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.
Originally posted by akalepos
What has been posed here as a dilemma for skeptics, is no dilemma for a skeptic.
What keeps getting "added" is this emotional content stuff that has a tendency to get people wrapped around the axle.
The genuine skeptic should be telling you: "I just don't really know."
Statements contrary to that are not ones made by skeptics.
I can't believe that you guys have caught yourselves up in a 16 page reductio, and never noticed it.
You have set up a straw dog, called it a "skeptic", and then argued about THAT.
whoa... kinda strange.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
Oh my god... this isnt a thread anymore, its a slanging match. If I wanted to be party to this I would be watching the Politics Channel on tv, and watching fat bloated idiots discussing issues they have no actual knowlege of.
Originally posted by Malcram
What I have a problem with - what every right thinking person should have a problem with - is "bogus skepticism" (or pseudo-skepticism), which is actually non-skeptic position - cynicism or denialism - masquerading as legitimate skepticism.
Originally posted by RedCairo
Honestly, you seem as biased and extreme as anything on the other side.
Originally posted by RedCairo
The initial post of this thread and those immediately following seemed to make it clear to me at least that the focus was not genuine skeptics...
Originally posted by Europa733
Hi again,
I do not see any diversion here, this topic is about skepticism and it's supposed dilemna.
You guys also wonder why we may be skeptic about the ETH, well the answer is almost simple, nobody can come up with solid evidence to elevate the ETH as the #1 hypothesis.
Why ? I'll say it again, one of the reasons is because there's no protocole specially developped for this kind of studies & research within the ufo field. Now, like someone said it before, there's quiet a difference between what could be considered as evidence in a court of law as opposed to the scientific approach regarding evidence & the subject of ET visitations. There even might big a huge gap in between the two considering the complexity of such a type of research.
I do not want to sound like someone who represents skeptics, that would also be silly, unrealistic and not humble but from my own experience, skeptics do not say UFOs do not exist (UFO => Unidentified not ET) but rather, there's nothing solid & testable pointing in this perticular direction (ET origin) yet.
But maybe the true problem is that pro-ETH try to bring skeptics down, because that is their only way to try to "prove" themselves first and others that they are right and that they are the guardians of the temple of truth.
Originally posted by platosallegory
I think when skeptics try to belittle eyewitness testimony, it's their weakest argument.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
...there are no "genuine skeptics." Anyone and everyone who disagrees with them is a "bogus skeptic," even while they employ the very tactics they attack skeptics for.
Originally posted by RedCairo
I was judging based on this particular thread alone, which did not seem unreasonable to me until all the arguing started.
Originally posted by platosallegory
If you don't want your arguments questioned then you should start a message board with one member.
Originally posted by platosallegory
Like I said there's threads about evidence of extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings and there's threads about the illogical arguments of closed minded debunkers.
Originally posted by platosallegory
Why you complain because someone dare's to question the argument made by some under the mask of skepticism, is beyond me. Actually, it makes sense if you think we are talking about you.
Originally posted by platosallegory
Also, you continue to try and debate claims that I never made.
Originally posted by platosallegory
I never said that I was trying to prove anything to you or anyone else about extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.
Originally posted by platosallegory
I'm just debating the merits of the bogus and pseudo skeptic arguments when it comes to these things. Apparently you don't like it when your positions are questioned.
Originally posted by nablator
It's like having a problem with some believers, who are actually pseudo-believers because they're not entirely irrational. Why do you have a "problem"? There are unreasonable people everywhere, not only within skeptics ranks you know.
SaviorComplex was perfectly right in saying it's obvious that your accusations are actually meant to discredit skeptics as a whole.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by platosallegory
I think when skeptics try to belittle eyewitness testimony, it's their weakest argument.
In each example you give of eyewitness testimony, there is a huge difference that sets them apart from eyewitness testimony of the UFO phenomenon. In each of those examples there is physical, measurable evidence to support the eye-witnesses testimony. In every single one of those cases, eyewitness testimony is not enough to make the case. If the eyewitness testimony does not fit the physical, the measurable, the quantifiable, then it is discarded.
Originally posted by RedCairo
Next time, make the title: Scoffers who pretend to be skeptics: how to recognize the behavior.
Originally posted by platosallegory
Nope, all of the cases that I mentioned have to start with eyewitness testimony and then people reach conclusions based on reason and the evidence and then things get tested.
Originally posted by platosallegory
What the skeptics want is the tested part before we weigh the evidence within reason.
Originally posted by platosallegory
They constantly as for you to prove something. They want you to prove that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings exist before we can weigh the evidence within reason.
No, we are not asking this. We are not asking for these things to be proven before we can investigate, we are asking for evidence that points towards extraterrestrials. The two are not interchangable.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
The Bible:A story book NOT PROOF.
If you think there's no evidence that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings exist then of course your not open mined to the possibility that these things can be the most likely explanation for things like abduction cases, videos, pictures, eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, mass sightings and more.
This is why I asked the question earlier could they be the most likely explanation for these things and you and your fellow closed minded debunkers said no.
YOU CAN'T EVEN ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS CAN BE THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THESE THINGS?
Originally posted by platosallegory
If you think there's no evidence that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings exist...
Originally posted by platosallegory
Also, you continue to try and debate claims that I never made.
Originally posted by platosallegory
This is why I asked the question earlier could they be the most likely explanation for these things and you and your fellow closed minded debunkers said no.
Originally posted by platosallegory
How can you exclude the possibility that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things? That's a clear example of a closed minded debunker.
Originally posted by platosallegory
They found bacteria in the earths atmosphere that's not from earth.
Originally posted by platosallegory
Clearly, that's not an open minded skeptic but a bogus or pseudo skeptic that's really a closed minded debunker.