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 Malcram
I expressed a suspicion in the form of a question
Originally posted by Malcram
As I said, I'm still suspicious. Strongly suspicious. Whose cause did spiritualevolutions appearance serve?
Originally posted by Malcram
Are you trying to pull rank on me SC?
Originally posted by Malcram
And you don't know that Spiritualevolution isn't my "sockpuppet", I suppose, just as you don't know that he's not a skeptic intent on undermining the debate.
Originally posted by Malcram
If so, he needn't have bothered, as ever since your...sermon, this whole discussion has become steadily more immature and pointless.
Originally posted by Malcram
Excellent. If that really is your only concern SC, then I'm sure over the next few days we can hammer out a razor sharp definition of 'Bogus Skepticism" that we can all agree on. Then we can see where it applies. What say you?
Originally posted by spitefulgod
Where is the evidence that can be taken to a wide scientific audiences and proved as extra terrestrial.... there is none, just a load of "look at me"s and a few trivial "could be this or that" pictures.
Sure they could be here and the government could be doing one hell of a job to cover it up, but from what I've seen on this site and others. The images and videos seem to have the same following as the paranormal images.. flying orbs, cgi hoaxes and "eyewitness" accounts.
When I see something I'll believe.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Don't play semantic games. We are far too smart for that and don't fall easily for them.
And you will learn quickly while you are here, only the most immature or closed-minded members cast everything in the light of believer-vs-skeptic. There are no sides here. We're all looking for the same thing.
Point them out. Point to the thread(s) where skeptics gather en mass to ridicule and mock believers; this particular activity is endemic only to the believers.
Using logic and common sense against believers is useless, you can't convince those who already made up their mind. Believers are close minded.
There are so many incompetent thinkers, so many irrational believers.
Believers don't want to think rationally and discuss facts. They already know everything.
There is no reason to believe that, in either case. As such, there is no reason to accuse one side or another of orchestrating his rants.
We have no need for such labels. Ultimately, such labels are crutches because it places the focus on the personality instead of the argument. Worry about what the particular arguments are at the time the arguments are being made, not the person making the argument.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I did not fail to answer his question though. I'm sorry if my answer disappointed you, but at least it was an intellectually honest answer.
Tell that to Stephen Hawking and Frank Drake I would respectfully disagree with you here, and say that formula like the Drake equations are not wild guesses at all, but merely tools for prediction based upon observed evidence. There's a big field between those goalposts. Making a Scientific Guess is not the same as making a wild guess, or expressing an opinion as fact.
Also, I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I'm trying to address his points with rational critical thinking, applying the Scientific Method.
Nice to see you again old friend! Any new findings on the STS footage?
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
.... (or your favorite non-human-intelligence) ...
Originally posted by Malcram
Point them out. Point to the thread(s) where skeptics gather en mass to ridicule and mock believers; this particular activity is endemic only to the believers.
But most notably in your fellow skeptic Nablator's comments, such as:
Frankly, this thread has shown extremely entrenched "sides" among a number of long time members, IMO, yourself included.
Originally posted by Malcram
Indeed. I did not. But perhaps there is good reason to be suspicious.
Originally posted by Malcram
I think we have every need. Bogus Skepticism is rife here, IMO.
Originally posted by Malcram
The label already exists. I see no reason to exclude it from ATS...again, given your previous rant on the supposed evil motives of those who merely raise the subject of 'Bogus Skepticism", your concern regarding a possible ad hominem application rings rather hollow.
Originally posted by Malcram
This might help define things a little more clearly...