For the Skeptics who say "where's your evidence?"

You are suggesting an already provable act. We have proof that murders take place already , but let’s replace the murder with a 10 ton purple humming bird…. We got witness and everything but some kind of physical aspect of the bird we cannot get.

Is that enough proof?

Thats exactly what I was saying earlier in a previous post above, you have to sort your crazies from your average believers or your not going to be taken seriously, its people like that who cause others to ridicule when you believe you have something genuine...

Sorry people, just to be clear, my last post was in response to 'Xtrozero's' post on the first page about not believing everything that is said, as some of the claims sound completely outlandish... but it did not register as a response to his post for some reason-hmmm.....

reply to post by PowerSlave


But that is not what happens here. Everything is tagged with reasonable doubt in the eyes of the defense, so no UFO/murder can be classified as proven by the court/ATS

but it can not be un-proven either can it? its all about faith as i said before, and as for the court analogy, the reason i used that particular one is as follows, i have not always been the law abiding citizen i am today, i am changed now as i have a young family to consider, and i have first hand experience with the british justice system, and i have been convicted before on just circumstantial evidence alone!!! so just because there is no finalizing proof does not mean it is not at all possible,that maybe, just maybe.... there might be something else out there and we are not unique in having the only known life in the known universe/multiverse, albeit weather it is intelligent life or single celled organisms..


[edit on 28-4-2009 by DARREN1976]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

It's called logic my friend. I am dead serious. Many skeptics believe that Man did NOT Walk on the Moon. What is the "proof?" NASA? B/W TV Images? Moon Rocks?

You seem to offer convenient opinion and nothing more. I would think even a Junior-Skeptic would be leery of the plausibility of the Moon landings.

KK

[edit on 27-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

You are comparing an event with a vast body of hard evidence with the random unsupported claims of individuals. You really need to get a grip on the difference between reality and fantasy.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla You are comparing an event with a vast body of hard evidence with the random unsupported claims of individuals.

Gawdzilla, I have no beef with you personally. But your logic seems to be based on assumptions and fatal flaws. You request proof, but present none. You attempt to deflect topic when your argument runs dry.

You really need to get a grip on the difference between reality and fantasy.

The difference being "perception."

Back On Topic:

As my recent exchange with Gawdzilla illustrates, skeptics seem to enjoy a double-standard. They are quick to demand proof, yet offer none when challenged on their own set of beliefs. So that is how I deal with Skeptics. Works for me.

Regards...KK

[edit on 28-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


You are missing the point, as usual. The evidence for the moon landing is incontrovertible. The evidence for little green men is negligible. So comparing the two is like comparing the existence of dentists to the existence of the tooth fairy.

reply to post by DARREN1976

but it can not be un-proven either can it?

This was my point as well. When a sceptic mentions burden of proof they are ultimately bringing court like analogy into the post. However, many ufo cases cannot be proven one way or another. So at that point stalemate is in effect. It has as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anyhting else, but still they will not consider the possibility.

Originally posted by PowerSlaveIt has as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anyhting else, but still they will not consider the possibility.

That is absurd. "as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anything else"? It can be something from the Earth that is simply misinterpreted, or something falling into our atmosphere from the solar system, OR something from an alien civilization. What odds to you give each of those scenarios? "just as much chance" for each one? If so, with all the reports we have about aliens spaceships to date, we should be neck deep in B.E.M.s by now.

Simply amazing.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by PowerSlaveIt has as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anyhting else, but still they will not consider the possibility.

That is absurd. "as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anything else"? It can be something from the Earth that is simply misinterpreted, or something falling into our atmosphere from the solar system, OR something from an alien civilization.

I agree with you on this one, Gawdzilla. I will allow that something is going on, because we receive too many reports of ufos, abductions, etc...at least the concepts are firmly part of our worldview. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that other-worldly stuff is the reason. We are being pushed to think so, and have been for a number of years.

The biggest question is why are we being steered to think that way?

Personally, I still think that most of the anomalies being discussed on this forum have a common source...a Unified Weirdness Theory, if you will. And in the end, I think it will tie in with what we know as quantum physics.

But...that don't answer the aforementioned question...

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Since you are admittedly a skeptic. It must be safe to assume you:

1. Don't believe in GOD / Religion.
2. Don't believe in Ghosts / Afterlife.
3. Don't believe Man walked on the Moon.

As I am a confessed sceptic I would like to answer that, if I may.

May I? Thanks.

1. I am sceptical about the existence of god(s), gods being some special type of living creature, not affected by the same problems that affect other living creatures and with powers to create and/or change everything around him/her(it. I am not sceptical about religion because I know it exists, in several different forms that, apparently, can not all be right.

2. I am sceptical about the reasons given to explain what people call ghosts, and I am sceptical about afterlife.

2. I am almost not sceptical about men having walked on the Moon, as far as I have seen it looks that they really have, but I am always sceptical about everything, because I know that what I think is based on my interface with the world that surrounds me, and neither the interface (my senses) or my thinking processes are free from errors and bad interpretations.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
But that is not what happens here. Everything is tagged with reasonable doubt in the eyes of the defense, so no UFO/murder can be classified as proven by the court/ATS

That is because the defence and the prosecutors are also the jury, and this is one of the reasons the discussions about things like UFOs on Internet forums must be treated in a slightly different way.

The problem is that for this both the sceptics and the believers must think that they should act in a slightly different way, and not in a more aggressive way (as has been seen in several threads) but in a more cooperative way.

Nobody is going to jail here, we are not trying to find who was guilty of a hypothetical murder, we want (or we should want) truth for what it may be, not to punish someone because of it or because of what it's not.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Since you are admittedly a skeptic. It must be safe to assume you:

1. Don't believe in GOD / Religion.
2. Don't believe in Ghosts / Afterlife.
3. Don't believe Man walked on the Moon.

If I'm wrong, I kindly request you supply proof.

I would suggest that you winnow out the difference between skepticism and cynicism.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Mercy sakes, I'd love to winnow Johnny.

But them dang posters keep quotin' my silly skeptic questionnaire.

I reckon I need a better 3rd item or leave it at two.

Besides, ain't a Cynic just a Junior-Skeptic?

Regards...KK

[edit on 28-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Gawdzilla

That is absurd. "as much chance of being an alien ship as it does being anything else"? It can be something from the Earth that is simply misinterpreted, or something falling into our atmosphere from the solar system, OR something from an alien civilization. What odds to you give each of those scenarios? "just as much chance" for each one? If so, with all the reports we have about aliens spaceships to date, we should be neck deep in B.E.M.s by now.

Absurd?


An expected answer from someone who would never under any circumstance believe in the possibility. You have helped make my point thank you.


When all known earthly explanations have been ruled out or cannot be proven, how is it an absurb probability? For all you know aliens have been here for 1000's of years no one can prove that it is not the case, so as for giving higher odds of one over the other is just guessing.

This is exactly why threads about alien visitation never go anywhere but ultimately a stalemate as I said much earlier in this post.

I am not a blind believer I can accept ufo's being all sorts of things from falling garbage to actual alien craft. I start viewing any new thread without judgement until I learn more about it if possible. Call me absurd if you will. But, I do not just say its not aliens, because well that would be just foolish even if it cannot be proven either way. That is exactly the take of most sceptics on this site including yourself.

reply to post by PowerSlave


"When all known earthly explanations have been ruled out or cannot be proven, how is it an absurb probability? For all you know aliens have been here for 1000's of years no one can prove that it is not the case, so as for giving higher odds of one over the other is just guessing."

"When all known earthly explanations" does not equate to "equal certainty." What's so hard about that?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

The biggest question is why are we being steered to think that way?

I have to disagree with this. I don't think we are being steered to think this. Otherwise I don't the MSM would be having such a hard time not laughing whenever UFO's are mentioned.

If we were meant to think the skies are full of aliens I think the MSM, who many believe to be the mouthpiece of Government, would be taking a more serious approach to this subject.

On the contrary I see people who believe or who report seeing them, being made fools of. Theres no aliens.... you're just a kook. hmmm seems similar to this board actually

Originally posted by kinda kurious ... ain't a Cynic just a Junior-Skeptic?

I would say that skepticism is intellectual caution, and cynicism is based upon an innate negativity.

But if you need to keep that rural flair...just think "Don't step in that, Wilbur..."

And incidentally, I live in farm country, and I don't know anybody that sounds like a hick.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by Gawdzilla

"When all known earthly explanations" does not equate to "equal certainty." What's so hard about that?

Who said anything about equal certainty. If nothing is known there is 0 certainty.

Here's an interesting discussion inspired by this thread with some reasonable replies:
Source
Hopefully there is a little of something for everyone in there.
I would have to say I agree with most if not all of the responses which is why I am hesitant to believe in ET/UFOs at this point.
Unfortunately for those who have had enough physical experience to believe in the phenomenon, that is not the case with everyone, so until everyone has had the same experience, it is expected that there will be a disparity between the believers and skeptics.
Of course, some people will be more skeptical than others.