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.

 

Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

page: 28
94
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Thanks for that. I really do get the impression that some arguments come from a different era and they seem out of place in the flow of discussions.

So at some time either a real or fictional conversation took place that went something like:
-Flying saucers cant be from outer space because life does not exist out there
-It is arrogant to think we are alone in the universe




posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Its just ignorant in my opinion to think you have always been alone, are the most intelligent form of life that exists, and may always be alone in the future, because we are all there is.


^^ That's the part where communication has broken down and you've misheard what the other person meant.

If someone doesn't believe that aliens or spacecraft have been to earth, it doesn't mean they believe no life exists anywhere. It's possible to disbelieve visiting aliens/craft and remain convinced that life exists somewhere else.

That's it alright.

It's like saying that, because I say I've never met a person from Finland, then I must believe Finland doesn't exist.

Harte



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I've found a sentence by Daniken that riffs on the same tortured argument.


Who is arrogant enough to assert that the sages of old could not have conceived the same sort of idea as the farsighted New Yorkers?
Chariots of the Gods

He's using it to make the claim that 'Ancients' had developed atomic technology and destroyed themselves.

Whoever/whatever the source, it's bound to be from a character who was arguing against established views. It reminds me of the oft-abused term paradigm. Always used as an argument in itself when established views are too difficult to argue against.

Anyway, after you made the point, it's given me the push to see if I can find an early reference/iteration of the argument. Cheers



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I found it!


Of course I believe in aliens. Are you so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe? (Quote by - Tom Cruise)

www.dumb.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Nah. It's only 2005 and Cruise was just renewing the old phrase.

I'm surprised he even said that. Don't the scientology crew believe they are aliens?



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
In fact I personally welcome any kind and any form of challenges. If a point of view is challenged, it will make the point of view more stronger. In fact, any point of view could stand if 1. it is reasonable or 2. it is the fact. In fact the easiest way to challenge a point of view is to point out the obvious false part against the fact such as a PSed photo, video. However some people like to challenge a point of view by saying it is lack of support of hard evidence, which is often encountered in topics concerned with UFOs, aliens. In this case, if your point of view is brought by rigorous reasoning, then you just tell them either point out the wrong part of your reasoning or accept it since not every theory is based on the fact, some are in fact based on reasonable assumptions and reasoning. That is how I deal with challenges.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket
In fact I personally welcome any kind and any form of challenges. If a point of view is challenged, it will make the point of view more stronger. In fact, any point of view could stand if 1. it is reasonable or 2. it is the fact. In fact the easiest way to challenge a point of view is to point out the obvious false part against the fact such as a PSed photo, video. However some people like to challenge a point of view by saying it is lack of support of hard evidence, which is often encountered in topics concerned with UFOs, aliens. In this case, if your point of view is brought by rigorous reasoning, then you just tell them either point out the wrong part of your reasoning or accept it since not every theory is based on the fact, some are in fact based on reasonable assumptions and reasoning. That is how I deal with challenges.


You're confusing hypothesis with theory. Bottom line, if you want to claim that ETs have visited earth and abducted people, the onus is on you (or the person making the claim if you aren't) to prove it by citing testable evidence. Facts are never based on assumptions. Testable evidence is what separates facts from beliefs.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Kandinsky

I found it!


Of course I believe in aliens. Are you so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe? (Quote by - Tom Cruise)

www.dumb.com...



$cientology relies on aliens.... no aliens, no $cientology.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

No I am not confusing anything. If we talk about mathematics, the most rigorous science in this world, you will find out that many mathematical theories are based on pure assumptions. For example, some of theories study multi-dimensional space which is far beyond our recognition of 3 dimensional world. Assumptions, in fact, do not hamper any theory. It is reasoning that make a theory stand. On the other hand, facts themselves do not make a theory. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is a hypothesis because it is not rigorously proved. When you say facts are never based on assumptions, you are right. Facts can't be assumptions, bottom line, theories must be logically right no matter they are based on facts or assumptions.

Somebody may claim that he believes that he saw UFOs flying by or even he was abducted. He may or may not show any evidence and there is even no need to show it because it is his personal experience. For this instance, nobody can PROVE that he is wrong or right. You just have a choice to either believe it or leave it. Further if somebody claims that he saw UFOs flying by or even he was abducted and shows his evidence to support his point of view. The onus is on YOU to prove his evidence is wrong or right to reach the term "testable evidence" you have used. Neither of the cases belongs to a THEORY.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket




Darwin's theory of evolution is a hypothesis because it is not rigorously proved.

evolution is a theory rather than a hypothesis - the clue is in the name




A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.


link

link



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Kandinsky

I found it!


Of course I believe in aliens. Are you so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe? (Quote by - Tom Cruise)

www.dumb.com...



$cientology relies on aliens.... no aliens, no $cientology.


Actually, it relies on a belief in aliens not on actual aliens.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

No I am not confusing anything. If we talk about mathematics, the most rigorous science in this world, you will find out that many mathematical theories are based on pure assumptions. For example, some of theories study multi-dimensional space which is far beyond our recognition of 3 dimensional world. Assumptions, in fact, do not hamper any theory. It is reasoning that make a theory stand. On the other hand, facts themselves do not make a theory. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is a hypothesis because it is not rigorously proved. When you say facts are never based on assumptions, you are right. Facts can't be assumptions, bottom line, theories must be logically right no matter they are based on facts or assumptions.

Somebody may claim that he believes that he saw UFOs flying by or even he was abducted. He may or may not show any evidence and there is even no need to show it because it is his personal experience. For this instance, nobody can PROVE that he is wrong or right. You just have a choice to either believe it or leave it. Further if somebody claims that he saw UFOs flying by or even he was abducted and shows his evidence to support his point of view. The onus is on YOU to prove his evidence is wrong or right to reach the term "testable evidence" you have used. Neither of the cases belongs to a THEORY.


Let's put this to the test. Present testable evidence proving that someone has been abducted by aliens.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: aynock

Well if you extend the term THEORY into a broader fields, you may say that Darwin's theory of evolution is a kind of theories of course. When I say that the theory of evolution is a hypothesis in my reply, I am saying that the theory of evolution is mainly based on some facts or findings and is lack of rigorous proving. Another analogy is the Goldbach's conjecture which can be supported by numerous facts, but still not proved then remains a hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This is a pretty good blog on the pitfalls of arriving at truth.


McRaney sums it up nicely:

We invented the scientific method because we are naturally terrible at explaining our own experiences. Without the scientific method, there is no way to know what causes simple, everyday things like thunder. Every explanation is as good as another, and if an explanation becomes culturally bound and passed down, that becomes the official explanation for millennia. Our natural tendency is to confirm our assumptions, but science tries to disconfirm our assumptions one by one until the outline of the truth begins to form. Once we realized that approach generates results, we went from horses and tobacco enemas to mapping DNA and walking on the moon in a few generations.
(bold characters my doing)



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario


Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.

There is not doubt that people can have an abduction experience without actually being abducted. Of course that doesn't mean all abductions are false. However, the abduction claims are usually of a physical event. These events include implants, mysterious marks, puncture wounds, sexual intercourse and even pregnancies. Not only that, abductees claim to be abducted multiple times. I have even heard estimates that 1% of the population has been abducted. At what point are we supposed to get baffled that there is no testable evidence? And no, its not up to me or anyone else to prove any negative.


edit on 18-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I was saying even if there is no physical evidence, which I believe is highly possible, what kind of attitude we should have towards those who claim being abducted. In fact people are skeptical, the difference lies in if we are willing to accept something unusual. Some people are not, while some other people are and the latter discover new worlds.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket

My problem is more with the abduction "researchers" rather than with the folks experiencing something unusual. So I suppose its easy enough to write off peoples experiences as "hallucinations" of one kind or another with the absence of anything physical. But there are really some odd encounters that aren't so easily dismissed if taken at face value.

Personally, I tend to stay away from peoples personal experiences. If I have anything of value to offer, I may offer that. But personal experiences are personal and its up to the person to make what they will from it. I think where it gets confrontational is when people want to inject their personal experiences and beliefs into other peoples beliefs and experiences.

Aliens are not known to exist. That is the current understanding of society or whatever. So if someone has an abduction experience they may believe they were abducted by aliens and insist that aliens exist because they experienced them and now know they exist and we should all believe them because they said so and if people don't well, they are paid deniers.

Then there are the people that experience something weird and don't know what to make of it and understand that people are not obligated to believe them.

So I suppose its really what people are asking me to accept. I can certainly accept that something odd is going on but I cant accept a physical reality to it without physical testable evidence.


edit on 18-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Hello,
I feel the same way, I had a experience a while back and wanted to tell the world, but decide to be quiet.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: Tangerine

I knew the discussion would lead to this scenario


Suppose you had a weird dream last night and you decide to share the dream with your friends. You tell them your dream and that is all you can do in fact because it is very personal and of course with no witness. Do your friends ask you for "testable evidence"? No, they won't because the dream itself is untestable. They may believe your dream or call you a liar. If they call you a liar, what would you do? If you don't care, you may say Ok! believe it or not! If you are so determined to make your friends believe what you have dreamed about, you may say OK! I would rather go polygraph. Now things have changed. You don't prove your dream is true because it is untestable, instead you want to prove that you did not lie to your friends. By doing so, they may believe your dream.

It is quite similar when someone claims that he was abducted. What he can do the most is go polygraph if he is so determined to persuade us. However it is you who should find eveidence to prove that he was not abducted but just a kind of illusion. When you use the term "testable evidence" in this scenario it is simply wrong.


You seem to be a bit confused about how this works. The onus is on the one making the positive claim (ie. I was abducted by aliens) to prove his/her claim of fact. It is not the job of someone questioning the claim to disprove it. In fact, it is impossible to prove a negative. A polygraph test would only demonstrate whether the person believed s/he was telling the truth not whether it was the actual truth. I did notice that you didn't offer any testable evidence, whatsoever, to prove that ETs exist, have visited earth and have abducted people. Shall we assume that you are not going to make that claim of fact?



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join