It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LiveForever8
Yep, Mars is chocolate.
The Moon is cheese.
Assorted lunar rocks, brought back by assorted Apollo missions:
We definitely need to keep an eye on these light beings, they seem like trouble. I remote viewed them, did I mention I'm an indigo child, and their houses are made out of human skulls. Call me paranoid but......
The Bible is light being propaganda. Don't fall into their trap!
Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by QtheQ
My claims are based on the belief that those making claims generally have the burden of proof. This is general consensus amongst judicial systems, scientists, teachers, philosophers, etc across the world.
There is no problem on my end, the problem lies with yourself.
You’re a selective reader and have called to question only part of the post.
The proof is their interpretation, their scriptures, their beliefs, their predisposition to believe certain things, their faith, etc.
However, a person claiming they are an alien from the planet Zebes should have some form of proof.
How many children die daily? Tens of thousands, yet people come here, make claims that they’re helping mankind, yet offer no plan as to how to help our children.
You just said you believe it is a bad thing, yet you aren’t providing any proof, so why are you attempting to hold me to that standard?
Here your relying on the argument from authority, a very weak (at best) form of justification.
Rather than depending on others to do your thinking, come up with your own arguments as to why a burden of proof exists for making claims that appear to you to be outlandish and far fetched.
As it is, you seem to be just stating what you personally want and what your preferences are and that the rest of us on ATS should pander to your desire for proof on certain claims.
Your now making the critical thinking error called ad hominem where one attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Ok. How about the part of the post I did address; Did I make a good argument or not?
I've never heard of proof defined this way.
Actually I think you may be confusing the terms justification and proof.
Usually proof is defined as a form of justification requiring either indisputable logical or empirical or prima facie evidence as support for a belief. When you make up your own definitions for words 'on the fly' it makes it difficult to rationally address your arguments and positions.
Why should they be required to have proof (traditional definition) and not those holding traditional religious belief?
Just because someone is not doing something specifically to help children doesn't necessarily mean they are doing nothing to help mankind. Surely there are other ways to help mankind besides just helping children.
I was trying to hold you to your own standards. I was using one of the best and most effective forms of philosophical argumentation; using an opponents held beliefs against their own positions. In this case I was trying to argue that you are without reason being selective about the sorts of beliefs requiring proof (traditional definition) and those beliefs that you will be satisfied with less than proof as justification.
In making a statement that people stating that they are from another planet should provide proof you are making a statement of morality insofar as you are saying they should do something.
And any time you are making a statement of morality you will never have proof (traditional definition) to support your claim (and I think that's ok, but I'm not the one demanding that people have proof for their claims of outer space origin.
I think that whether or not outlandish claims are made on this site is a matter of preference. Now I'm not saying that all truth is relative, indeed the epistemological justification for those making outlandish claims may be weak at best, but when people make claims that such posts ought not to be made because they cannot be proved then the critic is making a statement of morality which itself cannot be proved, thereby showing a perhaps selectively unfair criterion for making statements. Skeptics often do not hold themselves to their own standards.)
Finally, “logic” and “argument” readily state those making the claim usually have the burden of proof, and such is the case here. However, here you are readily contradicting this, using terms out of context and bottle spinning by relying on an ad ignorantiam argument.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by EMPIRE
This is ATS, part of what makes it so much fun is the wild claims. People claiming to be government agents, aliens, reptilians, people posting the same three pictures of Mars claiming they show proof of alien habitation. It's all part of the experience really.
Originally posted by EMPIRE
However, if you’re making the claim that you’re a star child, that you’re a time traveler, that you’re part of the Illuminati, that you’re psychic, or that you’re the offspring of an alien, you should be able to produce some tangible proof to support your claims. This proof should not be rooted in belief, faith or interpretation, but should be something tangible that can be tested and verified. Why? Because you’re claiming you are these things or that you have experience with these things.