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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Not all skeptics are as portrayed by believers. Even though I open myself to pillory because I demand irrefutable evidence instead of willy nilly acceptance, I have always been open about my acceptance of the reality of UFOs having had 6 solid sightings. Skeptics who haven't had the experience are the ones that deny their reality because they do not accept circumstancial evidence in the form of photos/films/videos. I didn't accept their reality until I had my sightings but I kept an open mind about what others were experiencing as far as seeing UFOs.

Since I have not experienced aliens I cannot accept their reality especially because there has been no irrefutable evidence presented, just hearsay and the supporters of hearsay. I accept that since there are UFOs, and we have no idea what they are and we think they're aerial crafts because they share the airspace with human aircraft, there may or may not be occupants. UFOs could be ROVs which still demands an operator somewhere. If so, we have no idea where that somewhere is. But since I've been a UFO enthusiast since 1957 and at no time have I read or heard of a verifiable alien encounter, they're sitting on my mind's back burner.

Not all skeptics are as closed-minded as Robert Sheaffer, #1 skeptic.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Even though I open myself to pillory because I demand irrefutable evidence instead of willy nilly acceptance, I have always been open about my acceptance of the reality of UFOs having had 6 solid sightings.


Where's your evidence that proves your "6 solid sightings"? Don't give me the "I don't know how to upload images" reply because that got old a while ago. You've said yourself that you have this and offer to show it and never do. Until you do this yourself you should stop demanding the same thing from others.


Since I have not experienced aliens I cannot accept their reality especially because there has been no irrefutable evidence presented, just hearsay and the supporters of hearsay.


A lot of what you've called evidence is stuff you've read in books. You constantly tell others to read this or that for evidence. Isn't that technically hearsay? Yet when it comes from your mouth it's not hearsay, it's fact. Because you read it in a book.


I accept that since there are UFOs, and we have no idea what they are and we think they're aerial crafts because they share the airspace with human aircraft, there may or may not be occupants. UFOs could be ROVs which still demands an operator somewhere. If so, we have no idea where that somewhere is. But since I've been a UFO enthusiast since 1957 and at no time have I read or heard of a verifiable alien encounter, they're sitting on my mind's back burner.


Could you please not speak for all of us? Also, could you provide EVIDENCE that absolutely nobody in the world has no idea what they are or who controls them if they're unmanned like you said as fact, even though that's clearly just your OPINION and you couldn't possibly know that for a fact?

Thanks


[edit on 18-10-2009 by nightmare_david]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
This is a typical thread for Matrix Rising. His threads are based in an Argument From Ignorance fallacy. Instead of making an argument to support extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth, he attacks skeptics and mistakenly believes by proving skeptics wrong he will prove himself right by default. To this end he makes the usual list of straw man arguments and tries to substitute the standards of evidence for science with that of law knowing that the latter's standards are weaker.


Outstanding observation and argument - is there some professional skill behind this?

Anyhow - I don't think it matters how many skeptics there are on any side of an issue.

The numbers of people who think the earth is flat or spherical is of little consequence to the earth itself.

Rather than people trying to 'prove' their point of view - people should just try to incite some curiosity and present as much evidence and structured theory as possible.

The underlying issue is that people have the tendency to 'believe' - this is simply a personal choice to turn a piece of evidence, or theory (a possibility) into a fact. That's all the truth is - that's all a belief is - a personal choice.

If people can prevent themselves from taking that step - if they can look into their own heads and 'un-click' all those belief buttons - then everything becomes possible - and people can objectively review evidence without bias.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


This post proves my point again.

It has nothing to do with possibility and I have presented a ton of evidence that many on this thread just ignore. I have listed pages of evidence on this thread and skeptics remain in the land of possibility.

It's not about what's possible, it's about reason. There's always other possibilities and this is why humans come to conclusions based on the available evidence.

A jury has to convict based on the available evidence. They can't say, it's a possibility that evidence may come up in the future that shows he didn't do the crime. There's always a possibility that new evidence can be found.

There's always a chance for new evidence and new possibilities but not all possibilities are weighed equally.

Again, it seems the skeptics are just ignoring this simple truth and living in a fantasy world.

Based on the available evidence what's the most likely explanation for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar reports and more?

It's a very simple question that skeptics want to avoid because they want to remain in the fantasy land of possibilities and they don't want to weigh the evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

This is because they have no explanation for these things and the only answer is extraterrestrial visitation based on the available evidence. The people describe exactly what they saw and experienced and some cases are corroborated by trace evidence, other sightings in the area and radar reports.

We have found liquid water on the planet right next to ours, we could be embedded in a multiverse that's filled with extra dimensions(an idea supported by everyone from Stephen Hawking to Dr. Michio Kaku), there's billions of earth like planets. The natural output of our universe is life and it's absolutely silly and closed minded to reduce life in the universe to earth because of a personal belief system.

We never remain in the fantasy land of possibility because we don't have absolute evidence in most cases. So we weigh the available evidence within reason and I have listed a ton of evidence that's just been ignored by the skeptics.

The skeptics argument is absent any reason and it's based on a state of perpetual possibility because they want to avoid weighing the evidence within reason.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
the evidence within reason.


This phrase seems to be very important to you.....can you even explain what it means? "Within reason"......whose reason? Is it some sliding scale? Outwardly, the phrase appears to be babel-ish double speak. The "within reason" part can't be quantified to the degree that would eliminate slippage.

As often as you use the phrase.....I really think you could clear up your position by defining exactly what that phrase means.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Based on the available evidence what's the most likely explanation for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar reports and more?


"Explanation" is far too premature to be applied to your examples. Could they be the work and results of an extraterrestrial presence? Yeah, could be. Could they be a result of some interdimensional phenomena? Yeah, could be.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cranberrydork

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Based on the available evidence what's the most likely explanation for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar reports and more?


"Explanation" is far too premature to be applied to your examples. Could they be the work and results of an extraterrestrial presence? Yeah, could be. Could they be a result of some interdimensional phenomena? Yeah, could be.


No it's not.

We have tons of evidence spanning many years.

For the skeptic, it will always be too early because they want to remain in a perpetual state of possibility until evidence surfaces that supports their personal belief system.

The skeptics will always say,"it could be anything" ad infinitum.

Of course it could be anything and of course there's the possibility that new evidence could be found in the future but we always weigh the available evidence within reason.

This is what the skeptics don't want to do. They want to remain in the fantasy world of possibilities because they have no explanation for these things.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


I have explained what it means over and over. We always weigh evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

It's that simple. It's not some scale or magic formula, we do it everyday and in all walks of life because in most cases we don't have absolute evidence.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


How many UFO skeptics believe in God?

Just curious.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


That's some of the most bizarre double-speak I've ever read. Intellectually bereft of any kind of sense....common or not.

"UFO skeptics don't use reason" is the title of this thread. Yet, you've consistently held to an "unreasoned" position.

Conclusion....you're a troll, or sadly, somehow mentally unable to deal with complex issues.

There's is nothing in the "evidence" that precludes the possibility of dimensional rifts, or even natural phenomena that we don't understand. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that precludes some facet of human consciousness that creates these occurrences.

By your same measure.....fairies, elves, ogres, trolls, incubus, succubus, et al.....are just as likely.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We always weigh evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.


Then I would suggest you expand your horizons a bit and do some study into how humans make decisions and "weigh" evidence. As a group....us humans are very poor at it.....and often as not, make wrong or bad decisions.

That's a fact.

From a purely "reasoned" standpoint....it is less likely to be the result of intra-galactic travel....than the result of natural phenomena that have always been here.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by cranberrydork]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


A post attacking me but without any evidence whatsoever.

This is yet another tactic used by the skeptic. They want to equate all possibilities as equal. This is about as dishonest as it gets.

All possibilities are not equal and this is why we weigh the evidence within reason.

You will hear the skeptic saying, fairies, ogre's, Santa, elves and more. They say these things like they are possibilities because they speak without reason when it comes to things like ufology.

These things are not possibilities because the people describe what they saw and experienced. We have mass sightings, sightings, trace evidence, radar reports, pictures, video, abduction cases and more.

We have evidence to weigh within reason and when you try to list these silly things as possible explanations you make yourself look very foolish.

This truly proves my point. The skeptics wants all possibilities to be seen as equal because they have no explanation for these things.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


You said:



From a purely "reasoned" standpoint....it is less likely to be the result of intra-galactic travel....than the result of natural phenomena that have always been here.



Based on what evidence?

I have listed mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, radar reports, trace evidence, abduction cases and more.

This is just your conjecture and personal belief system. It has nothing to do with evidence.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Goodbye. I have fed your trolling enough.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I mentioned a ton of evidence in my first post.


No, you did not post any evidence. What you posted were a list of cases. The two are not one-in-the-same. It would be the same as someone posting a list of known hoaxes then claiming it as evidence the entire UFO phenomenon is based on lies.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
That's why they say anything is possible or it can be anything.


You have made this claim repeatedly. Can you please provide a specific example where a skeptic has made such a claim, that some evidence could be "anything"?

I think what you are doing here is taking cases where skeptics have attributed evidence to other phenomenon and mischaracterizing and generalizes these explanations, attempting to discredit them by way of an Appeal to Ridicule and straw man fallacies.

No skeptic is going to claim "anything" could be responsible for evidence. If this is not the case, please provide an example.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I mentioned a ton of evidence in my first post.


No, you did not post any evidence. What you posted were a list of cases. The two are not one-in-the-same. It would be the same as someone posting a list of known hoaxes then claiming it as evidence the entire UFO phenomenon is based on lies.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
That's why they say anything is possible or it can be anything.


You have made this claim repeatedly. Can you please provide a specific example where a skeptic has made such a claim, that some evidence could be "anything"?

I think what you are doing here is taking cases where skeptics have attributed evidence to other phenomenon and mischaracterizing and generalizes these explanations, attempting to discredit them by way of an Appeal to Ridicule and straw man fallacies.

No skeptic is going to claim "anything" could be responsible for evidence. If this is not the case, please provide an example.


Of course I posted evidence throughout the thread. I have posted specific cases and all of the cases that I have posted, I have provided links for the evidence. You just want to debate something that you made up. I have listed the evidence and links to the sites but I'm sure your not interested in reading any evidence or going through the links.

Of course there's specifific evidence that skeptics have claimed that it could be anything. Just read the threads on this board.

The skeptic will ask for evidence. When evidence is listed, the skeptic will say that doesn't prove anything or that it could be anything.

Of course you will act like this doesn't happen because you have no evidence and no argument. You want to make it up as you go.

The skeptic always ask for evidence and then when evidence is presented they never rebutt the evidence, they just say that could be anything or that doesn't prove anything.

I just wish the skeptic would provide some evidence. They only give their conjecture which is based on their belief system.

I have listed a ton of evidence and I'm sure the skeptics didn't bother to read it or visit the links. This is because it has nothing to do with evidence. Most skeptics don't want to debate the evidence. They just want to live in the land of perpetual possibility. They don't want to weigh the evidence within reason.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I very much appreciate your arguments here. As an experiencer I have decided to keep my evidence to myself as have many others. I don't need a die hard skeptic telling me what I saw or experienced was real or not.

It is a true shame that so many bright folks do not consider the weight of evidence and testimony....I liken it to a plane crash....there may not be a photo or video of it but the effects are evident.

S&F...a good debate



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I very much appreciate your arguments here. As an experiencer I have decided to keep my evidence to myself as have many others. I don't need a die hard skeptic telling me what I saw or experienced was real or not.

It is a true shame that so many bright folks do not consider the weight of evidence and testimony....I liken it to a plane crash....there may not be a photo or video of it but the effects are evident.

S&F...a good debate


Very good point and this is exactly what I'm saying.

In most cases, the evidence is never weighed by the skeptic. The default position is that it had to be something else or the person couldn't have seen what they said they saw.

It's never about the evidence that's presented. This is because they don't have an explanation for these things and the explanation that's provided is not accepted by the skeptic so they want to remain in a perpetual state of constipated possibility.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
You know what I'd love to see, a separate forum for this ridiculous back and fourth between skeptics and believers. It is just about the most childish argument on this entire website and it clogs up valuable space that could be used to tackle UFO cases and theories.

I don't think either side is using reason, as reason would prevent any argument from standing on shaky ground for or against. It would be nice if this particular section of our daft UFO community used more of that so-called "Reason".

Ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You can't be serious.

Everytime you try to look at evidence and weigh it within reason on this folder, there's skeptics who will come in and say the same things that have nothing to do with the evidence. They will say,"it doesn't prove anything" or "it could be anything."

So when people complain about threads like these I laugh. There's plenty of threads discussing theories and cases but the skeptic needs to be called out on their faulty logic because it distracts from threads that are actually trying to discuss the evidence in a reasonable way.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join