Honestly, I agree with the original poster. This is a problem on this site, its almost like bots come out of the woodwork when someone posts a new idea and people are flamed for thinking outside the box. The admins claim, Deny Ignorance but i'm not so sure they or the majority of the site visitors actually believe this.

Interesting,

What I try to get through is "what" the human race needs to survive isn't necessarily what all life needs to exist.

An example is oxygen, without it we die but other life beings would die if they inhale it.

So when our Scientist look outwards for the elements of life they aren't exactly doing a complete and correct expedition.

Here is my mindset. Before coming here (also a couple months ago), I considered myself a believer of things that many people think is ludicrous. UFOs, paranormal, etc. Some things I did not just blindly accept, because the facts were against them. Crop circles, for example. I had seen enough admitted fakes to see that probably 99% of crop circles were man-made.

When I came here, I thought I'd be joining in on the conversations with like-minded folks. I was in for a shock though.

I started reading things that were just mind-boggling. Things you really had to stretch your limits of belief to accept. I honestly had no idea there would be so many topics I would NOT agree with. That was the most surprising thing to me.

Just because someone does not believe in something doesn't mean they are narrow-minded or anti-whatever topic is being discussed. I believe in UFOs, but I don't think crop circles are alien-made, except perhaps the actual round or oddly shaped ones found in backcountry farms, away from the highways and media.

The most surprising thing to me is how quickly people blindly accept whatever is told to them. The first real thread I dove into was about some guy who claimed a fish-like alien appeared by his bed, and he hacked it to ribbons with a hunting knife, while his wife watched on. It was a ludicrous story full of holes and problems. Yet he had SO many "Omg I believe you!" responses, I was staggered.

So while you perhaps chide folks for not just "accepting" things for possibly being true, I feel the opposite. I feel it's silly to believe something based on flimsy or non-existent evidence. I'd LIKE for many things to be true, but I won't just blindly believe them, because my desire is that strong for it to be so.

I do agree that there are some that take the stance that something is not possible, regardless of what proof might be at hand. But those aren't many. There are more who try to take a logical approach to sightings, stories, and ideas. I think that's probably the majority of those who you might think are too cynical of many things posted here.

Going back to crop circles as an example. I've not seen one shred of proof that they are created by anything other than humans. There is a very few cases I do think are credible, but I don't think a single of the elaborate crop circle 'designs' out there are anything but man-made. Some of them are very cool, but still not alien in any way. Yet people cling to them as if they hold a secret message. So.... you can believe in them if you like, you are welcome to that belief. But you should at least accept that those who do NOT believe have good reasons for this. I am not going to blindly accept crop circles are alien-made messages, just because that would be realy cool. Show me the proof, and I'll believe anything.

So basically we all have to sit back and let various members make allsorts of outrageous and un-proven claims without questioning it or criticising it? Surely that's not what ATS has become, a breeding ground for the mad, bad and crazy? A place for them to peddle their ridiculous theories, claims and prophecies without being asked for a modicum of proof?

"Oh dear!"

"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
Francis Lord Kelvin (Physicist), 1899

"The (atomic) bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
Admiral William Leary, 1945

"This foolish idea of shhoting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists...the proposition appears to be basically impossible."
A. W. Bickerton, 1926

"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i. this is worthless nonsense;
ii. this is interesting, but perverse;
iii. this is true, but quite unimportant;
iv. I always said so."
J.B.S. Haldane, 1965

"You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back."
Beverly Rubik

"If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it."
Albert Einstein

"If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day."
John Wheeler

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible."
M. C. Escher

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws:
I. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
II. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
III. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Excellent post! Not that I haven't been critical, but it is one thing to ignore or refuse to believe the obvious, and another to ponder whether something is what it seems to be.

Deny Ignorance. Happy Thanksgiving! (It is Thanksgiving, isn't it?)

[edit on 27-11-2008 by jdub297]

Personally, I love the position and rationale of this thread. That is one of the reasons that the few that I have created and nurtured I put up a No Flame Rule.

There is no doubt that the ATS Family is one of the most intelligent discussion boards in the world..... my experience is that the majority are very open minded, do not flame...... but ask questions about a person's position in a respectful but curious way.

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell's interview show is coming up December 5, 2008. Imagine, if you will, him coming to the site before his NASA days (yes, I know ATS has only been here 10 years.... this is a fantasy statement), talking about wanting to go to the moon..... and nay sayers shot him down before he had a chance to explain why and what for. In his interview he mentioned briefly (Off Air) that he remembered being made fun of about his dreams of going to the moon. Imagine if he had taken those digs and flames to heart.

Edgar Mitchell was the 6th man to walk on the Moon.

Starred & Flagged.

Dave

Originally posted by drock905
I get what your saying and there is no reason for name-calling and automatic doubt. However, true skeptics rarely ever deny the possibilty of anything, they just want the evidence. I think many people get confused into thinking its some sort of personal attack, which it rarely is.

I also understand why people get so frustrated. Believers have a tendency to rarely change thier mind even when confronted with scientific evidence. Which is fine with me. They believe what they believe for whatever personal reason or experience.

I think there are two types of people on ATS.

Logic based people who look at things from a very skeptical angle and people with faith who are willing to accept things easily.

These people are complete opposites. So of course they are going to argue and debate and hardly ever change each others minds. But what both groups rarely realise is that they both need each other.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that they fill the missing pieces in each other.

The request for evidence is a good thing. The implication that lack of evidence represents a loss of credibility is another. There is nothing wrong with believing something for which the evidence is slim. That's how police investigations and science works. To test a hypothesis one must first formulate the hypothesis. And that formulation happens before the evidence is sufficient to represent proof. On the other hand to state a belief as "undeniable truth" without evidence is dishonest.

-rrr

While you can't prove a negative in abstract, you can prove someone wrong if you prove a positive that is incompatible with someone's theory.

Take Area 51, if it's proven there are aliens there anyone who said there was not is wrong. This is simple. They were trying to defend the negative and lost.

So you can sometimes prove someone wrong, especially if their position is itself a negative. This happens a lot with the chemtrail denial brigade, that get caught up in the invalidity of their own position. Happens to a lot of skeptics too, in other areas.

So if you can prove a positive you can disprove a negative. You can't prove a negative. You can't disprove a positive without another positive that is incompatible with it.

Another thing to take into account is that Occam's razor, quaint notion that it is, has limited viability and is mearly a gauge of probability, in the real world it's frequently unviable in determining if something is real or not, as everything is improbable if you think about it. Doubt me and I'll link Monty Python.

Nice thread.Remember it was only a few years ago that the idea of a multi-verse and other dimensions was crazy and only sci-fi? What about black holes?Now we find that something is pulling the universe in one direction something some scientist thinks could be outside our universe.How crazy would that idea would have been say 10-20 years ago.

Our ideas about this universe are being challenged almost monthly. Five years ago if someone would have told you that the Vatican would have said its ok to believe in et's what would you have thought of that person?A few months back Hawkins called "us" that believed that aliens have visited earth wackos.This is the same guy who said that once information goes in a black hole is lost forever...he was proven wrong and was big enough to say so.

It's kinda of amazing that those of use that believe that humans were created by et's reject the idea that a God or some kind of super supreme intelligence from another dimension beyond our current understanding.I have been called a fence sitter because I wont commit 100% to either side of the argument.I dont care call me what they want I'm just big enough to admit that I dont know and I wont pretend that I do.I have hunches but no proof and neither does anyone.Just like everyone I go with what feels right to me however what feels right to me may be wrong.....see what i mean the fence is where I see both sides of the yard

I think that a lot of people are tired of the Titors wannabes, the Goodwills and other hoaxers that plague this forum.
I tend to ignore such topics but sadly the true stories dont get much attention, when stuff like "I slept with an reptilian nwo alien of the galactic federation from the future and I have an important message" get to the frontpage...

[edit on 27-11-2008 by TheOracle]

Hate to tell you, but just because someone writes it, and puts it one the Internet, does not make it facutal.

There are lots of lies posted, for whatever reason.

No, you can not prove that something does not exist. But, when you get some nut case telling us he woke up with a demon in his bed, you can pretty well tell that he is off of his medications again.

And the fact that YOU don't believe does not mean a conspiracy is at work. Most likely, no amount of proof would convince you.

Originally posted by Lasheic

The problem is though... it's bunk. That line of thinking doesn't get you anywhere because you could go in any direction with that line of thought, and always be correct in any assertion you make regardless of whether or not it's actually possible. And make no mistake, that's exactly what it is. It's a shelter for people who like to spout off claims without any hard evidence to back them up.

IYO it's bunk...

Personally, I like it, I don't think of 'water in space' as a valid idea, relative to my current perception of 'reality', but in another universe? why the hell not, or maybe even I'm wrong and space is full of water? have you been personally, to find out?

Everything a person 'knows' and believes is subjective to where they have been, what they have seen and what they have 'learned'. You have not walked my path, nor I yours, so the things we believe to be 'true' and the reality we construct out of our 'truth' will be very different.

Instead, it's best to look at any given proposition with the mindset of what is probable. Is it probable that outer space is filled with water? No... and we can state that because we have actually been there.

'We' ain't been anywhere, 'they' have gone to space and came back and told us about it, end of. Where as I don't believe space is filled with water, I don't know that. I could have all the data I want in front of me, yet aside from actually being there, the notion will never be 'impossible' and probably even after that. (I was very good not to use the 'Sea of energy' angle wasn't I?!? lol)

Beyond that we have mountains of empirical data stretching back several millennia that is contradictory to the very notion.

Millenia?

No, instead I'd rather take the approach of looking at the evidence, making the best judgment calls we can based on that evidence, and changing out viewpoints only when new evidence suggests that we need further study or demands a shift in that worldview.

IMO, this is a bit of an understatement, to generalise myself for a second, MSS is highly dogmatic and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any credibility being given to ideas that don't fit within their 'reality'. Why? Maybe they're afraid it will invalidate their life's work, maybe they like being the 'top dogs' of their fields, or maybe they prevent these ideas, for the implications they may hold, or I'm wrong, lol.

Do not put anything and everything that might be possible on the same level as what we can show to be probable. In the 1800's, they would have been right to call you insane for raving on about cellphones -

No they wouldn't, lol. How would they be 'right' for labeling someone insane for showing them an incomprehensible concept!?!? No matter when the era is.

the evidence known to them at the time did not suggest that cellphones were probable. At the time, it's realistically impossible of them to have invented a cellphone. However, if you had all of the applicable and demonstrable evidence to convince them that it could work, then you would probably find a much more welcoming reception than a loony bin.

there was no evidence, IMO, there was fear, a fear of the unkown, not to mention a heavy oppression by religion into fearing everything that didn't agree with their world view, the beat changes, but the song remains the same eh?

Or let's look at it this way. Next time you have a headache, why not get a cranial drill and poke a few holes in your nugget. It's possible that there really ARE demons in there clawing at your consciousness right?

A lobotomy perhaps??! lol, that was the logical view back then, so who changed, logic, or the people wielding it?

Maybe they're just hiding from asprin and other pain relievers because they want you to think they work, and therefore you won't bust your own skull open trying to release them. You could revolutionize medicine, and help billions of people.

Or make billions off the desperate people needing help? Which do you think is the incentive nowadays?

I bet you won't do it though. Why? Because the evidence we have suggests that if you're not completely retarded before the procedure, you damned well will be afterwards. Assuming you survive that is.

I wouldn't do it, because hammering a small pick into my brain doesn't sound like fun, know what I mean?

EMM

Edit to add:

reply to C.H.U.D:

"I agree with you in principal, but what about when it comes to violating the laws of physics? There may be ways around, but surely the whole point of having laws is to define what is possible and what is impossible (in this universe at least)?"

Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, or unfinished, but they are concieved from an extremely limited perspective, like trying to see a magic eye picture with a magnifying glass, I'd be surprised if they're completely right, but thats just my opinion.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

star and flag!!!

it is not only the problem of the possibility of beeing wrong but the coulture of discussion in first place. some people are just ignorants and narrow thinkers. but you have unfortunatetly small chances to help them.

the best is to ignore them. it is most painfull for the agressive attacks they are coming with.

greetings

I think people should be allowed and expected to demonstrate their small minds and ignorance as much as they like. Most of the time it only exposes them. Not sure how many people are fooled. Though the cattle mentality will some times jump on the band wagon. :->