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.

 

Show Me A Sceptic That Does Not Believe In Aliens

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Greetings.

It seems to me that there is a popular misconception on this website that sceptics have a closed mind and do not believe in even the possibility of alien life in the universe. This is wrong, most sceptics believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe but have a problem believing fully that alien life has visited earth, with damn good reason I'll add.

Well, it may be true that a tiny minority of sceptics don't believe in anything (that is a truly closed mind, just as closed as a blind believers mind in fact) but the vast majority of sceptics who visit this site do indeed believe in the possible/definite existance of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe. (let's face it, how could they not when you consider how many planets exist and the infinite size of space)

Might it even be said that a sceptic mind is more open than that of a believing mind as a sceptic will consider other explanations for cases where as a believer will only believe one thing (that is ''it's'' alien)? I'm not saying that's what I believe but it is a point.

I would like to see people's perception of sceptics change you see, sceptics are crucial to this site and any area involving subjects of this nature. Personally speaking, I don't yet believe there is sufficient proof that aliens have visited earth yet I still look at the stars and research ufo cases in hope that I find proof.

This thread was inspired by the way in which ''debunkers/sceptics'' are looked down upon by many on this site. Just because a person does not believe everything they see/hear/read about it does not make them narrow minded, if you believe it does then it is you who is narrow minded.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I absolutely agree with you. Star and flag.

I have no problem believing that intelligent life exists in the universe, I have no doubt that there exist species which are far superior to us in terms of technology by virtue of being much, much older.

But I do have a problem believing they've ever visited Earth, or are even aware that there is an Earth. I believe that faster-than-light travel is impossible.

But that's not to say that I'm totally adverse to the idea that a much more advanced civilization could have found found a way around our current model of the 'way things work.'

UFO videos don't convince me, neither do shady people like Bob Lazar and all the others. MIB, black helicopters, massive coverup, it just doesn't ring true to me.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Yes I agree completely. To add some of us "true believers" are actually skeptics offering a different possible answer to said evidence. It does not mean that we truly know 100% that what we are looking at is Alien, we just dare to ask what if it is? Nothing wrong with that. I offer those explanations all the time while at the same time being skeptical about my alternative explanation being correct. Many "true beleivers" do this, and then they are flamed for it. There is not only black and white in this area, many of us are in the gray area of belief. I don't just simply disregard something because of lack of proof, I simply stick it in the back of my mind until it might relate or help explain another piece of the puzzle.

On the other hand some skeptics explanations for some events are simply ludicrous (and completely illogical more so than the psycho fanatic). Many offer explanations that could not possibly be what we are looking at just to throw a debunk out there. Some skeptics (like phage) instead use facts and logic to determine what it might be. Those are the skeptics i personally appreciate because they actually add something to the conversation. People that simply state "He is a liar and a hoaxer" without any back up information are the people that really are ignorant. If you are going to accuse someone of lying or hoaxing bring in some info to back up your claim. Just like evidence needs to be backed up, so does the rebuttal for that evidence. QUIT BEING RUDE!!! Just because you don't believe something does not mean it's not true even though it could be. Respect what other people have to say and reply in a polite fashion. Thank you!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.


Hi Hawkwind. I agree that there is a popular misconception about what a skeptic is. I actually think that has arisen because of the presence of outright debunkers who pose as skeptics and so give skepticism a bad name. These people - pseudo-skeptics as discussed in my signature - use fallacies that skeptics never would in denial of the ETH and UFO phenomena, whereas skeptics retain an open mind to the possibilities and the evidence. So I am pleased to see skeptics intent on maintaining a correct definition of healthy and legitimate skepticism.

I disagree that with the idea that "a sceptic mind is more open than that of a believing mind as a sceptic will consider other explanations for cases where as a believer will only believe one thing (that is ''it's'' alien)?" becuse this rather misrepresents believers in a similar manner to the way you are saying that skeptics are misrepresented. Many believers would never assume one possibility and therefore declare all such phenomena as definite evidence of "aliens", they are generally far more discerning and cautious with the evidence than that. Of course there are such "wild eyed true believers" just as there are so called skeptics who are actually closed minded debunkers.

I totally agree that skeptics are crucial to the UFO and ETH debate and have said so before, and again, I am very pleased to see a defense of legitimate skepticism. I think you just need to be aware that it's pseudo-skepticism posing as skepticism which gives skeptics a bad name among believers and cause the problem in perception you are addressing, and so cautious believers and open-minded skeptics should both do what they can to oppose the fallacies used by the extremes of both of their camps.

Great thread. Star and flag.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
as above, statistically they exists, they are unlikely to be on the same timeline as us, possibly thousands or millions of years difference (either way) but have they been here?? Would they even know about us??? We’ve been transmitting for 100ish years, based on their technology and society could they get here, would they want to come here. Have they evolved into a virtual reality, have they been taken over by there technology, I mean in 300 years robotics will be everywhere, will we integrate into machines, will machines deem we are unnecessary?

Anywho, I don't think they know we exist, as a species go we are pretty crap if you look at our dominant societies as a whole.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I am a skeptic whos busting someones cajones on another thread right now for not having proof.
I have seen stuff in the skies and am a believer but because of it I now am looking for solid proof.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This video analyzes the old "oh but you skeptics aren't open-minded" fallacy some people throw at you when you're not buying their fantastic claims. Now I get to read stuff like that each week where the one that requires proof is treated as an old decadent square with zero imagination while it's cool to believe Stonehenge was built by UFOs on their way to Atlantis.




I don't understand why you say that people who don't believe in anything are close minded. Well maybe you're right, I believe in a few philosophical things that I can't prove. For the rest I don't want to believe, I want to know. Belief gets in the way of critical thinking.


[edit on 2009-4-9 by nablator]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Ugh, well spoken. I remember a post where someone had a picture of a ghost they wanted feedback on. I still hold to my belief that his wife's hair was over the camera lens, and even though he was shocked I could figure out her exact hair length and color, everyone shot me down fast.

I think my personal favorite reply was "It's a level 4 astral being" or something like that. Where does this stuff come from?

I believe in a lot of things. However, people are way too easily swayed into assuming the most paranormal or extraterrestial explanation on something before looking at the obvious.

Another one that comes to mind is where a movie was posted that showed skydivers at night. It clearly stated they were skydivers, and people insisted it was actually UFOs aka the extraterrestial variety. I just don't get it.

I believe myself to be open minded, but cautious on coming to conclusions. Too many people jump from A to Z without looking at B, C, etc.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Agreed. I would consider myself as an "open minded skeptic". Every time I see a "Undeniable Proof"-Thread turning into rubbish, it tears my heart apart. I'm waiting for definite proof or strong evidence. But until now, most "proof of visiting aliens" was not that convincing.

I'm a skeptic because I'm not gullible and believe every single story. I want to come to the core. And that's only possible by being skeptic in the first place, aka breaking the case into pieces, researching it, using rational logic and sorting out all noise.

And to add: No "skeptic" would even be here, if they didn't seek strong evidence or even proof. (except the oh so beloved "disinfo agents", of course, right?
)

//EDIT for typo

[edit on 9.4.2009 by SiONiX]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


That's a good vid thanks for posting it. Star for you



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I think this definition of a skeptic is the best I've ever seen:


Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.


Source: www.ufoskeptic.org... --> Some great articles there too!



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Dambit. Here I thought I'd have a chance to post that video. QuillaSoup has some other excellent videos that I wish more people would watch.

As for me, I agree with the OP. Actually, from my perspective, it seems most people are convinced that intelligent alien life exists elsewhere in the Universe to varying degrees. I myself believe that intelligent, perhaps even spacefaring, alien life exists within the cosmos. However, as I've said before, that is not the same as the leap in logic it takes to believe that UFOs are Aliens on some "humanitarian" aid trip to Earth in order to give poor under-privlidged rednecks free colonoscopies as part of the galactic socialized healthcare league.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I'am a skeptic at heart and love proving or disproving ideas and an avid astronomer.I absolutly believe in alien life rather it be an single celled organism or other intelligent beings.I do have a hard time believing in visitors I have spent hours under the night sky and have never seen anything that couldn't be explained.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Maybe someone needs to enter this thread to shake up the Skeptic lovefest that this is. You want proof? just read it


Anyway

I don't really consider myself a skeptic or faithful believer. I judge each case on its own. Sometimes I believe the vid, pic in question is truly unexplainable and at that point it is up to everyones individual opinion as to what it is.

One of the issues I have with alot of skeptics is that in a case such as the example above, skeptics will usually disappear from the thread or just choose to believe it is not an "alien" no matter what, even if it is entirely possible. So this is where the "willingness to consider alternative explanations" goes out the window.

Most skeptics I have witnessed refuse to ever admit the possibility that the "object" could be an alien craft or ghost or whatever the claim is.

The one possibility that this skeptic never considers is the one the claim is based on. This is what I think is irritating to believers.




By the way I am curious what you all think would happen if there weren't any skeptics say in the case of Alien craft visiting Earth?

So no one would be debunking all of these pics and vids. So the believers would be the only source of information. Meaning the world would then for the most part believe in Aliens. The MSM might even stop laughing to themselves whenever they report a ufo.


I am not saying I believe skeptics should disappear anymore than blind believers. I think the 2 are symbiotic.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Great post! I'm an open-minded skeptic myself and it was about time someone posted an angle to our side of the story.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 




I think that before a new member is allowed to join this site they should have to watch that video beforehand, then be tested on it and only then if they pass should they be allowed to join
. Seriously though, good video, thanks.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I'm a professional skeptic. I kid you not. My job is to look at other people's work and see what they missed, and to ask questions they forgot to ask, as well as challenge their assumptions. I work with lots of people who get frustrated when I point out something they've overlooked, but they realize that something important may have bee missed and they make necessary adjustments.

However, occasionally I run into a person who is absolutely sure they've made no errors, forgot nothing and that their work is perfect. That's when I really have fun.

If you want your theory on anything accepted, you have to be ready to look at the criticism of that theory. If you can't do that, you don't have a theory, you have "faith". At that point further discussion is useless.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Kind of like the faith you have in the universe existing, for ever before and for ever after, infinite, but how did infinite come to be? Which landed me right back to square one, you have faith that that is the explanation, but yet you won't admit to it and retaliate with remarks, such as well, my signature is self explanatory


[edit]

PS, learn how to spell 'skeptic', sceptic is a little familiar with a word regarding our systems used to dispose of unwanted things.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Revolution-2012]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


I don't have "faith" that the Universe exists. It's testable.

BTW, before scolding someone on spelling, turn your pedant meter way up. "sceptic" is the English spelling of "skeptic". And "septic" was the word you meant, anyway.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
PS, learn how to spell 'skeptic', sceptic is a little familiar with a word regarding our systems used to dispose of unwanted things.


Sorry Mr. Uber Speller, its "septic". And "sceptic" is the Euro way of spelling the word skeptic. Be more tolerant of how those of other cultures spell...

Off topic I know, I'll have my lashings now...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join