The skeptics/debunkers Extraterrestrial debate position is illogical

reply to post by Hawkwind.

---

Indeed.

It's fair to say that all supposed evidence of extraterrestrial visitiation could be as well explained as time travellers or visitors from an alternate timeline. There is no evidence of visitations from another planet in our universe and timeline.

The similarity between alleged aliens and ourselves strongly suggests they do not originate beyond Earth - unless the universe is full of Earth clones, even down to the exact density, atmospheric composition, presence of a large moon and identical evolutionary path of life thereon.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Essan]

There could be explanations for this. But it would just be speculation. None of us have any evidence to come to any intelligent conclusions about the nature of these entities, if they exist.

As are you...



No skeptic is making this claim. You are claiming it is the skeptics position, then attacking skeptics for it, when no skeptic has said this. The only one debating this is you. In an intellectually honest discussion, you cannot demand someone defend a position they do not hold.

I still have yet to see an answer to my question.

Again, I'm not speaking about these things in a vacuum.

We always weigh possibilities within reason in all walks of life. There's no logical reason to accept the assumptions of skeptics and debunkers. Your debating against a illogical position.

For instance, if you come outside in the morning and your grass, car, street and neighbors house is wet you can make the reasonable assumption that it rained. Now there could have been a plane flying overhead that watered the neighborhood. It's a possibility but it's an illogical possibility.

With skeptics/debunkers they want to treat all possibilities when it comes extraterrestrials as equal.

For instance, abduction cases, eyewitness accounts and mass sightings. The skeptic will elevate the illogical position that "it could have been anything" to a position that's equal with the eywitness account. Many of them will belittle eyewitness accounts even though they are used all the time.

Now on one side you have credible witnesses, trace evidence, implants and even hair samples and on the other side you have "it could have been anything."

How is "it could have been anything" or "they were hallucinating, lying or stupid" a logical position? In essence those who support Ufology are arguing and debating something that has no basis in logic.

Why do abduction cases have to be something else? What is this based on?

Again, there can always be possibilities but these possibilities have to have a logical basis or there just illogical nonsense.

1961 Betty and Barney Hill Abduction
1967 The Betty Andreasson Abduction
1967 Abduction of Herbert Schirmer
1968 The Buff Ledge Camp Abduction
1969 The Antonio da Silva Abduction
1973 The Doraty Abduction, Houston, Texas
1973 Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Parker, Hickson)
1974 Hunter Abducted in Wyoming
1975 The Abduction of Sergeant Charles L. Moody
1975 The Travis Walton Abduction
1976 The Stanford, Kentucky Abductions
1976 The Allagash Abductions
1978 The Cullen Abduction
1978 The Dechmont Woods Abduction
1978 The Abduction of Jan Wolski
1980's Lost Time/Abduction in New York
1980 The Alan Godfrey Abduction
1983 The Copely Woods Encounter
1983 The Abduction of Alfred Burtoo
1985 Abduction of Wladyslaw S.
1985 Abduction of Whitley Strieber
1987 Abduction on North Canol Road, Canada
1987 Hudson Valley Abduction
1987 The Christa Tilton Story
1987 The Ilkley Moor Alien
1987 The Jason Andews Abduction
1988 Abduction of Bonnie Jean Hamilton
1988 DNA Sample From Khoury Abduction
1989 Linda Cortile-Napolitano Abduction
1990 Westchester, N. Y. Abduction
1992 The A-70 Abduction
1994 Abduction in Killeen, Texas
1997 Abduction in Wales
1997 Abduction in Australia, (Rylance-Heller)
1999 Carlyle Lake Abduction
2001 Abduction in Michigan
2003-Abduction in Florida
2004 Francis Family Abduction
2005 Man Abducted in Florida
2005 Clayton & Donna Lee Abduction

www.ufocasebook.com...

There's no evidence that these abduction cases didn't occur and the people didn't see what they said they saw.

"It could have been anything" is not a logical position because the abductees and eyewitnesses tell you what they saw.

Again, it's an illogical position to reduce life in the universe to earth with what we know now so you HAVE TO start with the assumption that Extraterrestrial life exists and some have been visiting us.

This is because there isn't any logic behind the skeptics/debunkers argument.

Anything is possible but everything is not logical.

becuase human beings hallucinate, lie and are stupid

Matrix_Rising I'm pretty sure the perceived problem you have, is the assumption that when a skeptic says "There is no proof that that is an alien spacecraft" that what they are actually saying is "That is not an alien spacecraft"

Skepticism is healthy, debunkery is not. You'll notice if you look carefully that, there are far fewer debunkers out there than you might think. Most of them steer well clear of this place.

I can understand your frustration at the way Ufology is percieved. However, I believe the perception is a generation gap. The gap is, those who are the internet generation, and those who are the television generation. As the television generation dies off, and the internet generation are the only guys around, we will see a new way of thinking.

reply to post by Lazyninja

---

When someone says there's no proof of Alien spacecraft I do think that's an illogical position. Nobody has ever claimed there's proof but there's evidence that says alien spacecraft exists.

There's a big difference.

There isn't any logical argument against abduction cases, mass sightings and eyewitness accounts. All a skeptic/deunker can say is they didn't see what they said they saw, they are lying or they are hallucinating.

These are just opinions. The eyewitness is not stating an opinion. They are telling you what they saw. Many just say it had to be something else or they had to have been mistaken. This is nonsense based on nothing but a personal belief. You can't elevate this opinion to a logical possibility without any evidence.

I think we have to get passed the debate over wether they exist because it's an illogical one that will lead to nowhere.

No matter how much evidence is out there the debate will always be reduced to do they exist.

If the skeptic/debunker had to present actual evidence to support their opinion then there would be no question that Extraterrestrials exist. If you can always say "it could be anything" and that's elevated to a logical possibility then you will just continue to go around and around and all the evidence will be reduced to a debate over existence.

Skeptics/debunkers should have to present logical possibilities backed by evidence instead of just wild opinion and speculation elevated to logical possibilities.

I think we all need to get passed the them and us stage and work together in order to achieve much better things like for example, forcing the governments to tell the truth once and for all.

Let's not get into the dissection of the difference between evidence and proof. Everyone knows what the difference is, but for the sake of expediency the words are used interchangeably.



The reason we've not moved on to this paradigm yet is because the human race is inherently practical. No matter how much evidence there is, a normal person will not believe something about ufos and aliens until they see one for themselves. You might be frustrated with that, and argue that is a flaw in our nature. It doesn't really matter, it's just the way it is at this time.

I think there's a good reason that skepticism is in our nature. Because those who have none in my opinion are gullible to the point where they can be driven mentally ill. My uncle believes everything he reads in the fields of ufology. This guy is worse than David Ike. He used to sleep in a bathtub with another bathtub on top of it, sealing him inside, so that MI5 couldn't read his brain. No joke.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

Of course there not interchangeable. The skeptic wants them to be so they can debate an illogical absolute.

The fact is, if I say I have proof that's a different standard than I have evidence.

The skeptic can only debate these things if you can say "it could be anything." That's an illogical position. In these abduction cases they didn't see "just anything" they are telling you exactly what they saw.

In mass sightings they didn't see "just anything" they tell you what they saw.

The skeptic doesn't have any evidence to support their opinion so they have to elevate a plethora of possibilities to all being equally possible. This is illogical but without it skeptics would not have any argument.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising


Fortunately for you, skeptics cannot tell you what to think. All they do, is tell you how they think.

It really comes down to how badly you want to force your opinion onto someone else. Once you realize you don't have to, you won't be bothered about this issue.

"The skeptic/debunker wants to remain in a state of limbo forever."

Erm... I'll try to mind my language here so as not to get thrown off or my post deleted but what the heck do you mean.

As a skeptic I read hundreds of posts here and reply accordingly.

If it is total useless rubbish that I see (Statues of Angels from the moon etc) I call it out as such. I simply don't want to see ATS become a trashy stupid website

If it is the sort of post like "100% proff of existence of aliens" and there is nothing to back it up - I call it out

If it is purely a text driven sighting - I read it with interest, but it cannot be proven in any way.

If it is some crappy picture of a light in the sky - it's not worth my effort.

And if it's a video - I try to constructively critique it.

If it weren't for skeptics this site would fall apart - a load of "oohs and ahhs" and you'd all be blowing smoke.

Don't you want - like me - to be blown away - to read comments that cannot poke holes in the evidence.

Shouldn't we all - always - question things - by trying to poke holes in things we get to the truth - if I comment on a post and others post new evidence - additional testimony - additional photos/videos - does not that help further the cause.

Honestly there are people who do just try to bash and smack everyone down - but a true skeptic is trying to poke holes in the evidence - and - if he cannot poke holes - well the evidence becomes stronger, and the skeptic says "cool - this is good stuff".

I simply cannot wait to see a post that I 100% think is clear evidence of something showing intelligent extra terrestrial life... but so far - zip, nada, nothing that really comes close.

I just hope that you try to understand my mindset.

TTFN

Say what you want about skeptics and "debunkers" (what the heck is a debunker anyway, lol?). If they aren't around you guys would just be sitting here agreeing with each other all day long and not getting anything done.

But I will say this, if this subject was represented by the skeptics rather than the believers this whole time, it wouldn't be the laughing stock that it currently is. The giggle factor would be reduced to a minimum.

I personally wouldn't worry about the skeptics/debunkers. If the evidence for something has decent amount of merit they will be the ones you want on your side.

---

---

Posts directly about other members are NOT On Topic

Thank you

Semper

Threads such as this are born of insecurity. This is evidenced in that instead of presenting and defending a case, it attacks skeptics because they may, sometime, somewhere, challenge a case. The argument is built on a straw man, and ironically demands skeptics conform to this straw man. A criticism is made and a question asked of skeptics; when these are answered it is ignored because it does not conform to the straw man. Ultimately, it is an intellectually dishonest argument. At best it operates on a negative proof fallacy; that is proving skeptics are illogical will somehow prove ETs exist. At worst it seeks to demonize and marginalize skeptics.

Threads such as this do nothing to promote positive discussion or our understanding of the phenomenon. It is in the best interest of everyone that we not engage in them.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

Nope,

It wouldn't just be people agreeing, the debate just wouldn't be about existence. A debate about existence is meaningless and it just goes in circles.

So no matter how much evidence is presented it always ends up a debate about existence.

People debate all kinds of things vigorously but the debate doesn't spiral down to existence of the underlying subject.

Skeptics/debunkers have no evidence of anything outside of the postulate "it could be anything." This is what happens when every debate comes back to wether Extraterrestrials exist.

It's truly illogical. How can "it could be anything" be elevated to a logical possibility when the abductees or eyewitnesses don't say they just "saw anything." They tell you exactly what they saw and experienced.

So as long as those people who support Ufology continue to entertain the illogical debate on existence or the skeptics/debunkers nonsense of "it could be anything" then we will truly continue to go backwards in this area.

The debate has to advance past a debate of existence and this way you can have serious government hearings, more money for research, these things taught and debated on college campuses in a classroom setting and more. When you remove the illogical "it could be anything" argument then your left with the existence of extraterrestrials because there's no other explanation for mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence, pictures, video and more.

Again, anything is possible but every possibility is not logical.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

---

Got to agree here. Skeptics should just let this thread die. This is just baiting.

reply to post by bloodline

---

Not just skeptics, but anyone interested in intellectually honest discussion and debate.

But you are right, it is baiting. I do not know why the mods allow it.

Now the skeptics want to shut down all debate.

It's okay to debate existence because then the skeptic can live within their illogical arguments. When you questions those illogical arguments the skeptics/debunkers want the mods to shut down debate.

Typical.