It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Beyond that we have mountains of empirical data stretching back several millennia that is contradictory to the very notion.
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.
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 -
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.
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?
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.
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 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)?"