Skeptics and Believers dont exist

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
If any of the staff want to see any of this, I can send it. To confirm my name, just visit the first site on my profile and get my email address.

To demonstrate what it means not to be constantly and always skeptical of everything I did not even mention it. And I personally wont be requesting any proof from you. Its called "giving the benefit of the doubt". And its a practice that is more trusting than cynical.

The downside is that I sometimes fall for things that are untrue. The upside is that I am more happy.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

We require a more neutral third-party.

I prefer that the moderator Skyfloating be the one to confirm your claims of academic accreditation and of being a Navy Veteran.

You make a good point about giving back to Gawdzilla what he has been demanding of others.

But I dont want to get involved as a Moderator within threads that I post as an ATS-Member. Its not good to mix the two.

reply to post by Amagnon


Indeed I dont mean to imply that using the words "believer" or "skeptic" should be forbidden. I´ve used the words generously myself. But its always a good idea to be aware of the words underlying intentions and limitations.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
If any of the staff want to see any of this, I can send it. To confirm my name, just visit the first site on my profile and get my email address.

To demonstrate what it means not to be constantly and always skeptical of everything I did not even mention it. And I personally wont be requesting any proof from you. Its called "giving the benefit of the doubt". And its a practice that is more trusting than cynical.

The downside is that I sometimes fall for things that are untrue. The upside is that I am more happy.

I'm still willing to show a staff person my DD-214 (or one of them, anyway (you get one each time you re-enlist), my VA card (and a letter showing my disability rating) and BA diploma from Purdue, via webcam so you know it's not a photoshop. (I lost my MA diploma when I was moved after my wife died in 2007.)

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Im sure you're willing. Im not requesting it though. If you and the member exuberant want to, you can take this issue to another staff member.

I dont speak as staff in threads of my own.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Late to the party here, But I'm not sure there's any point or relevance to having Gawdzilla provide any sort of documentation about his background.

I don't see any of that as being germane to the discussion.

If he was claiming to be Stephen Hawking (or the like), we'd probably be looking for validation. Otherwise, I fail to see the relevance.

I noticed the large number of moderators watching this thread,as expected considering the debates going on.I find this kind of amusing-the back and forth courtroom type drama.This is what has tired me in other threads though.Not this one however as it is kind of what this thread was about.I don't know about everyone else but I would like to get more into researching evidence and not debating intentions and beliefs,but that is just me(and I'm sure many other members).

reply to post by jkrog08


Present a sample-case if you'd like, for us to see the prejudices of Skeptics and Believers first hand.

This is from the thread Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

Believer....

It can clearly be seen there is only one large and slowly moving object, around which artillery shells are constantly exploding.

Available evidence summary:

* The video showing the moving craft and artillery firing at it
* The photograph showing the same, clearly showing the outline of a luminous physical craft encapsulated in the search lights
* Significant eye-witness testimony corroborating all above

Your explanations so far have been unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the available evidence. You either admit that that this is a genuine UFO or provide a satisfactory and consistent explanation.

From the skeptic..

You haven't provided three clinchers you spoke of in the OP. You just provided warmed over nonsense that has been debunked.

"* The video showing the moving craft and artillery firing at it
* The photograph showing the same, clearly showing the outline of a luminous physical craft encapsulated in the search lights
* Significant eye-witness testimony corroborating all above "

First, the video does not "clearly show" anything. IF there is something in the conjunction of the searchlights, it truly is a UFO, emphasis on the UNIDENTIFIED. Making the conceptual leap to an alien space craft is optional, but unsupported.

Second, eyewitnesses are very nice, just lovely, but are simply humans and humint is subject to the prejudices of the times. You see an alien space ship, they saw Japanese bombers. Are you both right? Was it a Japanese Imperial Space Forces bomber?

That is two examples of a conflict between a skeptic and believer showing the prejudices involved.

Originally posted by yeahright
Otherwise, I fail to see the relevance.

For clarification:

Are we then, to be left with Gawdzilla's word alone as proof of his claims of academic accreditation and as being a Navy Veteran?

I understand if that is the case. I shall say no more and shall not pursue the matter any further.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


"Are we then, to be left with Gawdzilla's word alone as proof of his claims of academic accreditation and as being a Navy Veteran?"

My offer still stands. And you've all did the google I recommended. Now what?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Are we then, to be left with Gawdzilla's word alone as proof of his claims of academic accreditation and as being a Navy Veteran?

Like the overwhelming majority of the information that appears in our forums, the reader is free to decide what is accurate and what isn't. What we are not willing to do is set up a precedent for having each member who makes a statement about their background being forced to provide tangible proof of it.

What we will ask is someone who comes to our forums as a "celebrity" or known person, to provide the documentation that they are in fact who they claim to be. But since the overwhelming majority of us are anonymous anyway, we'll allow the membership to draw their own conclusions about any personal information revealed here. (Bear in mind the difference between "personal information" and "personally identifying information". For example, marital status is personal information and does nothing significant to facilitate personally identifying you).

Of course this is situational, and we reserve the right to treat each instance as appropriate.

In this case, there's nothing about Gawdzilla's background that's a deal breaker regarding the content of his participation. Caveat lector. Or not. Your call.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Can someone tell me in plain English how we should address the 'skeptics' now?

I suggest "fellow ATS member", it sounds good enough for me.

These labels are just insane. Everything that you believe is an opinion. Everything that "is" or "will be" fact is based on the experiences of other people. What you choose to accept is your own opinion on what is or isn't true.

Look at gravity for instance. Why am I not floating away into space? Is it because the earth is pulling me towards it? Or is it because some force outside of earth is pushing me down? Either argument could be viewed as fact and both could use the same evidence to prove their cases.

Basically in the end the experiences of the population of the world trumps facts and evidence. My evidence for "ufos" is my own small experiences and the number of people around the world who make these "extraordinary" claims. How many times does something have to happen for it not to be extraordinary?

reply to post by ScRuFFy63


"Basically in the end the experiences of the population of the world trumps facts and evidence. My evidence for "ufos" is my own small experiences and the number of people around the world who make these "extraordinary" claims. How many times does something have to happen for it not to be extraordinary?"

Just become something is popular doesn't automatically mean it's correct.

"extraordinary claims" aren't determined by vote, they're claims that extraordinary events have occurred. To verify that they indeed happened, extraordinary evidence is needed.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


What is or is not extraordinary varies from person to person. For the mentally challenged and the imbecile everything seems "extraordinary".

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

What is or is not extraordinary varies from person to person. For the mentally challenged and the imbecile everything seems "extraordinary".

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

And we're back to picking and choosing our definitions of words.

extraordinary

ADJECTIVE: Far beyond what is usual, normal, or customary: exceptional, magnificent, outstanding, preeminent, rare, remarkable, singular, towering, uncommon, unusual.

Believe me I want proof as much as the next guy but there are things that we as a race cannot prove just yet. I choose not to base all of my beliefs on evidence. That can only get you as far as the evidence allows.

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63
Believe me I want proof as much as the next guy but there are things that we as a race cannot prove just yet. I choose not to base all of my beliefs on evidence. That can only get you as far as the evidence allows.

I won't go any further, that's speculation. Fine if you want to go that route, but it's hardly proof.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
And we're back to picking and choosing our definitions of words.

extraordinary

ADJECTIVE: Far beyond what is usual, normal, or customary: exceptional, magnificent, outstanding, preeminent, rare, remarkable, singular, towering, uncommon, unusual.

That is what makes life worth living. Our own personal perceptions. Without those we are nothing better than ants. It seems to me that the people in charge don't seem to agree with individuality, except when it comes to money.