One likely reason for this was.." Skeptics don't get a free pass here, when they pretend they know all the answers.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

draknoir2

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.

Please describe my logical fallacy. My point is that Skeptics can be as arrogant, and almost religiously fervent in 'their' beliefs as the True Believer. Skeptics want to believe something so badly that they will deny evidence and data if it is opposed to their stance. That sentence could easily be applied to any True Believer as well and NOT all Skeptics are like that. Many are not. Many on these forums in particular are though.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

amazing
The Universe is what...13.8 billion years old....
They've discovered a galaxy that they think formed only 500 million years after the big bang...The oldest known star in our galaxy is 13.6 billion years old. There are billions of galaxies in the known universe all of differing ages.

That means that there are very likely ..millions if not billions of solar systems that formed billions of years earlier than our own solar system, meaning that there is a very good high probability that there are life forms in the universe that are billions of years more evolved than we are. That is a possibility that you need to consider based on statistics, probabilities, math and science.

While skeptics ponder this, perhaps you should ponder exactly what it is that makes you think that there actually is such a thing as "more evolved," given that evolution doesn't have a specific direction and doesn't necessarily lead to improvement in the way you're assuming here.

Harte



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

amazing

uncommitted

amazing

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.


You do know the term swamp gas has in reality only ever been used, by an official for a supposed sighting that happened near a swamp and even then the person didn't say anything other than it was a possible cause? If you want to stick to a cliche that's fine, it's actually a little tired though and really shows up people who think they are being clever without actually having any real knowledge of the subject...

en.wikipedia.org...

When you say "taking the lazy way out" - you are right - for both parties. It's as lazy to say that twinkling light in the sky on a youtube video is an ET craft when some very quick analysis shows it's Venus.


Agreed, but you keep missing my point. The point is, that Self-proclaimed skeptics, not all, but most on these forums, take the lazy way out as often as the true believers. they'll find one plausible solution and stick to that as hard truth, saying things like. "It was most likely" when the true statement would be. "One likely reason for this was.." Skeptics don't get a free pass here, when they pretend they know all the answers.


I don't think I'm missing the point of this thread which is that some people will continually be in a state of denial and others will be in a continual state of acceptance, but another group will be in the middle.... the group in the middle includes actually what is technically someone who is skeptical if you use a dictionary definition. How people choose to label themselves is a matter for themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join