As always I feel compelled to point out that skepticism does not mean not believing or making assertions contrary to positives, i.e. stating negatives as facts (__________ do not exist, etc.) To be skeptical means to doubt, to question, and above all, to have an open mind. A skeptic can't make assertions without proof. A skeptic can say "I personally don't believe that _______ exist or that ________ occurs, however I do not know with certainty that they do or do not, and thus cannot state for a fact that they do or do not exist or occur." To say, "__________ do not exist" is not skeptical; it is pseudo-skeptical.

I have to add that 1) I don't like labels or pigeon holing people, and I like semantic games even less, but in this instance it's people labeling themselves something (skeptics) and then acting contrary to the definition of the word, and 2) that there's nothing inherently "wrong" with being a pseudo-skeptic; it just isn't the same as being a skeptic and should be called what it is.

Skepticism means to refrain from accepting or asserting facts without proof, including facts that state the nonexistence or nonoccurence of things or events. Since evidence isn't the same as definitive proof and because one cannot definitively prove a negative, a true skeptic cannot assert as a fact the belief that something does not exist or occur. A pseudo-skeptic can, however. I consider myself a skeptic. I don't know one way or another for certain whether these things occur or exist. I don't believe they do definitively, but I accept the possibility. There is insufficient proof either way for me. I have had my own unusual experiences however which make me wonder.

[edit on 7/27/2008 by AceWombat04]

One question U.F.O skeptics can't answer:

Are E.T. believers this dumb?

Seriousy. How can you ask for proof about the existence of China? Are you THAT disconnected from reality?

Jeebus go see a doctor or something.

I would have had better luck talking to a wall.




[edit on 27-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

Why is it that alien believers always assume non-believers or skeptics haven't looked at the evidence? that sounds a tad presumptious to me...anyway....id like to see this proof of aliens...and yet again i'll say a video of a ufo is not proof of aliens...

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
One question U.F.O skeptics can't answer:
Are U.F.O believers this dumb?
Seriousy. How can you ask for proof about the existence of China? Are you THAT disconnected from reality?
Jeebus go see a doctor or something.
I would have had better luck talking to a wall.

Mr. Tinman, clearly you haven't been following this thread if you go over it you will see I used China to make a point. (Analogy)

Talk about brainless, review what was said and figure it out.

"Follow the yellow brick road!
Follow the yellow brick road!
Follow Follow Follow Follow
Follow the yellow brick road!"




[edit on 27-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

I'll answer you menguard as you have posted this twice now.

Originally posted by menguard

What is time?

Time can be fast, slow, meaningless and significant. Fun or sad. It can mean a minute, or stretch an age. Internal time, external time. Maybe, though, it is really the time to just stay on topic.

When does a wave of gravity stop in motion?

When you stop assuming that it travels in waves.

At what point did time and space begin?

1. When it was created or 2. The universe is eternal and space and time have always existed. Me persoanlly, i am taking 1.

Why are we here?

To find the best possible answer to that question.

Who created you?

My mother and my father.

How can time not exist?

From a personal perspective, when I cease to exist. Or from an larger existential perspective, when the creator of time decides it is no longer needed as an aspect of existence?

Why are we alien to ourselves?

Why do you assume we are? This is too ambiguous. I certainly feel terrestrial to myself.

Why does the ufology field stop at flying crafts?

I thought it stood for Unidentified flying objects.

Why is everything in the field of obscurity based on falsified truths?

I am unaware of the field of obscurity. Care to point out a few examples. As obscurity implies a level of unknowable characteristics, motives or reason and thus the way it is validated may be limited to say, fasified truths.

Why do agencies make false claims and cover them up with top secret files?

Why do people lie. Make false claims and cover them up by selling books about aliens, top secret papers and govt. conspiracies?

{quote]Who authorises information leaks through media conception? Those that benefit from the leak.

{quote]Why does the real source of man's potential stop at a routine based conclusion?Is this your conclusion? As it is certainly a routine of yours to post ambigious questions adnaseum.

What is outside of time?

Take a guess.

Why are their growth hormones put into beef?

To help beef grow? just a wild guess, don't quote me on that. Ask monsanto. LOL. BTW, i don't eat beef.

Why is our water sources polluted?

We pollute it. Retoric.

why does the dark government create viruses and who benefits from the weeding out process?

Why is there no light Govt. Why does nature make viruses? What weeding out process?

Why are they trying to get rid of undesirables that are only human not really superhuman?

Who, what, and where do we see this happening?

Cleaning the streets up through bio synthetic viruses which have been spread on our fruits and vegtables, trying to create an aids epidemic?

You left out mass paranoia, fear and delusion leading to beliefs not based on fact or evidence.

How many bases are known to man on Earth that are extraterrestrial?

Why ask that here, no one knows. How many Mcdonalds are there in the world?

When did the Air Force take Nasa as an undercover space program?

Didn't know Nasa was undercover.

Why hasn't the public been told about our (top scientist's) going to moon and mars and cross analysing information to sustain an enviroment and biosphere and biological engineering?

Post all you have on that here and the public will know.

Why did the -Zeta program- get out of hand, the C.I.A couldn't stop the proliferation of the ZETA PROGRAM and neutralize the congress and senate?

Mainly because it was not based on our reality.

Originally posted by atlasastro
I think it would be fair to say that most skeptics base their view on the available evidence. In this case, maybe you should ask, why is their such a lack of conclusive evidence in regards to extra terrestrials/extra-dimensional beings?. Most reports of ET contact are eyewitness accounts backed with little other evidence.

i think you should ask yourself why there is such a lack of evidence that the sun is the center of the universe.

i think you should ask yourself why there is such a lack of evidence that the earth is round

i think you should ask yourself why there is such a lack of evidence the selacamp still exsists

and so on

the lack or preponderance of evidence, as history has shown, depends on the paradigm of the times. how do you kow it is not just something we have no way of observing yet?

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
One question U.F.O skeptics can't answer:

Are U.F.O believers this dumb?

I think UFO and extra-terrestrail/extra-dimensional beings the OP is talking about should be viewed as seperate. As the existence of UFO does not automatically imply ET or Extra-dimensional aliens exist. We can easily attribute the cause of UFO to man. And in most alien contact experiences, evidence of similtaneous UFO sightings are rare.

So while there are many UFO sightings, there is also many that are explained by a rational explanation.

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic



Surely only a paranoid delusiuonal freak would believe with no doubt whatsoever in the existence of E.Ts with this kind of steaming pile "my dog ate my evidence" B.S. happening EVERY SINGLE TIME in the last 50 years.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

wow 50 years?????

that seals it.
thank god people didnt "KNOW" that the earth was flat for as long as 50 whole years. whew. that was close.

Originally posted by atlasastro


So while there are many UFO sightings,



there is also many that are explained by a rational explanation.

that would make them NOT ufo's wouldnt it?

just being a jerk because its late and ya skipped over my response to you to reply to one that kissed your butt so i thought id poke with one more sharp stick. i am genuinely curious how your logic and my logic get along in a room together.

Originally posted by re22666


i think you should ask yourself why there is such a lack of evidence that the sun is the center of the universe.

There is now overwhelming observable evidence pointing to the sun being the centre of our nine planetary solar system, but not the universe as a whole. We know the earth is not the centre of the universe, we can see that the sun is not the centre of the universe.

i think you should ask yourself why there is such a lack of evidence that the earth is round

There is now overwhelming observable scientific evidence that the earth is round. We know as fact that the earth is round, we can see that the earth is round.

the lack or preponderance of evidence, as history has shown, depends on the paradigm of the times. how do you kow it is not just something we have no way of observing yet?

Lets be specific, in relation to the OP, there is a massive lack of evidence, relating it to issues where there is a perponderance of evidence available, is just rediculous and illogical. SO, so until the time comes when there is overwhelming evidence of ET/extra-dimensional beings, people will continue to be skeptical. You offer nothing but, might, maybe, perhaps. Again you rely on faith for belief, which is cool. But the OP is asking specific question on those that are skeptical to this topic of Aliens/extra dimensional beings. Which explains my answer.
I think you need to ask yourself why you need to imply that one should believe without evidence, purely because in the past, other people did. Is it because, factually, you have no evidence, other than the hope that in the past people held onto truths purely on belief. Please. Read the OP.





[edit on 27-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Double post
Sorry Mods

[edit on 27-7-2008 by atlasastro]

why does someone who has observation need skepticism?
does the skepticism makes him or her a better person?

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by atlasastro


So while there are many UFO sightings,



there is also many that are explained by a rational explanation.

that would make them NOT ufo's wouldnt it?

YES, but only to those that accept the rational explanation. How often do we see threads die here when people post UFO photos etc that are quickly explained by science or observation, only to have them pop up again and again offered again as evidence of UFO, and by proxy proof of ET.

just being a jerk

If you say so.

because its late and ya skipped over my response to you to reply to one that kissed your butt

I have no idea what you are on about here.

so i thought id poke with one more sharp stick. i am genuinely curious how your logic and my logic get along in a room together.

I am more interested in the OP and the topic in general, than how you or i get along. BTW, your stick is pretty blunt and by your own admission you are a jerk, prone to petty jealousy when individuals "skip" or fail to reply to your posts. Your insecurity then leads you to posting what? The above.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by atlasastro


So while there are many UFO sightings,



there is also many that are explained by a rational explanation.

that would make them NOT ufo's wouldnt it?

YES, but only to those that accept the rational explanation. How often do we see threads die here when people post UFO photos etc that are quickly explained by science or observation, only to have them pop up again and again offered again as evidence of UFO, and by proxy proof of ET.

just being a jerk

If you say so.

because its late and ya skipped over my response to you to reply to one that kissed your butt

I have no idea what you are on about here.

so i thought id poke with one more sharp stick. i am genuinely curious how your logic and my logic get along in a room together.

I am more interested in the OP and the topic in general, than how you or i get along. BTW, your stick is pretty blunt and by your own admission you are a jerk, prone to petty jealousy when individuals "skip" or fail to reply to your posts. Your insecurity then leads you to posting what? The above.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by atlasastro]

ok thanks for again missing my point and ignoring what i actually said about paradigms. i see you arent open to an actual discussion if it does not support you. ok nevermind. i thought i was replying to someone smarter, not another, "um post again what you rere asking so it is clear..." i dont know why i keep thinking i will find an actual discussion here. you people are so good at replying without responding to what is actually said.

hint- its at the top where i mentioned evidence and what is known... anyway it was about the OP and your responses to it. if you cant respond to it, that is ok. somene smart enough will.

[edit on 7/27/2008 by re22666]

[edit on 7/27/2008 by re22666]