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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillalive
doomsdayrex your always here to discredit people and call names. why dont you stop trolling man?


How is having a discussion "trolling" other than you don't like my opinion? Disagreement is not trolling. However, using "trolling" as an ad hominem to attack someone you don't agree with for the sin of disagreeing is itself trolling.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by jkrog08
 



Your posts makes no sense.


Well that is certainly how I would attempt to have a mature discussion and collaboration, come right out the bat with a snide remark. Get off the defensive mate
, no one is attacking you, YOU are the one who is attacking everyone else.


I started this thread because skeptics don't use reason when weighing the evidence. I have laid out my argument and I have laid out the evidence.

I never said I was going to prove anything to you. You are debating something that I never claimed.


I don't think you quite understand the process of ufology, which is the scientific process. Nor do I think you understand what I was saying, as well the countless others. I don't know if this is because you are so infatuated with believing in aliens that you just don't register anyone else's opinion or facts (which is maybe why my posts or no one elses make no sense to you
).

Your entire premise of this thread is that based on the evidence ETs exist and "skeptics" are unable to use reason. What I am saying is that you are doing the very same thing you are accusing them of doing. You are not using reason because you are eliminating every possibility but the ET hypothesis. That is not using reason either.
:



I said the evidence needs to be weighed within reason. This does show the extraterrestrials exists and the we have been visited by extraterrestrials.


No, it shows that is it POSSBILE they do and we have been, it does NOT show they DO or HAVE.


It's not absolut proof. I never claimed to have absolute proof. These are conclusions reached based on the available evidence and I have listed some of the evidence.


It IS about absolute proof, you can not just say "well this is likely true so therefore it MUST be true", that is a major fallacy and ignorant. If you admit you don't have absolute proof then how can you say skeptics don't use reason in investigations? How do you know what it UFOs really are? How do you know what reason is or isn't being applied? Based on the available evidence there is nothing that is irrefutable showing that UFOs are ET in origin, nothing that can be looked at as any more than hear-say anyways.

It appears that it is you that might not be able to use reason to deduce that in REALITY we have NO IDEA what these are, and to just assume that they are ET in nature based on the VERY limited evidence to support that is a major mistake and goes against all scientific processes. All of the great cases throughout the years still have not produced one single piece of undeniable evidence to point towards an alien origin, let alone if the UFOs are actually even anything mechanical. So again I ask you how can you say that one group doesn't use reason when you don't now what it is they are reasoning?

Not to mention the fact that it appears you just call anyone a skeptic who does not see a light in the sky and say "yep, that's a pleiadian mothership". If anyone challenges the fact that a UFO might be something other than alien you appear to go on the defensive immediately and pull out the usual fallacies that you like to speak of so much. In my opinion you need to learn how to work together and be open to possibilities other than what your mind desires. While I will be the first to admit that yes, some UFOs being ET in origin is a very real possibility, but to say that we can come to that conclusion "based on the available evidence" is ambiguous and just plain wrong.


I come to conclusions about many things without absolute evidence. Human beings always reach conclusions without absolute evidence because in most cases absolute evidence is not available.


Correct, and until we get that type of evidence we will never be able to so singularly say where UFOs come from, or even if they are something extraordinary for that matter. It is not a good idea to come to conclusions about ANYTHING without absolute evidence. That can get you in trouble because you are making assumptions and filling in holes where evidence is missing, which can skew the actual evidence so much that it is no longer logical to make any assumptions, which is the case here I am afraid.


So I will say this yet again:

Based on the available evidence, I can say that extraterrestrials exist and they have been visiting us.

Will there be evidence in the future that contradicts this conclusion? That's possible. But based on the evidence we have now there's no other explanation for the evidence I have listed. This is why the skeptics have not debated the actual evidence that I have presented.

THERE'S OTHER POSSIBILITIES BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS.


There are MANY other explanations other than the ET hypothesis. What about misidentifications, hoaxes, sleep paralysis (in abductions), military projects, time travelers, atmospheric phenomena, unknown atmospheric animals, etc? Did you just decide to disregard all of those? Even the top cases that don't seem to fit those explanations can not just be thrown into the "Definite ET" category, at best "possible ET", but there is other possibilities still open, we JUST DON'T KNOW.

You contradict your entire thesis by now stating that "there could be future evidence that disproves the ET theory". Well if you acknowledge that then I don't see how your argument about skeptics not using reason is valid, you seem to acknowledge that there is a possibility that UFOs may turn out mundane, but if a "skeptic" wants to apply that theory to any cases now then he/she is not using reason then, according to you. Honestly I think you let your desire to believe cloud your better judgement, instead of being neutral and empirical like you should be, you twist all evidence and facts to fit your "pro-ET hypothesis". You are showing signs of being a "pseudobeleiver" IMHO.



Possibilities have to have evidence. So if you say it's just a weather balloon, you have to have evidence that a weather balloon can move and do the things in the video or can move in the same way the witness described.


Your right, so if you say that ETs are visiting us then you have to have evidence showing alien beings piloting a UFO, according to your logic, which is right but just applied the wrong way.


So again, we are back to the possibilities, since we have no proof either way. You see what others and myself are saying now?


Skeptics don't want to deal with evidence because they want to be able to say, it's a weather balloon, it's a chinese lantern, people didn't see what they said they saw in a vacuum.


Actually the "skeptics" (again, they don't really exist but since you INSIST on classifying anyone who takes a scientific approach to ufology as such..) are the ones who ALWAYS end up doing the investigation, while the pseudobeleivers like to proclaim anything as "PROOF-MUST SEE", or "DEBUNK THIS!". It is okay, it is all part of the job though. It is just sickening to see some people disrespect the time and efforts some do put into REAL research because they don't like the scientific process being applied to the case.


The skeptic wants to equate any and everything to the actual evidence. This is why you hear things like fairies, elves and Santa. They are stuck in a perpetual state of constipated possibility.


Now you are just being totally argumentative and fallacious. I would rather be in a "constipated state of possibility" than be ignorantly believing one thing and not be open to anything else, while attacking anyone who doesn't conform to your standards.

I was actually just trying to offer some insight into this whole ridiculous "believer-skeptic" thing, I was not attacking you personally. But since you insisted on attacking me I must respond as I did, it also appears to me that you are not willing to listen to anyone else's views on this, nor realize the cancerous nature of this very topic you and others continuously present. With that said, I certainly hope you are right and ETs do exist, but I will no longer waste my time in this circular and pointless debate with you. Take care.

~Justin


[edit on 10/18/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Oh great. More:

Appeals to ridicule

, also called the Horse Laugh[1] or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy! (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule a human observer will not notice.)
If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla! (False, since the theory states that humans and gorillas evolved from a common early ancestor and clearly states evolution took many more than 5 generations.)
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging one's credentials or maturity;

Nobody believes in objectivism after college! Grow up.
The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.

Other such fallacious arguments may include:

You haven't even graduated from college yet! Come back and talk to me when you have your Ph.D
It's funny you think you know so much about people, even though you're not a psychologist.
It's funny you think you know so much about money, even though you're not an economist.
He is not married, therefore he must not know anything about relationships!
She is not a parent, therefore she must not know anything about children!
She is not a man, therefore she must not know anything about men!
She is younger than I am, therefore she cannot know more than I do!
Don't like X? What's the matter? Too deep for you?

Although they appear very similar, this fallacy should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid type of logical argument. It should also not be confused with ridiculing the person making the argument, which is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...
One can't help but wonder when you people will tire of it. You're not proving your point. Your proving how silly you can get in the illusionary attempt to further it's cause.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Your whole post is bloviating about nothing.

When you said it is about absolute evidence, it shows that your closed minded.

In most cases, we never have absolute evidence.

Humans always come to conclusions based on the available evidence.

This is why a jury comes to a reasonable doubt and not a shadow of a doubt. There may be future evidence that exonerates the defendant but a jury can't say, well we can't come to a conclusion because future evidence may come up. That's just silly and when you speak of absolute evidence you sound foolish.

When a mother comes home and the vase is broken. She has to listen to her kids tell her what happened and then she has to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion.

When a police officer comes to a scene of an accident, he has to listen to eyewitness accounts and then come to a conclusion by weighing the evidence within reason.

Is this absolute evidence? Certainly not. But you weigh the available evidence within reason and then come to a conclusion. Is it possible that other evidence may be found that contradicts your conclusion? Of course, but I can't weigh the available evidence based on future evidence that's not even discovered yet.

So when you say it's about absolute evidence, it makes no sense. You and others have not debated any evidence. You have just went on and on about how these threads offend your delicate sensibilities. Of course this is nonsense and a distraction because you can't debate the evidence.

I draw conclusions after weighing the available evidence with reason. I don't say, there might be a discovery in the future so I will just live in the land of possibilities.

That's just silly and at this point there's no other explanation for these things based on the available evidence. There's other possibilities but these possibilities have zero evidence. They are just pure conjecture and wishful thinking by the skeptic.

Again, I'm going by the available evidence. You can say, it could be this or it could be that all day but it's just meaningless. The people tell what they saw and experienced and some cases are corroborated by radar reports and other sightings in the area.

I also don't reduce life in the universe to earth. We have found liquid water on Mars and there's billions of earth like planets.

People are not coming to these conclusions in a vacuum. There's tons of evidence to weigh. For years, skeptics have been saying we will find new evidence to explain these things and we haven't yet.

How long must we wait before we can weigh the evidence? Skeptics want us to wait until absolute proof is reached. If we wait for absolute evidence, we can never look at and weigh the evidence that has accumulated over the years.

I'm not waiting to please any skeptic. A craft could land on the White House lawn and the skeptics would try to explain it away. I can look at the mountains of evidence and weigh the evidence within reason without "absolute evidence."



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Last thing I am saying since I don't want you to sit there illuminating in the blinding ignorance upon which you seem to show by erroneously judging me without further research on my outlook on the ET presence. It might do you good to scroll through my profile, check out my threads, READ, COMPREHEND, then you will see how enormously embarrassing your last post was. As far as the other stuff, well I am sorry, but it is apparent you have no comprehension of ufology, the scientific method, and only wish to further your pseduobeleiver approach to ufology.

Good day~



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Last thing I am saying since I don't want you to sit there illuminating in the blinding ignorance upon which you seem to show by erroneously judging me without further research on my outlook on the ET presence. It might do you good to scroll through my profile, check out my threads, READ, COMPREHEND, then you will see how enormously embarrassing your last post was. As far as the other stuff, well I am sorry, but it is apparent you have no comprehension of ufology, the scientific method, and only wish to further your pseduobeleiver approach to ufology.

Good day~


All I know is that you said it's about absolute evidence and this is very silly.

When you say something like that then any credibility you may have had is lost. Humans always weigh the available evidence and in most cases we don't have absolute evidence.

You are the one who talked about absolute evidence and that makes no sense.

Evidence has accumulated over the years and we have mass sightings, pictures, videos, trace evidence, abduction cases, radar reports, eyewitness accounts and more that can be weighed. You don't have to have absolute evidence to weigh the available evidence and that's just silly.

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



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I guess it is that time again for threads regarding the so called believer vs skeptic disputes that are so common to ATS.


I don't usually post on these threads (they have a life of their own and tend to repeat themselves) so I'm just posting to say - great post jkrog08. Pretty much sums it up.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I came to ATS believing that I would find like minds with a bit more expertise than I on this subject. For most of my 21 months here however I have steered clear of these threads simply because of the banter.

I save my banter for the christian threads...this subject of UFO's is in my opinion more important as we have more evidence of the existence of other life forms... certainly more than we have for a God.

Could we turn the heat down a few degrees? I see like minds fighting over semantics rather than debating the evidence.



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

Originally posted by InTrueFiction
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I guess it is that time again for threads regarding the so called believer vs skeptic disputes that are so common to ATS.


I don't usually post on these threads (they have a life of their own and tend to repeat themselves) so I'm just posting to say - great post jkrog08. Pretty much sums it up.

Cheers.


It's funny how people cry because these types of threads exist.

It's obvious that you can't debate the evidence or the substance of the thread so you want to talk about how these types of threads hurt your delicate sensibilities.

Give me a break.

If you don't like these types of threads don't post in them.

Please debate the evidence presented instead of bloviating about these types of threads. There's hundreds of threads about all types of subjects and your not that concerned about these threads you just can't debate the issue.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I debate evidence. But I really do not see how debating the fact that the evidence is debated is even relevant. Threads like this one and the other one that is basically the same only it targets "believers" instead are futile in my opinion.

What exactly is the purpose of this discussion?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I asked this same question in another thread and ill ask it in this one:

Can't someone be a skeptical-believer or is there some unsaid rule against it? I for one am a believer, but know when to be skeptical about something so, i consider myself to be skeptical-believer...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


Yep, I'm skeptical about a lot of things and I also weigh each case. What I don't do is live in the land of constipated possibility.

There has been a lot of evidence that has accumulated over the years. There has also been hoaxes and things that are mistaken.

Skepticism doesn't mean obstruction. People like James Randi and Shermer have turned skepticism into a perpetual state. Skepticism is a tool that's used to weigh the evidence not obstruct it at every turn.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


I am also a skeptical believer. I believe firmly the existence of advanced beings and their technology. My skepticism comes from the interpretation or the manipulation of the evidence that is out there.

I think it is safe to say that every member on this thread would have to admit that something is going on.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTrueFiction
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I debate evidence. But I really do not see how debating the fact that the evidence is debated is even relevant. Threads like this one and the other one that is basically the same only it targets "believers" instead are futile in my opinion.

What exactly is the purpose of this discussion?


If you would have read the first post you wouldn't have to ask that question.

I'm talking about weighing the available evidence that has accumulated over the years vs staying in a state of constant and perpetual possibility.

This is why it's important to read the thread before you post and you wouldn't have had to ask this question.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


Yep, I'm skeptical about a lot of things and I also weigh each case. What I don't do is live in the land of constipated possibility.

There has been a lot of evidence that has accumulated over the years. There has also been hoaxes and things that are mistaken.

Skepticism doesn't mean obstruction. People like James Randi and Shermer have turned skepticism into a perpetual state. Skepticism is a tool that's used to weigh the evidence not obstruct it at every turn.





Well, call me naive or whatever, but i guess i don't understand why it seems there is this useless battle between Skeptics and believers. I mean whats the point, obviously we need each other. Why cant we just stop with all the bickering and work together, is it really that hard. I assume we are all here looking for truth, so lets focus our attention on the issue at hand instead of each other.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
What`s the big deal about accepting that some UFO`s may represent alien intelligence?
Younger people are exposed to so many sci-fi TV programmes and films in their childhood that it is only a small step to putting this out as the official message.
Unless of course humans believe that they are the superior life form in the Universe.
Many of the great scientific breakthroughs are based on lucky observations of nature e.g. Newton, the apple and gravity; Crick. the '___' trip and the DNA double-helix dream.
Most of the skeptics try to fit everything in with currently known scientific laws of nature and are blinkered because of this - which is both good and bad in a way.
I call these people pseudo-skeptics as they cannot actually explain the observations in their own current scientific terms.
istina.rin.ru...
Most of science is re-written every 100 years anyway.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


It's simple, because you can't work with people that demand absolute proof and absolute evidence. This is not all skeptic but most of the UFO skeptics are in this category.

They still haven't said why we can't weigh the evidence that has accumulated over the years. How long do we have to wait? Do we have to wait until they find an explanation that they are comftornle with? We have been waiting for years and skeptics will always have us waiting to weigh the evidence, That doesn't make sense in light of all the evidence that has accumulated throughout the years.

There will always be a wall there. So there's plenty of threads talking about a lot of things.

Here's a list of just some of the threads in this folder and there's like a few threads that talk about UFO skeptics.

NASA's Apollo DSE "Black Box" Transcripts - revealing the unscripted truth about the Moon & E.T. (Pages: 1 2 3 .. 34 ) easynow 663 160 18-10-2009 at 06:16 PM
by ArMaP

Rendlesham forest footage to be unveiled (Pages: 1 2 3 ) gortex 40 8 18-10-2009 at 06:14 PM
by gortex

Guess what is the second-most popular acronym in the world? Historical-Mozart 5 0 18-10-2009 at 05:56 PM
by Scooby Doo

Art Bell interviews Dr. Jonathan Reed. November 18, '98 AboveTopSecretX 18 1 18-10-2009 at 05:51 PM
by Aspie

ENOUGH! Please read for further details. (Pages: 1 2 ) stanlee 20 3 18-10-2009 at 05:50 PM
by sum-one

Contact? When? Where? What's your opinion? ontariocanada 1 0 18-10-2009 at 05:44 PM
by useless eaters

Cosmic Voyage - Martians and Grays Bagel 6 1 18-10-2009 at 05:30 PM
by stanlee

Steven M. Greer releases UFO photographs! (Pages: 1 2 3 .. 25 ) nbgoku 481 7 18-10-2009 at 05:26 PM
by bartolas

James Randi is an idiot!! (Pages: 1 2 3 .. 13 ) DaTerminator 241 8 18-10-2009 at 05:22 PM
by bsbray11

Hacker's extradition put on hold ocker 7 3 18-10-2009 at 04:56 PM
by jeasahtheseer

Aliens In Fiction, Humans In Fact LiveForever8 16 9 18-10-2009 at 04:26 PM
by TheStev

Classic Case: Lakenheath/Bentwaters radar/visual episode (1956) IsaacKoi 6 4 18-10-2009 at 03:03 PM
by Arbitrageur

Colorado Ballon Saucer Bravo111 7 1 18-10-2009 at 02:52 PM
by dntwastetime

Google Sky is covering something up right now Spooky Fox Mulder 9 3 18-10-2009 at 02:51 PM
by Skyfloating

Johnathan Reed's Close-Up Alien Blinking Video - best footage ever? (video) (Pages: 1 2 3 .. 34 ) VisionQuest 665 34 18-10-2009 at 02:46 PM
by ChipDouglasManOfAction

USO Research (Pages: 1 2 3 .. 32 )

All the tears about these kind of threads don't make sense. If you don't like them, then post in another thread.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Well, it seems like a catch 22 situation IMHO.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by InTrueFiction
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I debate evidence. But I really do not see how debating the fact that the evidence is debated is even relevant. Threads like this one and the other one that is basically the same only it targets "believers" instead are futile in my opinion.

What exactly is the purpose of this discussion?


If you would have read the first post you wouldn't have to ask that question.

I'm talking about weighing the available evidence that has accumulated over the years vs staying in a state of constant and perpetual possibility.

This is why it's important to read the thread before you post and you wouldn't have had to ask this question.


I did read it. Where's the evidence.

This is the very reason why I made that post and why I try to stay a way from these type of threads. What is often called "skeptics" on ATS are members that spend time researching the evidence that is presented. That in my opinion is not only a valuable but even essential part of ufology. Period. That's my opinion and that's how I think anyone that considers ufology a serious subject should conduct themselves - researching instead of believing. And most of all - not debating the debate itself.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Even if all the UFO believers had were theories which can be accepted only by ignoring all the photos, videos and physical traces left behind, then are the skeptics providing the same evaluation methods they use when discussing, say string theories and 10 or 11 dimension universes.
There has been no actual observation of any of these things, not a single experiment to support their actual existence, yet quite a large percentage of the scientific establishment accept them as probable.
Should some weirdos begin claiming that these 'strings' are made in underground sweat shops in Mexico I doubt serious physicist who accept string theory would be asked to explain the 'sweatshop' theory advanced by others. Yet UFO believers are constantly having the extremist claims of others thrown at them.
Those who accept string theory and/or multiverse explanations of reality based their decisions on what theory they believe most likely accounts for certain observed phenomena. Unable to establish any ultimate truth they go for the next best thing...which is more 'probable'.
Why then the mockery of UFO believers who do exactly the same thing. Why do the skeptics insist on defining terms in very precise specific ways not necessarily the way the believer uses them.
An alien craft is simply one not manufactured on Earth. Is it interplanetary? Interstellar? Is it a time machine? Perhaps trans-dimensional? Why when I refer to an alien craft am I asked to explain a possible propulsion system to traverse the great distances involved? If this is either a time machine or something from an alternate possible world, another dimension as they are commonly referred to, why am I coaxed into considering how improbable it is for any race to cover the great distances involved? What am I missing?
You ask believers to be realistic.
Perhaps recognizing the incredible bias of the average skeptic should be our request to you when discussing reality. To pretend to evaluate this phenomena in the same way as other more 'accepted' phenomena is a fairy tale more outrageous than any claim of little green men.
You have yet to provide a single photo, a single shred of evidence, to establish the existence of atoms. Many theories but no actual proof. Yet you have no problem building entire sciences based on your theoretical assumptions.
Let us stop pretending that Skeptics are motivated by the UFOlogy's failure to meet scientific standards when even standard science does not do that.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join