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.

 

UFO skeptics don't use reason

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There's no divisive rhetoric, I'm just stating a fact. What did I say that's not true?

If you remove reason then anything is possible. If you weigh the evidence within reason than anything is not possible because your looking at what's most likely vs. what's less likely.

Jost stating the facts.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


No I don't have to come up with any counter evidence to claim that people may have been mistaken or seen something that is NOT ET. I simply have to read and decide for myself.

Just like you do when you read these things.

I am not arguing the existance, I am arguing your stance of non logic with logic that you refuse to acknowledge.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


No I don't have to come up with any counter evidence to claim that people may have been mistaken or seen something that is NOT ET. I simply have to read and decide for myself.

Just like you do when you read these things.

I am not arguing the existance, I am arguing your stance of non logic with logic that you refuse to acknowledge.

~Keeper


A perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The skeptic wants to remain in the realm of,"it can be anything."

Of course you don't think you need any counter evidence because your looking at these things in an illogical, absolute way.

Of course you need counter evidence. This is why you take polygraphs. This is why you follow their story throughout the years to see if it changes. This is why in one case the Sheriff taped them in a room to see if they would change their story.

This doesn't mean these things are absolute. But the skeptic is the one speaking in absolutes, I'm talking reason.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Some people need a conspiracy all laid out for them.
But as with all things in life the conspiracy is hard to find.
Now craft have been identified in great detail with no official confirmation.
What does that make of things.
Not much to some people.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
so we are either with you or against you? what sort of dichotomy is this? Are you the jesus of ufology or what? just because people dont agree with YOU al mighty matrix rising, does not make us either skeptical or wrong. You are finger pointing, name calling and it is surpassing that of old.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Moderators.. This post can definitely come to a screeching halt. Please lock.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by stanlee]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
He should pick one case at a time.
If we gave the de bunk on all those cases he could write a book.
Walton was taken to a base hospital.
Do a proof as in math, find two solutions and QED.
Or is it only one for a QED.
So far I'm convinced UFO craft are real, ETs not.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


hmm.. I think they both are. I mean to assume we are the only life in all the universe is even mathematically egotistical. does this mean all UFO's are alien in my eyes? heavens no. No more than it means they are all human to me. But. thats just my opinion

[edit on 17-10-2009 by stanlee]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
So I am to just take your word for it. I am not allowed to question what you say (or anyone else). If I do question what you say or do not believe you I am illogical and not using reason. Do I have these rules right ?

And you wonder why this subject gets laughed at ...

I forgot to add that I do believe there is other life out there. I do believe in flying objects that can not be explained. Just do not tell me I have to believe what you believe.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Dracmoor]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There's no divisive rhetoric, I'm just stating a fact. What did I say that's not true?


Here's your untrue divisive rherotic:


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
UFO skeptics don't use reason. ......

Again, there's zero evidence on the skeptics side. See the skeptic would have to show why it's less likely when it comes to every video, picture, radar report, eyewitness account, mass sighting, trace evidence, abduction case and more.


The fact that it's divisive should be self evident. Regarding the untrue part, the evidence in not on anyone's side, the evidence is what it is, and it's the same evidence available to everybody. It is up to all of us to interpret that evidence, and different people interpret the evidence differently. It's up to all of us to do our best to come to a correct interpretation of that evidence regardless of what label we apply to ourselves.

The evidence is available to all of us who seek the truth because it provides a means by which we can examine it and learn the truth. The truth has no "side" except "truth" itself.

But you seem more intent on partitioning people into categories and trying to incite arguments between people that are all seeking the truth. I suggest to you sir that your admirable enthusiasm and energy can be spent on more productive efforts than this activity.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dracmoor
 


Where did I say you had to believe how I believe?

I wish people would read the posts before they comment.

I said it's illogical to speak in absolutes because reason will be absent. Reason weighs the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. Absolutes says,"it can be anything."

Please read my post and we wouldn't have to debate claims that I never made.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Divisive? You have to be kiddinmg.

Also, direct evidence is not left to your interpretation.

These people are saying exactly what they saw and experienced.

Your interpretation is meaningless. You can only weigh the possibilities and weigh the credibility of the witness or witnesses.

When I say the skeptic has zero evidence, this means they don't have any evidence as to what actually occured and this is why they have to push the debate to the realm of,"it can be anything."

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
yyet you speak in absolutes with this so called "evidence" you present. You personally rule out the possibility that these sightings could be ANYTHING but extra terrestrial and then tell everyone that they are skeptics because they/we do not agree with your 'evidence'. Thats pretty much saying "BELIEVE ME OR BE LABELLED!"



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


These people are saying exactly what they saw and experienced.


This is where you become divisive. None of us know that these people are saying exactly what they saw and experienced, because none of us are those people.

The fact that you're willing to use the spoken word of a witness as hard evidence to something as massive as alien visitation speaks volumes about your credibility as a researcher.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Like I said I am not allowed to disagree with the evidence.

If the said evidence could be "just about anything" then I am not allowed to say that cause I would be Illogical. at least according to you. So I either follow your rules or I am out.

You see it does not matter what I say you will claim I am wrong and you are right. I know you say you never said I have to believe what you believe but you basically said I can not say your evidence (or anybodies ) was not good enough for me.

no matter how you say it you just want people to accept evidence without question. Well I hate to tell you but that is never going to happen. Even if people do have to be illogical to disagree they are going to. I am not claiming I am being that just pointing that out.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanlee
so we are either with you or against you? what sort of dichotomy is this? Are you the jesus of ufology or what?


First, let me say that I actually laughed out loud at that.


Second, that was George W. Bush who used that analogy, Jesus said those that are not against us are for us.

Third, it is a heated subject and people that believe in UFOs have to paddle against the tides anyway that I think they just want support from others, and get hurt when they don't.

My opinion...



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


These people are saying exactly what they saw and experienced.


This is where you become divisive. None of us know that these people are saying exactly what they saw and experienced, because none of us are those people.

The fact that you're willing to use the spoken word of a witness as hard evidence to something as massive as alien visitation speaks volumes about your credibility as a researcher.


Of course we can know if this is what they saw and experienced through reason and weighing the credibility of the witness or witnesses.

I'm speaking as to what's most likely and what's less likely and not in absolutes. When you are weighing the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely through reason, you can draw a conclusion as to what occured.

How do you think they weigh direct testimony in court? It's through reason. The jurors are not present when the crime is commited but they can still conclude what happened through reason.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


well first, THank you... I too laughed when I saw what I typed. Second.. I think that saying goes back before W. third.. I agree. its a massive subject that is marred by people like the OP



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Its not reason some of them are lacking, there is no point in discussing anything with people who will shoot out with, "group hysteria" when more than one, shares a siting of crafts that can only be described as anomalies, but further even if there is more involved than a siting.

It may have to do with who is the controllers of some people, not whether they are using reason. I have strong opinions about that, and those who control the matrix.

Some of their arguments are reasoned out, others are ludicrous. I've heard, "its a satellite" from two who responded to two of our guests seeing the crafts we always see, these ones were flying at med-low height when compared to small planes, well below the cloud cover at the coast. Even telling them that satellites do not fly in our atmosphere below cloud cover didn't convince them.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by Unity_99]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join