The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
How many skeptics have walked on the moon?
How many skeptics have carried out the double slit experiment?
How many skeptics have seen a wormhole or a blackhole?
How many skeptics have tested the Casimir Effect?

I can go on and on and the point is that the skeptic try and say eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, videos, trace evidence abduction cases and more do not matter and that's just a lie.

We always use testimony and evidence from others to weigh evidence within reason. We do this in all walks of life but the skeptic has taken the red pill when it comes to things like ufology and the paranormal and everything is backwards.

If a reporter is going to town to investigate a murder and he/she gets 3 different stories that point to the same person they are going to look into the person even if the eyewitness testimony may be different.

If have a video a skeptic may say it's a weather balloon no matter what the eyewitness said and no matter how the object is moving in the video. If you examine the video and a weather balloon has been ruled out then it moves to the unexplained column.

Think about it. How can you ever have evidence if all the evidence has to fit your pre-existing belief and if it doesn't it's unexplained forever. It's unexplained until you find an explanation that fits your belief about these things.

Every sighting is fake or mistaken
Every video is fake or mistaken
Every picture is fake or mistaken
Every abduction case is fake or mistaken
Every trace evidence case is fake or mistaken

How can you ever have evidence for extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings if you don't weigh the evidence within reason? It's illogical. We can always use varying testimony and reason to come to a conclusion as to what is most likely. The skeptic wants weather balloons, chinese lanterns, unexplained, unidentified, kite or anything else to have an equal possibility of being true when logic doesn't work that way. We weigh the evidence. Some things are more likely to be true while others are less likely to be true.

The question I asked the skeptics can extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence , videos and more.

If no, please explain why.

It's like saying, give me evidence of an airplane and then an airplane flies by or is captured on picture and video again and again and you say that's not a plane it's unidentified, now show me evidence that a plane exists.

Well if you can't weigh eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, abduction cases, ancient manuscripts, trace evidence and more within reason then of course you will never have evidence for extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings. If the evidence "looks too good to be true" then how can you have evidence of anything?

If you set up an illogical premise that "blinds" you to the evidence, then how can you ever "see" the evidence?




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory

It's not like we are coming to this conclusion about these things in a vacuum. There's alot of evidence to look at that supports extra-terrestials or extra-dimensional beings.
I stopped reading after this sentence, so let me ask you this. Where is there any evidence of extra dimensions? Not only evidence of the actual dimension, but living beings in that dimension?

Am I the only one getting sick of seeing "I hate skeptics" threads? All you're doing is cluttering up the forum, and making others potentially miss something that could be of importance. We get it, you don't like people who ask questions.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
How many skeptics have walked on the moon?
How many skeptics have carried out the double slit experiment?
How many skeptics have seen a wormhole or a blackhole?
How many skeptics have tested the Casimir Effect?

I can go on and on and the point is that the skeptic try and say eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, videos, trace evidence abduction cases and more do not matter and that's just a lie.

We always use testimony and evidence from others to weigh evidence within reason. We do this in all walks of life but the skeptic has taken the red pill when it comes to things like ufology and the paranormal and everything is backwards.

If a reporter is going to town to investigate a murder and he/she gets 3 different stories that point to the same person they are going to look into the person even if the eyewitness testimony may be different.

If have a video a skeptic may say it's a weather balloon no matter what the eyewitness said and no matter how the object is moving in the video. If you examine the video and a weather balloon has been ruled out then it moves to the unexplained column.

Think about it. How can you ever have evidence if all the evidence has to fit your pre-existing belief and if it doesn't it's unexplained forever. It's unexplained until you find an explanation that fits your belief about these things.

Every sighting is fake or mistaken
Every video is fake or mistaken
Every picture is fake or mistaken
Every abduction case is fake or mistaken
Every trace evidence case is fake or mistaken

How can you ever have evidence for extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings if you don't weigh the evidence within reason? It's illogical. We can always use varying testimony and reason to come to a conclusion as to what is most likely. The skeptic wants weather balloons, chinese lanterns, unexplained, unidentified, kite or anything else to have an equal possibility of being true when logic doesn't work that way. We weigh the evidence. Some things are more likely to be true while others are less likely to be true.

The question I asked the skeptics can extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence , videos and more.

If no, please explain why.

It's like saying, give me evidence of an airplane and then an airplane flies by or is captured on picture and video again and again and you say that's not a plane it's unidentified, now show me evidence that a plane exists.

Well if you can't weigh eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, abduction cases, ancient manuscripts, trace evidence and more within reason then of course you will never have evidence for extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings. If the evidence "looks too good to be true" then how can you have evidence of anything?

If you set up an illogical premise that "blinds" you to the evidence, then how can you ever "see" the evidence?




well done
best post ive ever seen on ats

people
there is a virus
its called ufo skepticism

the sooner its wiped out
the better!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Excellent post. Nice to read.

I firmly believe that IF there ever was "proof" of extra-terrestrials it will come NOT from a youtube clip or posting on a site like this but from a personal source (our own eyes) and UNDENIABLE from ALL perspectives and in ANY country by EVERYONE. Any apparent proof from a single outlet will always be skeptical due to the nature of manipulation from a controlling sources. ($£$£)

Hollywood, the military, NASA and the likes have so much to answer for and that's why it's hard to accept anything from them as truth.

Like I said...I will believe when I SEE one/them.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 



Hi Nablator.



Using logic and common sense against believers is useless, you can't convince those who already made up their mind. Believers are close minded. I'm open to any explanation because I don't know what's going on. Nothing would please me more than knowing the truth.


Well this claim of open minded anticipation of possible evidence seems rather at odds with your original brief post here which said:

"You have a serious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific evidence. There is just no compelling evidence of aliens anywhere, get over it."

So, which Nablator are you, the page two dismissive, curt and closed-minded Nablator, or the reasonable, open-minded 'seeker' type Nablator of page four?



Only a few reasonable people dare oppose the propaganda machine and think for themselves. Someone has to. There are so many incompetent thinkers, so many irrational believers. Someone has to do actual research.


I am almost speechless that this paragraph could in all seriousness be offered as supposedly being representative of the 'skeptical camp', as they bravely oppose the hordes of unthinking, ill informed, UFO 'believers'. Unbelievable.



You have no idea. Some people, including those who had incredible experiences, are skeptical of the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis. Please read Jeff Ritzmann's thread me and "them". After all he has endured, he says he doesn't believe in extra-terrestrial. Go ahead and read the entire thread, it's one of the best ever. But it's a long thread, so if you don't want to read it all, his opinion about ETs and skeptics is on page 9. I respect and admire the man for his honesty and courage. I respect his beliefs. Even though I don't have any.


OK, I haven't read the thread, but I will. However - and do correct me if I'm wrong - you appear to be describing a man who has had several personal experiences which he discounts as being ET related, rather than someone who has studied the full range of evidence that is available outlining the worldwide UFO phenomenon. I don't really see that as relevant. But, I'll read the thread, maybe I'm wrong.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualevolution
id like to just see all ufo skeptics die
if we stick together
we can stamp out this virus


Are you skeptical of skeptics?


You won't last long here...enjoy it while you can.


I'm a skeptic...do you wish me dead?

[edit on 16/3/2009 by nerbot]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory

Let me ask the skeptics a question, can extraterrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for these things?

If no, please explain why.


That was a very well thought out post, and I have also observed what you've outlined here.

The answer to your question here is yes, as is the case in the Battle of Los Angeles, linked in my signature.

Very apt deductions platosallegory. Well met!

-WFA



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualevolution
 


Well whaddya know! A supposed 'uber believer' - with the handle spiritualevolution - turns up preaching 'death to the skeptics'. Did one of you guys really feel you had to pull that trick out of the bag in order to undermine this debate?

Too obvious. I don't buy it.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
But it's deeply hypocritical. In fact, by saying this you are attacking our supposed motives...rather than dealing with the subject itself.


Not hypocritical in the least. As you claim you are doing with skeptics, I am discussing the tactics used by a certain group of believers in order to inoculate themselves from any sort of questioning. Now, if I was discussing the motivations and tactics of a believer instead of the case they were presenting, then yes, it would be hypocritical; however, in this discussion, I am talking about the case being presented.

If anything, I have exposed your hypocrisy.

I addressed you in another thread, and noticed you have not answered.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



The battle for LA is hardly the basis for a good explanation. Evidence but NOT proof.

Have you actually studied the case, analysed the (1) photo and read the reports and articles thoughroughly. Leaves a LOT unanswered and raises some interesting questions regarding the military actions at the time (pearl harbour) and possible experimentation with/within the event.

C'mon, you can do better than that.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I am a skeptic. At least I use a skeptical approach. I have never said that ufos or aliens do not exist. I on;y maintain that we do not know much about them.

The ideas that they might be interdimensional or interstellar are extrapolations from what we believe that we do know.

But!
There are other possibilities. The corpus of the information that has been in our folk psychology for so long, when compiled, reveals alternate possibilities.

The book on the left was written by me. In story form, I lay out what I think it might be about. If you read it, you will not think "skeptic". Of course I don't know what you WILL think, but probably not that.

I STILL think the majority here is practicing cynicism while at the same time using patterns that describe cynics as skeptics.

I wouldn't lie to you about this.

Your cynicism about skeptics makes you the same as what you decry.
Just give yourself a break from it bud. hehehe God luv ya.

The skeptics dilemma is that no one knows what a skeptic is.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by akalepos]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



The battle for LA is hardly the basis for a good explanation. Evidence but NOT proof.

Have you actually studied the case, analysed the (1) photo and read the reports and articles thoughroughly. Leaves a LOT unanswered and raises some interesting questions regarding the military actions at the time (pearl harbour) and possible experimentation with/within the event.

C'mon, you can do better than that.


Please, just click the link. It's not that hard. You make yourself look extremely foolish by asking if I've studied the case.

It's the link in my signature. Do yourself a favor and give it a read.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex





Not hypocritical in the least. As you claim you are doing with skeptics, I am discussing the tactics used by a certain group of believers in order to inoculate themselves from any sort of questioning. Now, if I was discussing the motivations and tactics of a believer instead of the case they were presenting, then yes, it would be hypocritical; however, in this discussion, I am talking about the case being presented.


No, you were impugning our motives in raising the issue of 'bogus skepticism" at all, and were making all sorts of false claims about why we raised it, rather than refuting the definition of bogus skepticism that was given. That is quite different. Do you disagree with the definition of bogus skepticism that was referred to? I'd really like an answer. And if so, what specifically do you disagree with about the definition referred to?



I addressed you in another thread, and noticed you have not answered.


I have no idea which thread nor know of anyway to find out. I'm not that adept at using ATS features. Perhaps you could tell me? If it was sometime before this thread appeared then I probably didn't see it as I had to un-'ignore' you in order to respond in this thread.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
But it's deeply hypocritical. In fact, by saying this you are attacking our supposed motives...rather than dealing with the subject itself.


Not hypocritical in the least. As you claim you are doing with skeptics, I am discussing the tactics used by a certain group of believers in order to inoculate themselves from any sort of questioning. Now, if I was discussing the motivations and tactics of a believer instead of the case they were presenting, then yes, it would be hypocritical; however, in this discussion, I am talking about the case being presented.

If anything, I have exposed your hypocrisy.

I addressed you in another thread, and noticed you have not answered.


I answered. I answered all of your questions. And yet, you seemed to have abandoned that thread.

Still looking into the frenchfry bag expecting to find marbles?

LOL Savior. If you're looking to have this debate, I've always been a willing participant. I cite evidence, sources, links. I do experiments to test my thesis. I'll pit that work against your armchair insults anyday, and let the readers make the call.

If you've got something to say, let's get to it man. Stop bullying the newbies and pick on somebody your own size.


-WFA



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

I have no idea which thread nor know of anyway to find out. I'm not that adept at using ATS features. Perhaps you tell me?


Gladly Malcram
It was this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and I'm still waiting for his argument to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For future reference, click the My ATS button in the link bar at the top of your screen, to see other threads you have visited.


-WFA



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
So, which Nablator are you, the page two dismissive, curt and closed-minded Nablator, or the reasonable, open-minded 'seeker' type Nablator of page four?

If you don't understand the meaning of "there is just no compelling evidence of aliens anywhere", let me explain: I'm open to the possibility, very open. The ETH is a reasonable hypothesis. But it's not the only one. Far from it. And there is very good evidence against it too if you take the time to research things in depth.


I am almost speechless that this paragraph could in all seriousness be offered as supposedly being representative of the 'skeptical camp', as they bravely oppose the hordes of unthinking, ill informed, UFO 'believers'. Unbelievable.

But true. You should try to understand the point of view of the other side. I'm speechless at the stupidity of hating people who don't agree with you. I enjoy reading different opinions from people who don't think like me. If they think at all. It gives me an opportunity to rethink my position and maybe change my mind. Challenging dogma and established theories is the modus operandi of science. Believers don't want to think rationally and discuss facts. They already know everything.


OK, I haven't read the thread, but I will. However - and do correct me if I'm wrong - you appear to be describing a man who has had several personal experiences which he discounts as being ET related, rather than someone who has studied the full range of evidence that is available outlining the worldwide UFO phenomenon. I don't really see that as relevant. But, I'll read the thread, maybe I'm wrong.

You are. Read about Jeff Ritzmann, who he is, what he's done. A very respected researcher who studied the UFO phenomenon all his life. The problem with belief is that it gets in the way of understanding. The only belief I have is that reality is more complex than it seems. I try not to be superficial and refrain from jumping to conclusions.

[edit on 2009-3-16 by nablator]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
You are. Read about Jeff Ritzmann, who he is, what he's done. A very respected researcher who studied the UFO phenomenon all his life. The problem with belief is that it gets in the way of understanding. The only belief I have is that reality is more complex than it seems. I try not to be superficial and refrain from jumping to conclusions.

That was good.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
"The question I asked the skeptics can extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, trace evidence , videos and more."

Of course it is possible. I just don't know it of a certainty.

But, for lack of a better explanation, there is no reason to NOT use the one you suggest. Just don't expect everyone to sign off on it. Some won't.

Your mistake will only come if you state that proposition as a fact. Then, the the others will come out of the woodwork to try to refute you.

Present it as the most likely explanation that you can think of. There is really nothing to argue about with a statement like that.

I follow you, I get what yer sayin. My advice would simply to be that you think about ways to present your views that are non aggressive. You'll get much more mileage out it that way.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join