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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63It does make sense or it wouldn't happen so often. You already know how conspiracy theorists are viewed. So you come to a conspiracy theorist haven and ask them questions you know they cannot answer. Do you know what happens when you corner a strange animal? They usually attack.

It doesn't make sense just because it happens "so often". That's just weird.

I thought attacks were against forum rules. I guess Animal House rules apply?




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63It does make sense or it wouldn't happen so often. You already know how conspiracy theorists are viewed. So you come to a conspiracy theorist haven and ask them questions you know they cannot answer. Do you know what happens when you corner a strange animal? They usually attack.

It doesn't make sense just because it happens "so often". That's just weird.

I thought attacks were against forum rules. I guess Animal House rules apply?


So everybody is just against you or you are cornering people who already felt cornered? Which one makes more sense? And they are not directly attacking you. As you stated you get a grumpy attitude from people.

Of course animal rules apply. It doesn't matter whether you believe in intelligent design or follow science we are nothing more than complex animals. In other words a grumpy attitude aimed at you is technically a form of an attack.

I guess better words would be self defense from your questions that put them in a corner.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by ScRuFFy63]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
A good example of a member which is neither Believer nor Skeptic but simply humans...OPEN...is internos btw. You`ll see him support some stuff and debunk other stuff.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ScRuFFy63
 


"So everybody is just against you or you are cornering people who already felt cornered? Which one makes more sense? And they are not directly attacking you. As you stated you get a grumpy attitude from people."

Asking "what evidence do you have for that" is "cornering" someone? Really? It's just a question.

"Of course animal rules apply. It doesn't matter whether you believe in intelligent design or follow science we are nothing more than complex animals. In other words a grumpy attitude aimed at you is technically a form of an attack."

I said "Animal House".

"I guess better words would be self defense from your questions that put them in a corner. "

That is rather strange. Defending oneself from attacks I can see. Defending oneself from inquiries is just odd. It would imply that people don't have evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Asking "what evidence do you have for that" is "cornering" someone? Really? It's just a question.

I said "Animal House".


That is rather strange. Defending oneself from attacks I can see. Defending oneself from inquiries is just odd. It would imply that people don't have evidence.



I gonna assume you know the power of words. Questions are what interrogations are based on.

I know you said animal house. I just interpreted it how I wanted to. Although I know what you meant.

Whether or not they have evidence is not my concern. I'm strictly speaking about why you get the responses you get.

Do you realize that if people had the kind of evidence you appear to want ufos wouldn't be a conspiracy?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ScRuFFy63
 


"Do you realize that if people had the kind of evidence you appear to want ufos wouldn't be a conspiracy? "

Which is rather my point, actually. I know dissenting voices are always at risk of being "disappeared". Almost as if there was a conspiracy to stifle opposing views. Or am I just being paranoid?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Which is rather my point, actually. I know dissenting voices are always at risk of being "disappeared". Almost as if there was a conspiracy to stifle opposing views. Or am I just being paranoid?


Well this is a conspiracy based web site... That like going to a church and preaching about atheism. Would you expect open arms in that scenario?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Which is rather my point, actually. I know dissenting voices are always at risk of being "disappeared". Almost as if there was a conspiracy to stifle opposing views. Or am I just being paranoid?


Well this is a conspiracy based web site... That like going to a church and preaching about atheism. Would you expect open arms in that scenario?


Never expected "open arms", but hoped for "open minds". Seems I was wrong. Nobody wants to talk about evidence, and there's probably a reason for that, isn't there?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I'd love to discuss evidence. Maybe you can tell what evidence you have to justify your support of the claim that, for a "100%" fact, ETs more advanced than us 'DO NOT EXIST"?

I'd like to discuss your evidence for this so called "truth"?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I'd love to discuss evidence. Maybe you can tell what evidence you have to justify your support of the claim that, for a "100%" fact, ETs more advanced than us 'DO NOT EXIST"?

I'd like to discuss your evidence for this so called "truth"?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]


Link to that claim, please? No paraphrase or cut-and-paste, just a simple link to the exact post, please.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


LOL I linked to it yesterday and you accused me of not providing evidence because I didn't cut and paste, today you insist on links not on cutting and pasting. You are incredibly inconsistent.

In much the same way, you insist on evidence from believers, but are quite happy to support contrary claims of so called "truth" despite the fact that they are pure speculation.


[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


LOL I linked to it yesterday and you accused me of not providing evidence because I didn't cut and paste, today you insist on links not on cutting and pasting. You are incredibly inconsistent.


A link please. That's all I'm asking.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


LOL I linked to it yesterday and you accused me of not providing evidence because I didn't cut and paste, today you insist on links not on cutting and pasting. You are incredibly inconsistent.


A link please. That's all I'm asking.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP which you defended, says among other things "I now know that ET's dont exist. By that I mean intelligent Extraterrestial that are years ahead of our technology, don't exist."..."I am now 100% sure that ET's as described previously don't exist"..."There are NO ET's...I am sorry to crash your dreams, but this is the truth":

Your posts defending the OP and attempting to dismiss rebuttals to the OP's pure speculation, touted as fact, start on page 1, but are particularly on pages 2 and 3. See also that I point out the hypocrisy of your biased willingness to happily allow groundless speculation in denial of the ETH to stand, but not in support of it.

Interestingly, Nebot carries on in the same "fine" tradition as you, later in the thread. He too was unable to provide evidence to support the OPs claim.

This too, is relevant to this thread, because it demonstrates that some who pose as "skeptics" in fact are not legitimate skeptics because they apply their skepticism selectively, inconsistently, and with blatant bias, accepting and defending opinion and speculation presented as "truth" when it suits their agenda.



[edit on 18-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Never expected "open arms", but hoped for "open minds". Seems I was wrong. Nobody wants to talk about evidence, and there's probably a reason for that, isn't there?


I can't believe you're asking me about the evidence of others. I can only speak for myself.

You lead me to believe you have some other agenda than a search for truth. I mean you're on a conspiracy site constantly demanding evidence. If you have any kind of intelligence, which you appear to, you should know that will only cause problems. So why would you want to stir up trouble all the time?



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

Originally posted by ScRuFFy63

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Never expected "open arms", but hoped for "open minds". Seems I was wrong. Nobody wants to talk about evidence, and there's probably a reason for that, isn't there?


I can't believe you're asking me about the evidence of others. I can only speak for myself.

You lead me to believe you have some other agenda than a search for truth. I mean you're on a conspiracy site constantly demanding evidence. If you have any kind of intelligence, which you appear to, you should know that will only cause problems. So why would you want to stir up trouble all the time?


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?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


The problem is not in asking for evidence. UFOlogy is overflowing with evidence. I could spontaneously drag up a few hundred threads containing evidence which has not been explained by conventional means.

The problem starts when you say: "Thats not evidence" and "There is no evidence"....in light of evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I've asked you repeatedly for evidence for the claims you defend and all you do is evade. Physician, heal thyself!



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I've asked you repeatedly for evidence for the claims you defend and all you do is evade. Physician, heal thyself!


What claims have I made that you'd like evidence for? Glad to oblige.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


The problem is not in asking for evidence. UFOlogy is overflowing with evidence. I could spontaneously drag up a few hundred threads containing evidence which has not been explained by conventional means.

The problem starts when you say: "Thats not evidence" and "There is no evidence"....in light of evidence.


Have you ever considered that evidence needs to be examined? That it requires investigation to confirm that it is, indeed, evidence?



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join