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.

 

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Evidence for extraterrestrials - ancient civilisation/writings, eyewitness reports, blah blah blah

Evidence against extraterrestrials - the evidence FOR is invalid and not scientific "evidence"




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course these pseudoskeptics and debunkers want thread like these locked because it makes them look foolish and illogical.



What foolish ilogical poster is calling me a pseudoskeptic/debunker?

How can I be labeled anything by pointing out the obvious flaw in the premise of your post?

You may want to check your caps lock button.... (its not on)

:l



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course these pseudoskeptics and debunkers want thread like these locked because it makes them look foolish and illogical.

Nobody has said anything about proving a negative and yes there's evidence for and against things. We debate evidence for and against the proposition all the time.

When your in a debate class, they will tell one group to debate for the proposition and the other group to debate against the proposition.

The problem is, there's no evidence against the proposition extraterrestrials/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation.

The pseudoskeptic and debunker has to keep these things out of the area of reason because they want all these possibilities to share the same probability of being true.

They want to be able to say it can be this or it can be that without any evidence. They have set up such an illogical strawman that they don't even realize how silly it sounds.

If you can debate against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist or against visitation then your in trouble.

I and others have listed evidence. Case after case after case that has been studied and investigated throughout the years.

The pseudoskeptics and debunkers are wanting the mods to shut down the thread.

It just takes a little logic to surmise that the pseudoskeptics and debunkers have nothing when you start to weigh the available evidence within reason.

This stops them from tossing out all kinds of illogical nonsense. The last thing the pseudoskeptics and debunkers want is to weigh the evidence within reason.

If you have to work with probabilities instead of any piossibility then the pseudoskeptic and debunker is lost and they want the mods to shut down the thread.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]


And yet again he you don't even address or respond to what I try to explain to you. You just continue your rant. Then again, why would I expect anything logical to come from you?

You know, I almost think you are someone that is being paid to make believers in aliens look stupid and ridiculous.

So based on your actions in this thread, maybe I should start another one called:

What's the evidence against Matrix Rising being an idiot and completely illogical?

Evidence, everything you have said in this thread and your complete refusal to address simple points about the structure of your premise being flawed.

Evidence against: No major spelling errors. Thats it.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teabags
What foolish ilogical poster is calling me a pseudoskeptic/debunker?
How can I be labeled anything by pointing out the obvious flaw in the premise of your post?



Originally posted by johnny2127
And yet again he you don't even address or respond to what I try to explain to you.


Both are common tactics of Matrix Rising. He resorts to ad hominems such as pseudoskeptic/debunker which are short-hand for anyone who does not agree with him to the letter. He refuses to discuss anything but rather lectures. Discussing would mean he would have to consider the points of others; however, with lecturing, he can ignore and dismiss them. That is why he will never address any question or point directed at him. For instance.

Matrix Rising, you have stated numerous times on this thread that skeptics dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrials existing. When and where has any skeptic said this?

And yes, this thread should be locked. Not because it makes any skeptic uncomfortable. The evidence that is doesn't is numerous on this board; there are plenty of civil, rational discussions among believers and skeptics wherein no one is calling for the thread to be shut-down. Rather, it should be shut down because there are dozens of threads with this same theme, where Matrix Rising repeats the same thing over and over, with little-to-no variation.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Well even if it isn't locked, we can effectively do the same thing by not responding to Matrix in this thread any longer. We cannot allow ourselves to be baited by him, and just keep responding out of frustration. Obviously from the posts in this thread, people get that he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to debate, evidence, discussions, or the difference between criminal trials and debates about fringe topics. He lumps everything together and fails to realize they are all different.

So I just say we all stop responding in this thread. Go into your MY ATS and click the 'x' to remove it from even showing up for you. And just let this thread be relegated to obscurity.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
So I just say we all stop responding in this thread. Go into your MY ATS and click the 'x' to remove it from even showing up for you. And just let this thread be relegated to obscurity.


Great idea. But there is something to be said for letting him hang himself.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


If you can't debate the proposition, that's your fault.

It's obvious you don't have a clue as to what your talking about because you and others want to make it personal.

You have not addressed any evidence, you have not presented any evidence. You and others just cry and complain about me in each post.

What this shows is that I hit a nerve with the igorant and illogical statements coming from pseudoskeptics and debunkers.

It's obvious that they have to use backwards logic to debate this issue because of the overwhelming evidence in support of ufology. When you can't debate the issue of course you try to make iit about the person that's bringing up the issue. This is obvious because the pseudoskeptics and debunkers on this thread just cry about me assaulting their faulty and absurd logic.

People debate for and against the proposition all of the time. People weigh the available evidence and reach conclusions as to what's most likely and less likely all the time.

This is just basic common sense.

Pseudoskeptics and debunkers can't even acknowledge this simple truth because they want to continue to make these illogical and ignorant arguments without being challenged.

Again, what's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation?

I'm not asking you to "prove a negative." I'm not asking you to prove they don't exist or to prove that they haven't visited us.

This is the nonsense pseudoskeptics and debunkers want to debate because they don't have any evidence against the proposition. It's a simple question and we debate evidence for and against issues all the time.

Again, the pseudoskeptic and debunker wants to debate proving a negative because this is what they have been taught to debate. I hear this phrase on every message board or blog that I visit when this topic comes upi.

Nobody has mentioned proving a negative. Nobody has aked them to prove anything. We are just debating evidence for and against the proposition. Something human beings do all the time without "proving a negative."

I just saw a segment on the news where people were debating for and against 2012. This guy got through the debate and he was presenting evidence against 2012 being the end of the world without "proving a negative."


[edit on 13-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I am not a skeptic or debunker.

All I am trying to point out is that there is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. Its not even a possible thing. Its really not a hard thing to grasp. All I was trying to do was get you to change the discussion question so that what you proposed or recommended debating on was even possible. But instead you start labeling me as a skeptic and debunker and just went over the top illogical and stubborn about a philosophical fact. and in doing so, you have made multiple non-skeptics like myself ignore this thread.

This is my last post in this thread. Its pointless to engage in dialog when the person won't even be logical in response. Do you get Matrix that you are arguing so blindly that with me you aren't even arguing about aliens? You are arguing against any point that isn't 100% supportive about your post. I was just commenting on a philosophical fact. And I'll leave that fact as the last words in here:
There is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. It is not even possible for that to exist.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I believe that there is an invisible dragon living in my garage...please provide evidence to me that there isn't.
The Dragon in My Garage -- by Carl Sagan

[edit on 11/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Sorry skeptic peeps, but seems to me Matrix has a point.

There's a big difference between asking someone to prove a negative or merely asking someone to clarify their point of view with arguments and or evidence. Seems Matrix simply wants the latter, no?

Poor Matrix seems to be a bit misunderstood.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
There is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. It is not even possible for that to exist.
Could you point me to the quotation where he asked someone to prove aliens do not exist? I might have overlooked, but it seems to me he merely wants to debate the merits of a particular point of view; e.g. why are some of the opinion that visitation is unlikely.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Evidence for extraterrestrials - ancient civilisation/writings, eyewitness reports, blah blah blah

Evidence against extraterrestrials - the evidence FOR is invalid and not scientific "evidence"
I'm sure the "extraterrestrials" are taking notice that the evidence for their presumed existence is not "scientific" (whatever that means!). No doubt it has them all in tears.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Sorry skeptic peeps, but seems to me Matrix has a point.

There's a big difference between asking someone to prove a negative or merely asking someone to clarify their point of view with arguments and or evidence. Seems Matrix simply wants the latter, no?

Poor Matrix seems to be a bit misunderstood.

What kind of evidence is there that supports the fact that something does not exist? There is none.

It's just like the "Dragon in my garage" example I listed above. There is no evidence supporting the assertion that 'the dragon does not exist' that cannot be countered.

...and, by the way, this has nothing to do with being skeptical about alien visitation. This would be a logical fallacy no matter what the subject matter was.


[edit on 11/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by johnny2127
There is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. It is not even possible for that to exist.
Could you point me to the quotation where he asked someone to prove aliens do not exist? I might have overlooked, but it seems to me he merely wants to debate the merits of a particular point of view; e.g. why are some of the opinion that visitation is unlikely.


He is asking for evidence that aliens and/or alien abductions don't exist. Like has been pointed out, there is no such thing as evidence of something not existing.

Exactly what you are saying about wanting a debate based on merits of a point of view is what I was trying to get Matrix to change the premise of the thread to being about. Not about evidence that aliens don't exist since that isn't possible. The premise of the thread should be about someone's reasoning or philosophy why aliens exist or not. Bring a logical argument to the thread on whatever side you choose. It doesn't matter to me at all which side you are on. My entire point is just that there is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. That is a philosophical fact. I am not making that up.

Ok, that was really my last post in this thread.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Could you point me to the quotation where he asked someone to prove aliens do not exist? I might have overlooked, but it seems to me he merely wants to debate the merits of a particular point of view; e.g. why are some of the opinion that visitation is unlikely.


It's in the opening post...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth? What evidence out there prohibits alien abductions from occuring?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
There's a big difference between asking someone to prove a negative or merely asking someone to clarify their point of view with arguments and or evidence. Seems Matrix simply wants the latter, no?


If Matrix wanted the later, he would have said so. Thus far, he hasn't. Even when I tried to offer this to him, he refused to respond. I think he has me on ignore. And surely he has me on ignore for all the same reasons he accuses skeptics of not answering him. I've hit a nerve, I point out the illogic and irrationality of his argument. And whatever else nonsense he spews.

And in truth, Matrix doesn't want to discuss anything. He wants to lecture. These threads are not designed for discussion but rather for the insecure Matrix to feel better about his rather weak beliefs.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Wrong again.

Did you even read the title of the thread?

I never said anything about evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist or visitation.

The title of the thread is:

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials or extraterrestrial visitation

I have said over and over again in this thread. What's the evidence against extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings and against visitation.

When you say what's the evidence against their existence it's different than saying what's the evidence that they don't exist.

Again, the pseudoskeptic and debunker will always use this illogical line of reasoning because they want any possibility to be given the equal probability of being true.

They don't want to weigh these things within reason as to what's more likey and less likely because they want to be able to say "it could be anything."

No it couldn't be anything because there's a ton of evidence to weigh. This has nothing to do with proving a negative.

Like I said earlier, I saw a debate on the proposition that the world will end in 2012. This was on the news and there were people presenting evidence for the proposition and against the proposition. The debate had nothing to do with "proving a negative."

We debate for and against the proposition all the time and in all walks of life.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Wrong again.

Did you even read the title of the thread?

I never said anything about evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist or visitation.

The title of the thread is:

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials or extraterrestrial visitation

I have said over and over again in this thread. What's the evidence against extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings and against visitation.

When you say what's the evidence against their existence it's different than saying what's the evidence that they don't exist.



No offense Matrix but you really are not answering what these guys are saying at all. Most of them aren't even arguing with you about aliens.

And what you just posted is what made me post. How can you possibly say that you never said anything about evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist or visitation, then point to your thread title which asks for exactly that?

Then you say this:



I have said over and over again in this thread. What's the evidence against extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings and against visitation.

When you say what's the evidence against their existence it's different than saying what's the evidence that they don't exist.


Ummmm those are the same things. And either way you keep asking for evidence which is exactly the point these guys are trying to make. Evidence of the type you are asking for doesn't exist. You can have evidence certain UFO or abduction cases weren't real but evidence overall can't exist.

Why is it that you cannot understand that? Its pretty simple. Just change the title so its not about evidence and instead about logic and reasoning and the debate about aliens can take over. But until then you are just arguing about a settled fact.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by OldManReilly]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OldManReilly
 


Again, the pseudoskeptic and debunker has to abandon all logic in order to debate these things.

Let me give you a hypothetical.

Can I debate against the existence of Santa Claus? Of course I can.

I can point to St. Nicholas also known as Nicholas of Myra as a model for Santa Claus.

When I was 14, I used to help my father take toys downstairs and put them under the tree for my brother.

I have never seen pictures and video of flying reindeer.

I haven't seen accounts from astronauts, pilots, police and the military of flying reindeer.

I didn't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I just listed evidence against the existence of Santa Claus.

The pseudoskeptic and debunker has to use this illogical line of reasoning because all possibilities have to have equal probability of being true.

So they can't debate something so simple. They can't do what human beings do everyday in all walks of life which is debate for and against the proposition.

We always weigh the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative."

I never said, what's the evidence that extraterrestrials/extradimensional beings DON'T exist.

Theoretical physicists do it all the time. We have these debates for and against the proposition all the time. It occurs in all walks of life. Nobody is talking about "proving a negative."



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I think what you are trying to say is that their is so much evidence for extra-terrestrials that their needs to be some kind of alternative explanation for the phenomenon to logically reject where the evidence points.

For example...

If you believe time travel is possible we could believe in time traveling humans to explain the evidence. Some people may think time traveling humans is a MORE likely explanation than aliens...

People don't like to admit how much preconceived notions effect our perception of evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join