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.

 

Skeptics and Believers dont exist

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, asking "what evidence do you have for that" is a stupid thing on a conspiracy site? Ipso facto, there's no evidence to be had?


I have seen all kinds of evidence on this site. Pictures, videos, testimonials. What else do you want. I don't think anybody can just call up an alien to take a picture.

Of course some the evidence is crap but some of it is excellent. You are the one simply denying all of the evidence.


I'm still waiting for the excellent evidence. Every talks about it, but nobody presents it. Why is that?




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 

Stop playing games. yesterday I asked you repeatedly and you evaded. I linked to it and you complained that I needed to cite specific examples. Today you insisted I link to it, rather than citing examples. I asked you again in this thread. You evaded. I JUST repeated the claims you defended and provided the link - which you asked for - and now you ask me to repeat it again. You have zero credibility Gawdzilla. You do what you accuse others of and now you are playing ridiculous games. So I'll play along, one last time.

You defended the OPs statement in the thread I linked to above which was that ETs more advanced than humans DO NOT EXIST - not may not - DO NOT EXIST. That's a claim. You defended it.

Now provide evidence to support this statement of "100%" "truth" that you supported.

Prove ETs more advanced than humans DO NOT EXIST.

If you cannot, denounce the statement as pure speculation, as opinion masquerading as "fact", just as you would is something like that was said in support of the ETH. Be consistent. Be a legitimate skeptic. Abandon bias.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


You're like a fish in the ocean asking where the water is. The evidence is all around you, at ATS and elsewhere. You may not consider that this evidence constitutes proof. But the claim that there is no evidence is very silly.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Okay, so you can't provide a link. You should have manned-up and said that a while back. Nobody's perfect.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

I'm still waiting for the excellent evidence. Every talks about it, but nobody presents it. Why is that?


I personally cannot present it b/c I do not save threads to show other people. I don't save threads at all. I might have 2 saved. I wouldn't even know what to type in the search box to pull up an old specific thread.

If anybody has it saved though, about a month ago there was a google video around an hour long. It had a bunch of old ufo vids that hadn't been seen. I believe it was a ufo timeline video.

Why is this thread turning into an evidence thread anyway? What ever happened to skeptics and believers. Here is another label, non-believing skeptic.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I provided the link in a post about five minutes ago, as per your request. Scroll back. And you haven't answered my questions yet Gawdzilla. Hey I'm just asking the "hard questions". I'm just asking for evidence. But all you do is avoid the question. What's good for the Goose, Gawdzilla...

Still, nobody is perfect.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ScRuFFy63
 


Still no evidence then. This is an interesting site, but I'm rather disappointed. ("Why don't you leave, then?")



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I'm still waiting for the excellent evidence. Every talks about it, but nobody presents it. Why is that?


Im not gonna baby-stroll you through UFOlogy. Look up the evidence yourself. Start with radar-anomaly as recorded by the US Air Force as a first kindergarden step in the field.

Just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I'm still waiting for the excellent evidence. Every talks about it, but nobody presents it. Why is that?


Im not gonna baby-stroll you through UFOlogy. Look up the evidence yourself. Start with radar-anomaly as recorded by the US Air Force as a first kindergarden step in the field.

Just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.


My wife was planning to do her Ph.D. on the UFO phenomenon. I did some of the research of her. I've read a lot of UFO material. I'm not ignorant of the material out there. Dissing me with the "go study" routine is just a deflection.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Yes, you still haven't provided evidence for the claim you supported, that ETs more advanced that humans for a fact - a "100%" "truth" - "do not exist".

Prove it, or renounce the claim you defended.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I provided the link in a post about five minutes ago, as per your request. Scroll back. And you haven't answered my questions yet Gawdzilla. Hey I'm just asking the "hard questions". I'm just asking for evidence. But all you do is avoid the question. What's good for the Goose, Gawdzilla...

Still, nobody is perfect.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]


You link pointed to someone else's post. Not mine. Get confused a lot, do you?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


The link took us to the start of the thread because your posts were part of an ongoing discussion on pages 1, 2, and 3, in defense of the OP, as I said.

Gawdzilla, your credibility has been exploded. You have proven yourself to be deeply hypocritical and biased in accepting and defending speculation presented as fact and yet condemning "believers" for exactly the same thing. You pose as a defender of evidence based conclusions - but only when it suits your anti ETH agenda. No legitimate skeptic would do this. Either "man up" and provide evidence for the statement you supported - or acknowledge it was baseless speculation, not worthy of your support.

I tend not to put pseudo-skeptics who I feel have a real chance of swaying board opinion with their skillful use of fallacy on my ignore list, as I feel it is more useful to engage them, at least until they are openly exposed.

Welcome to my ignore list.


[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Good, now I can talk about you and you can't respond. You make a specific claim, you didn't back it up. And you think credibility is important. I sense a contradiction. And many, many reflexive assumptions. Basically, you're on a witch hunt.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Malcram
 


Good, now I can talk about you and you can't respond. You make a specific claim, you didn't back it up. And you think credibility is important. I sense a contradiction. And many, many reflexive assumptions. Basically, you're on a witch hunt.


I followed Malcrams posts for the most part and he did what he said he would.

Anyway
Thread

Video

As I said some crap some excellent. I will not argue in this thread anymore. You have drawn this thread away from its original concept. You speak in way that incites drama. And you post subtle remarks that cause tension. That is nothing less than counter-productive.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Malcram
 


Good, now I can talk about you and you can't respond. You make a specific claim, you didn't back it up. And you think credibility is important. I sense a contradiction. And many, many reflexive assumptions. Basically, you're on a witch hunt.


I followed Malcrams posts for the most part and he did what he said he would.

Anyway
Thread

Video

As I said some crap some excellent. I will not argue in this thread anymore. You have drawn this thread away from its original concept. You speak in way that incites drama. And you post subtle remarks that cause tension. That is nothing less than counter-productive.



The post the thread links to is not mine. How many times do I need to repeat that. What's with the lack of reading comprehension here?

As for "subtle remarks that cause tension", ever think you're reading too much into them because you're excessively defensive?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The post the thread links to is not mine. How many times do I need to repeat that. What's with the lack of reading comprehension here?

As for "subtle remarks that cause tension", ever think you're reading too much into them because you're excessively defensive?


The Thread I linked to has nothing to do with anybody else.

Excessively defensive. What makes you think i'm speaking about myself? I personally could care less about what you think or say. I'm simply trying to help you understand why you get the results you get.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The post the thread links to is not mine. How many times do I need to repeat that. What's with the lack of reading comprehension here?

As for "subtle remarks that cause tension", ever think you're reading too much into them because you're excessively defensive?


The Thread I linked to has nothing to do with anybody else.

Excessively defensive. What makes you think i'm speaking about myself? I personally could care less about what you think or say. I'm simply trying to help you understand why you get the results you get.


Sigh, oh sigh. The OP in that thread is not mine. UFOexists or whatever his name is stated the misquoted sound byte malcram is obsessing over. Is that really so hard to understand. malcram, you still haven't connected me with that quote. (And I know you don't have me on ignore, so quit using John Smith to pass notes.

You mean you're not defensive? Really?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I most certainly am a skeptic, according to one definition.

To some, "skeptic" means a person who refuses to believe in something - God, UFO's, whatever. This is a closed-minded skepticism, as misguided as someone who blindly accepts every claim. That is not the sort of skeptic I claim to be.

I am a "skeptic" because I approach topics with the attitude that I don't know. I neither believe nor disbelieve, unless I have personally experienced something. This is open-minded skepticism, and it applies equally to both sides of an issue.

I try to approach an issue with an open-minded attitude, admitting that what I *think* I know may be false. I'm convinced that the Earth is more or less spherical, but I'll hear someone out who claims it's flat. Maybe he's got some previously unknown evidence that would be compelling.

I don't know what UFO's are. I don't know whether there is a Bigfoot, and if so, what it might be. I don't know if there is an Illuminati group trying to control the world. And so on. I'll listen (at least for a while), but it will take some serious evidence to convince me one way or the other.

As for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, this isn't some vague notion. "Extraordinary" means, "Outside the ordinary", phenomena not commonly encountered by ordinary people in their daily lives. Most people encounter dogs and cats. Few, if any, encounter werewolves and vampires. If someone told me they met a cat today, I'd accept that without question. They're all over the place. If they told me they met a vampire, I'd need some better evidence than their unsupported statement. The evidence would have to be extraordinary. I'd probably need to actually meet the vampire myself to be convinced. Actual experience trumps almost all other types of evidence.

But yes, I am definitely a skeptic. As Socrates said, "All that I know, is that I know nothing. And I barely know that."



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
These are semantics. I don't get it. Defining a skeptic is kind of pointless. People can be skeptical without being a skeptic. To each his own but this seems like an argumentative thread.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613

As for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, this isn't some vague notion. "Extraordinary" means, "Outside the ordinary", phenomena not commonly encountered by ordinary people in their daily lives. Most people encounter dogs and cats. Few, if any, encounter werewolves and vampires. If someone told me they met a cat today, I'd accept that without question. They're all over the place. If they told me they met a vampire, I'd need some better evidence than their unsupported statement. The evidence would have to be extraordinary. I'd probably need to actually meet the vampire myself to be convinced. Actual experience trumps almost all other types of evidence.



The "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is abused far too often on this site. Fortunately it often backfires and negatively affects the credibility of the member attempting to use the tactic.

Occam's Razor is also far too often abused - It was applied and in use on Dec 7 1941, at a small radar station in Hawaii; A malfunct set of radar equipment was by far the simplest explanation for what was seen on the display that morning.... of course this was a worst-case scenario resultant from the misapplication of this principle. Nevertheless, the results of this misapplication speak for themselves and can be found in the historical records.


*Here is an entertaining example of the over-used and oft abused "Extraordinary claims" tactic as it could be applied to the concept of Dinosaurs:

"This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let's declare that dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation, just the way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we don't need to defend the rationale of the demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof -- but conceptual feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but
will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence in my wait for physical proof?

We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance, dinosaur articles are published in journals which already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, it is biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the "simplest explanation", and I don't have to worry about using overstrenuous logic because, in an absence of physical proof of dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler, no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the essence of the scientific rejection of the UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence."


-Brian Zeiler (Thanks Brian!)

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join