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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you notice the pseudoskeptics and debunkers keep trying to debate against something I never said.

You can look through all of my post and all of the threads I have started and you will not find anything about proving a negative or asking for evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist.


Liar.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


That's just from the opening post. You do it again...

Here


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I asked you for evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensional exist and the evidence against visitation.


Here


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
All I'm asking for is the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extraterrestrial beings exist and agains visitation.


Twice Here


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrials/extradimensial being exist and against visitation?

It's a simple question. What's the evidence against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation?


And that's the first page.

This is fun. Keep lying to us and I'll keep exposing you for the liar you are.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


LOL,

You can't be serious.

Yes I have asked for evidence against the proposition.

I have said that over and over again. You actually don't know the difference and that's sad.

We debate for and against the proposition all the time without proving a negative.

I'm glad your posting though because it shows how far pseudoskeptics will go to protect their illogical position.

Everything you quoted I agree with and none of it has anything to do with proving a negative.

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

It's sad you don't understand the difference. I never said anything about showing evidence or proving that extraterrestrials don't exist. I know why you want to debate this point. It's because you can't debate against all of the evidence for the proposition that has accumulated over the years.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
OK -- Here's the best I can do to placate you. However, this is NOT what you are asked for in the OP and thread title:

I have yet to see an ET visitation case that can withstand scrutiny. Lights in the sky can be anything. Abductees can be lying or hallucinating. Daylight pictures of strange craft could be military or CGI. Cases of purported physical evidence can be hoaxes or mis-identifications.

In my opinion, no specific report of ET visitation has ever been rock-solid.


There it is. As I said, I realize this isn't what you are asking for...this does not satisfy the question in your thread title. That's because I cannot give you good evidence that ET visitation is NOT happening. I also can't give you good evidence that cows don't speak English when nobody is listening. However, just because I can't give you the evidence against it does not lend more validity to the assertion that ET visitation is happening nor that cows can speak English.

Matrix rising -- please play devil's advocate for us and post an argument that you THINK a skeptic would post against the existence of the phenomena of ET visitation, just to give us an example of what you are looking for from us.


[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising I never said anything about showing evidence or proving that extraterrestrials don't exist.


Liar.

From the first post...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


I don't know what is more pathetic. The fact you keep lying or the fact you keep using proposition the wrong way.


[edit on 14-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Here, let me save Matrix Rising the time and effort and answer for him.

This is illogical. You are proving my point. The pseudoskeptic/debunker does not want to weigh the evidence within reason. They can't debate the evidence so they want to give equal weight to all possibilities.

I never once asked for evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist or are not visiting the planet. The question is simple but pseudoskeptics/debunkers won't answer it. What is the evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist or are not visiting the planet?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 

EXACTLY!


Most real skeptics cannot possibly answer the OP's question because they are too open minded to ALL possibilities. A good skeptic cannot possibly give honest evidence that ET visitation is not happening. They cannot in good conscience provide evidence for the negative.

As I said before, the OP may get some close-minded individual who may say "but space travel over long distances is impossible", but those people are few and far between.

[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Sad LOL.

Yes I said that and it has nothing to do with proving a negative.

If you haven't noticed I'm debating for the proposition.

If you read into that quote that I was trying to prove a negative or I was asking for evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist, then that says more about pseudoskeptics and their own delusions in order to protect their illogical premise.

It's obvious that you want to debate this point because you can't debate against the proposition because of the accumulation of evidence for the proposition.

Reducing life in the galaxy to earth, is simply asking why do all of these cases have to have a terrestrial explanation.

That's part of my argument for the proposition if you haven't noticed.

Is there evidence that reduces life to earth and prohibits extraterrestrial visitation? Is this why every case has to have a terrestrial explanation? We have been promised a terrestrial explanation for these things for years by the pseudoskeptic and debunker, where is it?

If you didn't know, this is what you do in a debate. You ask question and present evidence in support of your position.

Again, I know why you are stuck on this point like a broken record. It's because you can't debate the issue.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
OK -- Here's the best I can do to placate you. However, this is NOT what you are asked for in the OP and thread title:

I have yet to see an ET visitation case that can withstand scrutiny. Lights in the sky can be anything. Abductees can be lying or hallucinating. Daylight pictures of strange craft could be military or CGI. Cases of purported physical evidence can be hoaxes or mis-identifications.

In my opinion, no specific report of ET visitation has ever been rock-solid.


There it is. As I said, I realize this isn't what you are asking for...this does not satisfy the question in your thread title. That's because I cannot give you good evidence that ET visitation is NOT happening. I also can't give you good evidence that cows don't speak English when nobody is listening. However, just because I can't give you the evidence against it does not lend more validity to the assertion that ET visitation is happening nor that cows can speak English.

Please play devil's advocate for us and post an argument that you THINK a skeptic would post against the existence of the phenomena of ET visitation.


[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


Nope, this is your OPINION.

Of course these people could be lying or hallucinating. That statement means nothing because we have accumulated so much evidence over the years that has been investigated.

If you think these people are lying and hallucinating give me some evidence to support this claim.

Have you talked to the investigators that examined the case?

Have you talked to family and friends and found that these people are known to lie and make up things?

Have you talked to the psychologist who have examined these people?

We have too much evidence to let sloppy opinion and wild speculation from pseudoskeptics to count for anything.

Debate the evidence not your opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Most real skeptics cannot possibly answer the OP's question because they are too open minded to ALL possibilities.


Let's correct that so Matrix Rising can't misappropriate it between lies. Skeptics are open-minded to reasonable possibilities, possibilities supported by evidence. For instance, a skeptic would not look at a UFO sighting and suggest that it is a flying giraffe.

Now Matrix Rising, in between lies, will use your answer to support his combined Appeal to Possibility and Argument from Ignorance approach. He will claim that because you cannot answer the question, he must be right and because the possibility exists then it must be happening.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Reducing life in the galaxy to earth, is simply asking why do all of these cases have to have a terrestrial explanation.


If that's the kind of argument "against" you are looking for, then it may be a while before you get someone to argue with. I think most skeptics would agree that intelligent life may exist elsewhere outside of Earth. Most skeptics would also agree that it may be possible to travel quickly over interstellar or intergalactic distances.

Most skeptics would not be so closed-minded as to say these ideas cannot be possible. Therefore you may not get any responses to your original question (the one in the thread title).


[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Matrix Rising, instead of pointing out that you're lying again, I'm going to ask you a simple question.

In your own words, what is a proposition?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Nope what Matrix will claim is you need to debate the evidence and not your opinion.

This is why you are constantly trying to debate a claim that I never made. It's because you can't debate the issue and you realise how silly that must look.

Like I said, anything you quote I stand by.

What you will never quotse is me asking for evidence that extraterrestials don't exist.

So keep posting, your just proving my point.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Matrix Rising, instead of pointing out that you're lying again, I'm going to ask you a simple question.

In your own words, what is a proposition?


Doomsday, your making yourself look silly.

Your all over the place trying to find something to debate against as long as it's not the evidence.

You can't debate against the proposition so you want to debate these side issues and you just look silly.

prop⋅o⋅si⋅tion  /ˌprɒpəˈzɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prop-uh-zish-uhn] Show IPA

See web results for proposition
See images of proposition
–noun 1. the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
2. a plan or scheme proposed.
3. an offer of terms for a transaction, as in business.
4. a thing, matter, or person considered as something to be dealt with or encountered: Keeping diplomatic channels open is a serious proposition.
5. anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.
6. Rhetoric. a statement of the subject of an argument or a discourse, or of the course of action or essential idea to be advocated.
7. Logic. a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.
8. Mathematics. a formal statement of either a truth to be demonstrated or an operation to be performed; a theorem or a problem.
9. a proposal of usually illicit sexual relations.

Now debate the issue. Of course you can't so ask the next question about anything that doesn't have to do with evidence.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is why you are constantly trying to debate a claim that I never made. It's because you can't debate the issue and you realise how silly that must look.


You made the claim. I'll post it again.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


Now, the reason I won't debate you is because you're a liar. It is a pointless endeavor to debate someone who has a problem telling the truth. So instead, I will continue to expose you as a liar.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Like I said, anything you quote I stand by.


So, you stand by the fact you're a liar? Well, glad we have found common ground.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What you will never quotse is me asking for evidence that extraterrestials don't exist.


I just did above. And I've done it several times. Here, we'll do it again so the kids at home can have a good laugh.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


There is a very simple way out of this. Just say that is not what you meant and explain yourself. But instead you keep lying that you never said the above.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


In your own words, kiddo. I didn't ask for a dictionary definition. We need to see if you know what it means and how to use it. It's one thing to parrot a definition it is another to actually employ the word the right way.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Doomsday you really look silly.

Explain to me how asking these questions has anything to do with proving a negative or proving that aliens don't exist.

Explain this so everyone can know something that you obviously made up in your own mind.

Have you even read the thread?

Of course you don't want to debate the issue so your all over the place and you look silly.

Tell me how you derived at the conclusion that I was asking you to prove a negative or asking you to prove that extraterrestrials don't exist in the context of the debate?

Do you even understand the context of the debate?

I hope your just playing dumb to protect the illogical position of the pseudoskeptic.

If you truly don't understand, then that's just sad.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Doomsday, I'm not going to play these silly games. I know what it means and you make yourself look silly when you ask these questions.

These are junior high debating tactics.

Again, your just making yourself look bad because you can't debate the issue.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Explain to me how asking these questions has anything to do with proving a negative or proving that aliens don't exist.


I never said that they did have anything to do with that. Just like a pseudoskeptic/debunker you are trying to debate things I never claimed. It's because you can't debate the issue and realize how silly you look.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Tell me how you derived at the conclusion that I was asking you to prove a negative or asking you to prove that extraterrestrials don't exist in the context of the debate?


Because that's what you asked...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


And I'm sure you'll respond with a semantic argument.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I know what it means and you make yourself look silly when you ask these questions.


No, you don't. Otherwise, you would not continue using the word the wrong way and continue trying to use it in a semantic argument to weasel out of what you have said.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Explain to me how asking these questions has anything to do with proving a negative or proving that aliens don't exist.


I never said that they did have anything to do with that. Just like a pseudoskeptic/debunker you are trying to debate things I never claimed. It's because you can't debate the issue and realize how silly you look.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Tell me how you derived at the conclusion that I was asking you to prove a negative or asking you to prove that extraterrestrials don't exist in the context of the debate?


Because that's what you asked...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


And I'm sure you'll respond with a semantic argument.


Unlike you, I can quote exactly what you said:


Originally posted by Matrix RisingWhat's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?

In other words, what is the evidence and argument that extraterrestrials don't exist?


This shows that you can't debate the issue and you are just trying to debate everything but the evidence because you can't debate the issue.

You said, that you never said it but you did.

You even showed that your reading into my statement something that your delusional mind made up.

You had to say in other words.

You couldn't quote me directly, you had to make it up because you wanted to debate against a claim that I never made.

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

You read something into my post that wasn't there because this is the point you wanted to debate against.

Again, you said:

In other words, what is the evidence and argument that extraterrestrials don't exist?

In my words I think your a closed minded pseudoskeptic that can't debate the issue.

If you want to read Doomsday's lie, go to page 8 of this thread and three posts down is the lie.

I can quote Doomsday, but with me he/she has to make up things.



[edit on 14-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join