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.

 

The believers, on aliens?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I was going to post this as a reply to another thread, but figured I might as well make a post about it.

It's about the best [the believers] got.

They (the believers) attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the (reasonable) other side by requesting that [the reasonable] prove that it's not fake, rather then [the believers] prove that their own evidence is real.

The [believers] typically don't understand the logical fallacy that they introduce. Since there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of aliens (as related to the conclusive evidence that human beings exist), they can't get past their belief in the existence of aliens to come to terms that it is the believers who must proof that the video is real to the reasonable, and not the other way around (i.e. that the reasonable must prove that the video is fake.)

Introducing a similar, yet reverse scenario of comparison is sometimes handy to help them understand their fallacious behavior, although they still usually are not capable of associated their own internalized beliefs with external unrecognized, beliefs and they will still entirely miss the point.

Standing in the shoes of a believer: Adopting a well-known false premise as true, and shifting the burden onto the non-believer. By adopting what is considered an absurd enough premise and presenting it to a obtuse believer, you might expect a believer in one subject to be open minded enough to relate what he views as absurd to what he beliefs as true.

This is almost never the case and comes from ego defense mechanisms, which actually run wild on this particular forum, such as laughing things off, attempting to rationalize events to fit belief systems, projecting, and seeking support from other members who have the same belief patterns

Anyway, back to the alien... when the [reasonable] point out the real burden of proof for ambiguous evidence lies with those who have introduced the evidence....and also point out matters of proving negatives, [the believers] take the side show further, introducing a logical (yet unreasonable) twist, by embedding another shift of proof within a misdirected burden by saying:

"Okay then, if you say you can't prove a negative... then prove a positive! prove that the alien is[/] a puppet!"

... which usually results in [the reasonable] people making real rational comparisons to very well known objects, materials, special effects, video technology, etc... and most importantly, pointing out that there is no real proof that aliens have visited our planet (something that [the believers], ironically enough, believe to be false)

All the while, most of [the believers] just keep believing the premise they believe (that the thing in the video is an alien) by ignoring the next few steps of deduction to arrive at probable conclusions in the face of the ambiguous (which [the reasonable] have taken the burden upon themselves to point out already, in an attempt to show [the believers] that their conclusion is not based on the logical deduction of presented evidence, but upon belief in an untested, coddled, and protected premise which will never see the light of critical evaluation...

... but the most annoying thing probably consists of ignoring contextual clues and cherry picking statements in order to form a false statement from another post, which is more often than not believed to be the original true meaning of someone else's statement by the manipulator and other witnessing believers.




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure there is something out there. In fact there are four somethings out there constantly and no one has noticed for the most part but when they do we'll be in for something.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I guess it is safe to say you have never seen a UFO with your own eyes? When (if) you do, you will be convinced. I always believed there was something out there, but the day I saw it with my own eyes. Case closed. I was changed forever.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


So are you arguing against believers or skeptics???



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Well, in my opinion the evidence is overwhelming. Beings more advanced than us have been visiting us for centuries.

I am reading a book titled UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 by Richard Dolan which contains mostly offical government and military cases/documents. The evidence in this book alone is so overwhelming that I don't see how anyone could read it and still think there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
There will always be believers and skeptics for everything.

If aliens can't be proven or disproven then we can only give opinions.

That's until you see one.

I think they are real because I see it as chance.

I think there is a much better chance of aliens existing than how scientists say we were accidently created.

I'm sure they exist.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
look up the Paradox of Ideal Evidence. NOTHING is ever proven beyond a doubt. We live in a world of theories.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
There will always be believers and skeptics for everything.

If aliens can't be proven or disproven then we can only give opinions.

That's until you see one.

I think they are real because I see it as chance.


Obviously, you don't need to see one to believe they are real.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


You dont need to see to believe because its mathmaticaly impossible for life NOT to exist elsewhere. Your other thread was great but the way you speak about this is worrying me.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by logician magician
 


You dont need to see to believe because its mathmaticaly impossible for life NOT to exist elsewhere. Your other thread was great but the way you speak about this is worrying me.


Then you can certainly provide the formula which proves this impossibility.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Drake equation

Do you not believe that the universe is infinite? For life to exist at all in an infinite universe means that within that universe exists an infinite amount of life.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by logician magician
 


Drake equation

Do you not believe that the universe is infinite?


You and I both know that the Drake equation does not prove that alien life exists.... It's merely a estimation based on assumptions, in turn based on wishful thinking.



For life to exist at all in an infinite universe means that within that universe exists an infinite amount of life.


An infinite amount of life in an infinite universe results in no room to breath


Your best best is a finite universe with a finite amount of life, because an infinite universe with a finite amount of life suggests that life is infinitely distant.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Life is all around you in varying stages of evolution.

I have nothing to fear of life traveling from other planets.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by logician magician
 


Life is all around you in varying stages of evolution.


On Earth, sure.



I have nothing to fear of life traveling from other planets.


Me neither, but that doesn't mean it does.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Im expecting much more words in your posts. Is this an area where your society is ignorant and in need of enlightening?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I do have to say the Drake Equation IS filled with MANY assumptions.

One thing you cannot argue with is the number of estimated suns in the known Universe.

"Based on current estimates, there are between 200 - 400 billion stars in our galaxy (The Milky Way). There are possibly 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. So taking the average of our galaxy, give approximately 3 x 10
to the 24th stars. So about 3 septillion." - Quoted from Wiki answers

3 followed by 24 zeros.

Another estimate that we really do NOT have any clue about is how many stars have planets. Current prediction states HALF of all suns have planets.

If you subscribe to the belief that Suns are created from dust that pulls itself together through gravity and then spins together faster and faster getting hotter and hotter you would also believe that there would be materiel left over that could form planets.

It seems logical to conclude that there indeed are a crap ton of planets flying around out there. A planet is what let life exist for us. Intelligent life most likely needs supplies to exist. Resources and materials to build stuff so probably planets = chance for intelligent life to exist through whatever may be your belief of it (Creation, Evolution, Seeding, insert belief system here).

The big question is not how many stars are out there but how many PLANETS are out there. How common are planets? Since our star is average is 8 planets a decent amount of planets for an average star? What about moons?

"As of October 2008, there are 172 known natural moons orbiting planets in our Solar System. 166 moons orbit the "full-size" planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), while 6 moons orbit the smaller "dwarf planets" (Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris)."
Quoted from www.windows.ucar.edu...=/our_solar_system/moons_table.html



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by logician magician
 


Im expecting much more words in your posts. Is this an area where your society is ignorant and in need of enlightening?


What do my other threads have to do with aliens or life on other planets?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I do have to say the Drake Equation IS filled with MANY assumptions.




One thing you cannot argue with is the number of estimated suns in the known Universe.


You can't argue with an estimation? Are you sure about that?

Considering that an estimation is an uncertain approximation, I'd have to say you are WRONG.



Another estimate that we really do NOT have any clue about is how many stars have planets.


... and this is used as an arguing point for the existence of extraterrestrial life????




If you subscribe to the belief that Suns are created from dust that pulls itself together through gravity and then spins together faster and faster getting hotter and hotter you would also believe that there would be materiel left over that could form planets.


... or you could subscribe to the belief that the stars utilized all of the matter in their system.



It seems logical to conclude that there indeed are a crap ton of planets flying around out there.


It depends on the interaction between logic and reason from which you are drawing your conclusion. It is perfectly logical that a star would use up the bulk of matter in a system as it underwent fusion. It is logical, and only reasonable that a planet would form if there were enough mass left over for one to form.



A planet is what let life exist for us. Intelligent life most likely needs supplies to exist.


... that is a very vague statement. "Supplies" could include anything from complex organic molecules to zero point energy which may permeate all of space time.



The big question is not how many stars are out there but how many PLANETS are out there.
How common are planets? Since our star is average is 8 planets a decent amount of planets for an average star? What about moons?


It may be possible that there exists planetary systems without stars in the center, but only a massive planet which is orbited by relatively small bodies.

The big question is not how many planets are out there, but how many planets are capable of supporting life.

Either way, both questions can not be answered.



"As of October 2008, there are 172 known natural moons orbiting planets in our Solar System. 166 moons orbit the "full-size" planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), while 6 moons orbit the smaller "dwarf planets" (Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris)."


Ok.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Yeah you tore me up on that one. Give me a chance to rephrase my statement. I am really not that smart so maybe someone can help me phrase it more scientifically
I know it would sound better with some smart person pizazz thrown onto it.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
You cannot prove or disprove alien life, either be it advanced or primative.
No mathematical equasions can give you an exact answer, only probabilities.
100 years ago we lived in a 3D world, now we are up to a 10 dimensional world.
Only being able to see in a 3D world makes it very hard to try and experience a 4D world, let alone a 10D world, so any equasion reguarding life on other planets would still have to take into account the possibility of beings living in another dimension rather than just the 3D.

So can we really answer if advanced life exists?
No.
we have all had our own experiences and know what we know.Personally I have witnessed uFO's in flight once in my life, but have never seen an alien.

those who want to say aliens don't exist because you cant touch or even see them, so there is no proof they exist.
ask them to prove love exists, you can't see it, or feel it, yet we are meant to believe it because someone tells us it exists.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join