The skeptics/debunkers Extraterrestrial debate position is illogical

Not in the least. Because this is not a debate or a discussion.

You make criticisms and ask questions, but when they are answered you ignore it. That does not make for a debate or discussion. Case in point; you say that skeptics deny that extraterrestrials exist. But when skeptics say this is not the case, you repeat the claim and ask why skeptics will not tell you why they deny the existence of extraterrestrials. This has happened repeatedly in this thread.

This does not make for a discussion or debate. It amounts to you lecturing the other members who are participating in or reading this thread. It does not promote positive, healthy debate that furthers our understanding of the subject matter.

If your accusation has any validity, you would be able to point to other threads where skeptics are trying to shut down "all debate" (your words). You cannot, because it is not happening. This thread, however, it is not a discussion or debate, but an attempt to bait, label and marginalize an entire type of member. In short, it is divisive and should not be allowed.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

---

This post shows your not even reading the thread.

I didn't say that skeptics deny the existence of Extraterrestrials. I said they reduce the debate to the existence of Extraterrestrials based on an illogical premise.

The illogical premise is that "it could be anything." I have said this time and time again.

When the debate is about existence then you have to reduce life in the universe to earth. This is illogical and there hasn't been a skeptic/debunker yet who has explained why this is a logical assumption.

You should read the thread again.

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

I wonder what would it be then? If everyone agreed that there is no need to debate existence of ETs, because it's a given fact, then what would anyone talk about? Say we all started doing what you say we should do, would we view everything in the sky as an ET inside a spacecraft? I assume that in dodgy cases, skeptics should be allowed to point out flimsy evidence?

I don't see what's so frustrating about people repeatedly saying "it could be anything" or "I dont know what it is" That is just people being honest. It's fortunate that people can be objective nowdays, when the self is promoted as the most important thing on earth, and our opinions are just projections of the self.

Like you said earlier, and I agree. The evidence is overwhelming. That suggests the general concept that ETs are indeed checking us out. What it does not do is prove that all individual cases are indeed ETs. Each case should be viewed and critiqued by itself, and that is what we do on ats


[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

I think most skeptics are very science-minded, thus most would agree that life most likely exists elsewhere in the universe. The scientific evidence, while circumstantial, is overwhelming. The variety of life and ecosystems on Earth and the vast number of potentially habitable planets in the universe -- even in the galaxy -- points to the conclusion that life must also exists elsewhere.

The circumstantial evidence of ET-controlled UFOs visiting Earth is much less than overwhelming. The Eyewitness accounts of abductions and other very close encounters with aliens have never been verifiable -- e.i., people can lie or even sub-consciously make up stories. Lights in the sky are simply lights in the sky -- to make the logical leap that a light in the sky is an alien-controlled craft needs more evidence than simply saying "It can't readily be identified, so it must be alien-controlled".

So believing in life in the universe without absolute proof is NOT the same as believing in ET visitation of Earth in spacecraft. Sure, the evidence for both is only circumstantial, but the circumstantial evidence for life elsewhere in the universe is of a higher quality.

The evidence for believing life in the universe is quite simple, really. As I said, all one needs to consider is the amount of varied ecosytems on Earth and the countless number of planets in the universe. That's all the evidence I need, personally. The fact that the evidence is so simple is what makes people readily believe it.

The evidence needed to believe in Alien visitation is more complicated.



[edit on 7/4/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 7/4/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Lazyninja

---

The debate would be about origins and their technology. Are they extra-dimensional, how to they travel?

These things can be debated without an illogical debate about existence.

You are also debating a point that's not in contention. I never claimed that every sighting has to be labled extraterrestrial. It's not all or nothing. Your speaking absolutes.

Every sighting doesn't have to be extraterrestrial in order to make the true statement that extraterrestrials exist.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

I agree with you on some points but the evidence for Visitation is overwhelming.

You can't dismiss every abduction case or mass sighting as people lying or the subconscious making up things. This has no basis in reality and this is just the personal beliefs of the individual.

It's impossible and illogical for someone to reach a conclusion that every abduction case or mass sighting is do to people lying or hallucinating. That's just a blanket, general statement that has no basis in fact. It's just pure opinion.

You have things like trace evidence, implants and even hair evidence.

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...

You have trace evidence.

Over the past 38 years, specialized research into Close Encounters of the Second Kind has resulted in a wealth of reports in every major country of the world. CPTR files contain 3,189 trace/landing cases from 91 countries. I believe physical traces present us with the most direct approach to resolving the mystery of UFOs.

www.ufophysical.com...

Here's some of the best documented cases:
www.churchofcriticalthinking.org...

So, again the only thing against extraterrestrial visitation is opinion that visitation can't occur. This is just opinion.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising


Okay I'm starting to understand where you're coming from But you can't really expect to have that kind of discussion on a site which is filled with people who love to debate. That sort of thing works in a circle of friends, private messaging and so on, but it's not so great idea in a public forum where anyone can interject with their opinion uninvited.

I would say most people have the common sense to know that theoretical discussion is just that, and does not need to have absolute fact as it's base for a reason to exist, but yeah there are a few people on ATS who will just shoot you down for the sheer joy of it :/


[edit on 4-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

I understand now too. To Matrix Rising, the existence of aliens and aliens visiting the Earth are one-in-the-same. There is no debate about the mystery of the phenomenon, it has already been solved. Whereas most, based on the evidence believe that aliens drive the phenomenon, Matrix Rising knows. There is no room for debate or discussion on this point nor should it be tolerated. To say otherwise is to be worthy of derision and marginalization. He wants to debate other, more speculative things; things that even if aliens drive the phenomenon, are impossible to know at this moment of time.

***DOUBLE POST***

[edit on 4-7-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

---

Available evidence for existence of life off our planet = Zero
Speculation for existence of life off our planet = Plenty


I'll need a name with that for the full quote - thanks
Hydrogen and Oxygen does not equal life


How is that wrong (never mind the 'again' aspect)? That's not billions, that's 63. Just because a planet is in the right zone, doesn't mean its going to be teaming with life. Venus is not teaming with life, that's in the HZ. This is based on the available evidence as you requested.




Excellent, I'll need a name or link with that for the full quote - thanks




Who said they were wrong? I didn't. Can you prove they're correct? You supply evidence that they are! Have you bothered reading these equations and theories? At some point, they will include an impossibility or an undiscovered substance. I suppose you could say like Dylithium Crystals. If you know of one that doesn't please supply a link.


Of course you can assume that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe but you haven't supplied any evidence. Theories are not evidence. Evidence can support theories, or theories are written on evidence. What you have to understand as well is that theories are rewritten constantly, dismissed, proved, disproved. Even accepted theories. EVIDENCE does not change. How you interpret the evidence may, or if you include it in your theory can change, but the evidence does not change.
Theoretically you could win millions on the lottery if you buy a ticket. You don't go running around spending the money because that's evidence you've won it though, do you?

Theories are not evidence, they're guesses. Best Guesses, but still Guesses