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.

 

I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box.

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
%To be honest with you OP, sceptics were responsible for most of my epiphanies, just by asking the right questions.
My intellectual horizon was so much widened by them.
Plus a sceptic will almost everytime be able to back up his claims by some knowledge, while a believer... well.. only believes




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
When did you come to terms with the fact that there is no way anyone could possibly have a better understanding of physics then us? Of possibly a whole set of physics all-together? (Quantum Physics tells us this this possible).


Yes there can be others that have a better understanding of physics than we do but as for another whole set of physics all-together...no.

It has taken us almost a century to wrap our heads around the fact that the laws of physics apply differently at sub atomic level than they do in the visible world but we have worked out a functional model that seems to work. Of course we could be wrong.

The only exception that I know of is that the very large structures like galactic clusters move far faster than the speed of light but the objects within them...stars, planets debris etc. are restricted to the speed of light.

The thing is if there are laws of physics then they need to apply period...no matter where in the universe you are. Think about it if there were different laws of physics then they wouldn't be universal laws. There are true enough competing theories such as string theory and the like but the fundamentals by necessity need to remain constant or the entire mechanism would simply not work.

Again our models are limited and could be wrong but they have repeatedly stood up to whatever tests we can devise to prove them.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I agree, dude.

What has always also chaffed my acorn support, is the fact that they say everything is bound by the laws of physics. While I admit, my understanding of a lot of them are minimal. They were also written by man, based on what he knew at the time.

Given, they may be a good guideline for the rules here on earth, it is the inability to "think outside that box" that binds us to being stuck here, or astronomically close to it.
.

I'm not sure if I made any sense, but good post op. It was worth the time.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You have to believe to see.

The skeptics are coming from a different reality than the believers. Simple. We have our version, they have theirs. I personally feel that most of the skeptics have deep rooted fears of the subjects they harrass.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Sorry I have to correct you about what Carl Sagan said:

He thinks ET life is likely, and sees no reason why we can't imagine civilizations thousands or millions of years more advanced than us.

"I think it's much more reasonable, if you want to speculate on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, that there are very rare visits from extraterrestrials to the earth. There's no evidence for this, I just say that's not implausible"-Carl Sagan

So why would you accuse Carl Sagan of saying that ETs couldn't be visiting here?


Because he also said he didn't think it was possible:

"Sagan was likewise inconsistent in his views on interstellar travel in his 1980 Cosmos series. When scoffing at the idea that UFOs are visiting Earth, he maintained that the distance between stars was too great to make interstellar travel feasible for aliens." (from the Wik entry on Sagan)

I can probably dig up the quote, but I've heard him say that it was just impossible, the distances were to great. Yet in 1966, he said he thought they had probably visited us many times.

It was later in his career he maintained it just wasn't feasible. Why his change in stance? I feel he was later approached and was involved in a disinfo campaign. He certain did a 180 from his previous thoughts on alien visitation.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Our observed laws of physics and the equations and theories which explain them are things we can test in our physical reality on this planet, and quite often we can successfully observe things beyond this planet which seem to corroborate them as well.

However, we do not know everything. There could be things we have yet to discover about the universe and physics that other intelligent civilizations - should they exist - may have discovered or created which allow them to negate the "cosmic speed limit." It is at least conceivable and possible. The possibilities are myriad. Everything we have perceived to date in the physical universe tells us that warping space-time requires mass. We cannot prove that there are not other means of warping space-time, however. (That's just one example of how we cannot prove a negative.) We can only assert what we know, not what we don't.

Again, a true skeptic does not make assertions of absolute fact without irrefutable proof, and since it is impossible to absolutely, definitively prove a negative, a true skeptic cannot say that something is absolutely impossible, but only that they have seen no proof of it to date.

Making the assertion that something is absolutely impossible without proof is not skeptical. It is just belief of a different sort. (Which is fine; just don't claim that it's pure skepticism.)



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Sorry I have to correct you about what Carl Sagan said:

He thinks ET life is likely, and sees no reason why we can't imagine civilizations thousands or millions of years more advanced than us.

"I think it's much more reasonable, if you want to speculate on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, that there are very rare visits from extraterrestrials to the earth. There's no evidence for this, I just say that's not implausible"-Carl Sagan

So why would you accuse Carl Sagan of saying that ETs couldn't be visiting here?


Because he also said he didn't think it was possible:

"Sagan was likewise inconsistent in his views on interstellar travel in his 1980 Cosmos series. When scoffing at the idea that UFOs are visiting Earth, he maintained that the distance between stars was too great to make interstellar travel feasible for aliens." (from the Wik entry on Sagan)

I can probably dig up the quote, but I've heard him say that it was just impossible, the distances were to great. Yet in 1966, he said he thought they had probably visited us many times.

It was later in his career he maintained it just wasn't feasible. Why his change in stance? I feel he was later approached and was involved in a disinfo campaign. He certain did a 180 from his previous thoughts on alien visitation.


Yeah someone definitely shut him up.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamitrios

Plus a sceptic will almost everytime be able to back up his claims by some knowledge, while a believer... well.. only believes


A true skeptic? Yes. A debunker? No. They are blind.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Questions are good. Skepticism is good. ...when the questions are backed up by logic or reasonably creditable facts and data.

It's hard for me to take seriously OPs complaing about folks being skeptical.

Skeptics should be a blessing to any theorey, trimming away the weak arguments and poor reasoning.

I whole-heartedly respect the skeptics who come with logical questions and data.

AND I believe in Alien life...

Since 1995 when the first planet outside our solar system was dicovered, about 350 Extra-solar planets have been found.
And we are just begining to figure out how to find them, only spotting the easy pickings.
Some astronomers suspect that the majority/if not all of stars you see in the sky could have planets orbiting them....Trillions of potential planets...

Questions with regards to the speed of light, neccessary fuel, time, relativity...all valid and should be embraced as a challenge, not denied.

Otherwise what good is the discussion?



[edit on 16-9-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


Very true,I think some(not all!)believers are skeptical to some extent too by not falling for the fakes easily.We have to keep open minded and level headed on this subject matter as their are debunking groups out there who are faking ufo vids for their own perverse pleasure and targeting ATS

A true skeptic is open minded,a debunker is best ignored



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by Dynamitrios

Plus a sceptic will almost everytime be able to back up his claims by some knowledge, while a believer... well.. only believes


A true skeptic? Yes. A debunker? No. They are blind.


I am confused about the difference between a debunker and a skeptic.

What if the OP is bunk? Then does not a debunker do a service by exposing it? And if a Debunker is unable to debunk the OP doesn't that strengthen the evidence?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
What is very sad for me at least is that there is not one single platform to investigate matters.


I will relate one thread where spirals were found and one person posted about an un-used air-port which derailed the whole thread....and thankfully through a few other folks being open minded even though we found something which opens another can of worms a certain part of the mystery is not found yet.


I consider that research with an open mind


I don't for one second understand the NASA apologist's that seemingly propagate here like weeds. I take my hat off to anyone working at Nasa as I am sure 90% of the people there are really good folks, I mean that very seriously



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 

Your answers bring up more questions:

(1) Where is the definitive proof that abductions are real?

(2) Where is the definitive proof that UFOs are made by aliens?

(3) Why have we not seen a fully detailed alien or alien made craft on tv?

(4) What makes you an expert on a species, which you have never encountered before?

(5) What makes you an expert on alien made aircraft, which you have no expert knowledge of?

(6) What makes you an expert on knowledge, which you have NEVER ever have been exposed to in any scientific journal?

(7) How can several of the UFOlogists know the science, psychology, materials, and philosophies of a species that they have NEVER ever met?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
After all the years people have claimed aliens and such have came to earth, millions of videos, witnesses, and even those cave drawings from ancient man, NOT one, and I mean one piece of proof, nothing material wise, nothing showing the beings on video, just lights and such, not one piece of evidence. Oh we got some great stories, and we have learned from hollywood, people can create some incredible stories, but thats all you got, stories and videos of lights in a the sky, disk shaped objects that are more than likely a hoax, Roswell didn't get told till 30 years later after a certain somebody discovered they could get paid for a "story". You see, modern man once thought the pyramids was built by aliens, we now know they wasn't built by aliens. I say to believers, open "your" minds, and your thinking of logic common sense. Logic tells me, 99.99% everything from lockness monster, to well I dare say it "God" is man made myths and legends.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Mr_XIM]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by zaiger
And I'm tired of people who believe anything someone puts inside their "box"
2nd line


Not really sure what you mean here


ha ha I think what he means is the same thing I thought when I read the title. I'm sick of people who always think the other guy's thinking is in a box.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
When you look at cave drawing, hieroglyphics, and other pieces of art, they are only open to personal-subjective interpretation. They could mean anything.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
(3) In order for an alien to master space travel, they would have to be very advanced technologically.
How can we know that?

Why can't they be naturally able to master space travel or even have a space origin, crossing space like we cross our lands?

If they exist, alien life forms can be anything that is possible according to Nature's "laws", so we while your other points were related to what is said about Aliens, I have to be sceptic about your use of what looks like a conclusion (they would have to be very advanced technologically to master space flight) when we cannot even be sure of that. After all, birds are not technologically more advanced than humans and they have been flying around for thousands of years before us, technology is only needed to compensate for natural lack of some characteristic



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_XIM
 


Refusing to examine the Battle of Los Angeles does not make the case go away.

I'm sorry, but there is a LOT of evidence that exists just in that one case.

Your dismissive post should really include such cases...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamitrios

Plus a sceptic will almost everytime be able to back up his claims by some knowledge, while a believer... well.. only believes


Oh really?? Is that what

YOU believe?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


LOL ArMaP, according to Pathos's requirements, he would have to be personally taken aboard an ET craft to believe one was even possible...

This whole thread is about the ability to 'think outside the box' and yet we find some who are so entrapped by the box of human perspective that they simply cannot step outside of it, to see from another possible perspective.

LOL

A +B only = C in some cases. You can't say that because an Alien species hasn't made an appearance on the white house lawn that they then do not exist.

People forget that objects HAVE made appearances over major cities, in view of thousands of witnesses. Some have even been fired upon by a full compliment of Anti-Aircraft batteries...

To some, there will never be enough evidence...

LOL

Much love ArMaP for trying to use logic and reason!

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join