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.

 

The Skeptic FAQ

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I agree with your post OP. I am a skeptic of many things other than ET as well.

But do Aliens really exist? Do they really? Am I sure?

The answer I have is short and sweet as well, and the answer is...
Without a doubt!

I believe this based on the theory of how space could be and is said to be neverending.
We don't know for sure but it probably does go a long long way, and other galaxies are out there further than we may ever know.

Somewhere along the road of distant systems and stars and suns, there has to be something Alien to us.
It may be a huge race, it could be a micro organism.

But do I believe Aliens have visited us?

Well, yes in a way but I cannot be for sure. Every piece of evidence has always '' just missed it '', or just not enough to fulfill my questions.

It would actually be NO, and it was until I went on a trip to visit Puma Punku and looked upon stones that seemed machined but in no way could acheive cuts with the tools they used in that period of time just based on the elements in general from research.

I suppose the '' Humans are capable of doing amazing things back then '' works for me at times, but I still haven't seen anything that would set it in stone for myself.

But it is things like Puma Punku, that makes me scratch my head. So I have to go back to where I started on the neverending universe.

If there is some ET could be 1 system away or 1 million, somewhere along the way, there would definately be a chance one out the million could have the tech to pull off a visit.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This may seem non sequitur but I am making a point.

I would like to ask those who believe that aliens are not visiting our planet if you believe that:

- God exists?
- you will be alive on Saturday?
- OJ killed Nicole Simpson?
- you are inherently biased about UFO's and/or alien visitation?

I look forward to your answers.
edit on 22-2-2011 by TheFlash because: fix typo



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Hey niceone for that. Interesting indeed.
It look's like they must have used the feather's for culture because the feather for the arrow, that tech was not around then and I they did'nt eat many bird's. Good find



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
This may seem non sequitur but I am making a point.

I would like to ask those who believe that aliens are not visiting our planet if you believe that...


Yes, they are non-sequitur. You are making a red-herring argument. It does not matter what the response to these questions are, they are completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if a skeptic says they believe in God or are inherently biased against the belief aliens are visiting the Earth, it does not mean they are wrong when arguing against that belief.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
This may seem non sequitur but I am making a point.

I would like to ask those who believe that aliens are not visiting our planet if you believe that:

- God exists? NOPE
- you will be alive on Saturday? Possibly if my body doesn't give out before then or I get hit by a bus.
- OJ killed Nicole Simpson? Never followed the story, but there's plenty to suggest he did

- you are inherently biased about UFO's and/or alien visitation? Yes, mainly due to the physical constraints that anything that has mass has to contend with when attempting to travel monstrous distances. Not to mention the lack of proof and the similarities between faith based religions and UFO encounters.

I look forward to your answers.
edit on 22-2-2011 by TheFlash because: fix typo


But as said, i've no problem being PROVEN WRONG and I believe that life exists beyond this planet in many forms, possibly intelligent and even space faring.....But the distance and current knowledge of science and space/time travel make it seem much less likely that anything would have progressed beyond the point of just solar system travel.
edit on 22-2-2011 by StarblazerUK because: ETA....



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheFlash
This may seem non sequitur but I am making a point.

I would like to ask those who believe that aliens are not visiting our planet if you believe that...


Yes, they are non-sequitur. You are making a red-herring argument. It does not matter what the response to these questions are, they are completely irrelevant to the topic. Even if a skeptic says they believe in God or are inherently biased against the belief aliens are visiting the Earth, it does not mean they are wrong when arguing against that belief.


Your response is very informative even though you avoided answering the questions. Either you fail to see the significance of the questions or you choose to ignore that significance. To clarify - the point is to illustrate a willingness to believe without proof and inconsistencies with regard to such beliefs. Such inconsistencies are clearly a sign of bias and interfere when attempting to discern the truth based on available evidence.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
Either you fail to see the significance of the questions or you choose to ignore that significance. To clarify - the point is to illustrate a willingness to believe without proof and inconsistencies with regard to such beliefs. Such inconsistencies are clearly a sign of bias and interfere when attempting to discern the truth based on available evidence.


No, you fail to see the point. It does not matter what one's biases or inconsistencies are regarding other beliefs. It does not make them automatically wrong. You are trying to discuss the character of the debater instead of the substance of the debate. It is a red-herring argument.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The problem I have with requiring physical evidence, such as a body or a craft is that this is not required by science in other fields. There is no physical evidence for black holes. Contrary to popular belief, black holes have never been observed. Yet, scientist accept them as fact. Same for dark matter. And most of physics and astronomy for that matter. Most of it is inferred and becomes common belief.

And forget about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" as this is not scientific and is not applied to the scientific method. A black hole is quite an extraordinary claim, yet no proof of their existence can be found. Only observations that seem to relate to the theory. These observations can be explained otherwise (see the electric universe theory for example, which, contrary to what some people think, has never been debunked). Even Stephen Hawking now has doubts as to the existence of black holes even though he wrote the book on them...

Also, considering the potential of what an alien craft or body could reveal, the authorities would never allow such a discovery to become public.

The problem is not with skeptics. Skeptics are most welcome in the debate. Not just welcome, but needed. The problem lies with pseudoskeptics. For example:

-Roswell:
The army could not keep track of balloons, nor could they communicate directly with the equipment onboard. They had to recover the balloons in order to get the recording equipment. Balloons carried a tag asking whoever found one to report it to the nearest base, offering a reward of $100. A substantial amount of money at the time. A lot of people spent their spare time looking for downed balloons. Mac Brazel, the guy who found the wreckage at Roswell, used to find 2 or 3 every month. So there is no way that he would not have recognized the wreckage of a balloon.

Skeptics look at this fact and place it in the "crashed saucer" column. Pseudoskeptics burry it. They don't want to hear about it. If they're pushed, they will ask for archival evidence of this. This would normally be good, but they know full well that all of the archival evidence was destroyed in a fire.

-Betty Hill Star Map:
Pseudoskeptics keep saying that you can look at almost any area of the sky and find a match to Betty Hill's star map. Reality is that you can find similar configurations, yes. But not when you start comparing distances between the stars and size of the stars. Also, the Betty Hill star map included our own sun, which you cannont see as a star elsewhere in the sky. The probability that Betty Hill accidently imagined a map with the right configuration, including our sun, with the right distances between the stars and the right size of the stars is astronomical (and there is only one possible configuration). Statistically, it's considered impossible for this to be a coincidence. But pseudoskeptics completely evade the subject...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The truth is that aliens and et's do not exist. And if they did exist, their lives would seems as difficult and not knowing as human beings on planet earth.

Where do human beings get their information about the classic, human-invented, money-making, capitalist inventions called the dracos, reptilians, grays, pleidians, nordics, zeta-reticulans, etc.

Have they actually encountered these physical life forms? If they spoke to you or claimed that there were say ~ a reptilian, would you believe the voice? Wouldn't whoever spoke to you or contacted you, lie to you? As their intention is to interfere, influence, and control you? Is it negative to interrupt a person's life?

An infinite number of things may have led to the existence of human beings ~ none of which the human brain can invent? Human beings, like they do already, have no information about the source of existence.

Instead, they invent alien races based off the movie, Enemy Mine, dinosaurs and lizards, demons, and human beings. These humans constructs lead to delusional stories about abductions, possessions, gods, heavens, hells, control, fear, and negativity.

These stories seem to prey on people with fragile mental health.

These races are generic and they seem cliche; as cliche as God or "the devil", Lucifer, Satan, and Angels.

Why are angels depicted with wings? They are not part of the physical reality, yet they need wings to fly because of the gravity in heaven?

Densities and dimensions? Humans would have been lied to about the "God" and densities and dimensions.
Time travel? The so-called invention of time is not defined by earth days, hours, minutes, and seconds. I am thinking specifically of the movie, "The Time Traveler".

The universe is physical.

It's time to take the world at face value and dismiss these actors who write about aliens and then later write a book.

As for Icke? Doesn't that guy own a web board? Didn't he write a book about ficitional, non-existent aliens to make money from the thousands of members at this forum?

How about the 1995 Fox, Alien Autospy video? Companies produced dvd's and actions figures from the hoax.

Nobody really controls this world. An elected politician has what? He has campaign money and the ability to help fund the building of a bridge or repair that interstate near you major city.

And this idea of power seems like an actual, recent phenomena ~ a creation of the post-industrial, developed society and particularly, the last thirty years.

There is really no power in that. Most people will "out" people who do wrong and make their own financial gains.

People are essentially recycling ancient beliefs. Why didn't Osiris last? And those are the same people still practicing ancient rituals, like genital mutilation or some other ancient practice.

Did he recycle the loch ness monster, who seems to better resemble a brontosaurus?

The flood story of Noah's Ark seems more like the superstorms that may again threaten California like it has throughout history.

As for UFO encounters. Why is the nature of each UFO encounter essentially the same ~ lights in the sky or strange objects? Each of these sighting is later debunked. If the same types of sightings keep occurring, including the lights or strange triangles, why do people continue to initially claim that the saw a UFO. The sighting is obviously what all UFO's are found to be, nothing special.


Do you wonder why life exists? Consider the universe. Supposing that the Big Bang occurred and something existed from nothing, why is it atoms and say ~ not a table?

In sum, the universe seemingly made a choice of what it will exists as? What would evolve into the human race, occurred a few million years ago.

Throughout history, primitive human beings have created Gods, ET's, alien races, and other 'higher' beings in an effort to answer for their existence.

When has the human questioned their existence in terms of awareness of their existence? Are you most humans aware that they experience life through a physical body?

The physical body does not define consciousness. Neither will a soul ever define consciousness. As long as the "existence" allows it, a consciousness can experience life as just about anything.

Consciousness is the fundamental aspect of all life, negating the existence of the culturally constructed, primitive ideas of Gods, ET's, aliens, etc.

The source of existence designed this reality and whatever you believe it to be.

Do you find that every belief has some form of negativity attached to it? Believe in God and get a soul ~ which no one really wants to accept. Believe in aliens and you will have that idea.

Consciousness has trumped aliens. If humans and aliens existed, minus consciousness, there will be no problem as there is nothing but the equivalent of cartoon characters living their lives out.

Consciousness has neither a physical or non-physical aspect. It is what all life shares in common. No one can project a reality to you, unless you are also an unaware, cartoon character.

The human body is used to experience life and since there is consciousness, there is nothing more to believe.

As for the source of existence...what is the ultimate good has not facilitated the existence of consciousness and the ability to experience life within an existence that has gods, devils, aliens, or et's.

There is the physical reality and there is the source of existence, as undefined, but is the ultimate good.

To believe in aliens is to believe the physical body has more importance than awareness or what is consciousness of a person's existence.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
And forget about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" as this is not scientific and is not applied to

Yes, I would say that extraordinary claims require sufficient proof, just like every other claim. And what would be sufficient proof would be dictated by all circumstances of the case.

The amusing part is that the origin of the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" originates with Marcello Truzzi, not with Carl Sagan. Truzzi would later write some excellent articles on pseudoskeptics, he remarked (on CSICOP):

"They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly".


edit on 22-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimman38
The truth is that aliens and et's do not exist.

[drivel snipped ...]

To believe in aliens is to believe the physical body has more importance than awareness or what is consciousness of a person's existence.
Rubbish.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheFlash
Either you fail to see the significance of the questions or you choose to ignore that significance. To clarify - the point is to illustrate a willingness to believe without proof and inconsistencies with regard to such beliefs. Such inconsistencies are clearly a sign of bias and interfere when attempting to discern the truth based on available evidence.


No, you fail to see the point. It does not matter what one's biases or inconsistencies are regarding other beliefs. It does not make them automatically wrong. You are trying to discuss the character of the debater instead of the substance of the debate. It is a red-herring argument.

If one believes that consistency is a sine qua non condition of rational process then the question can be quite relevant. I don't see how this involves the character of the debater more than any other logical fallacy.
edit on 22-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheFlash
Either you fail to see the significance of the questions or you choose to ignore that significance. To clarify - the point is to illustrate a willingness to believe without proof and inconsistencies with regard to such beliefs. Such inconsistencies are clearly a sign of bias and interfere when attempting to discern the truth based on available evidence.


No, you fail to see the point. It does not matter what one's biases or inconsistencies are regarding other beliefs. It does not make them automatically wrong. You are trying to discuss the character of the debater instead of the substance of the debate. It is a red-herring argument.


First, I will point out again that no one has answered the questions I asked. Second, I will try to explain again how it is completely relevant to the matter at hand. Those who believe that aliens have not and are not here on Earth are attempting to justify their belief with the logical argument that they believe as such due to a lack of proof to the contrary. My point is in pointing out that their "logic" is no such thing, but is applied selectively to those matters which they choose to believe against. My point is illustrated by providing examples of other things such people might tend to believe in despite a similar lack of proof. One might call it hypocrisy.

How can it be any clearer?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by StarblazerUK
 


But, then again that's assuming our knowledge of physics is complete and accurate, that we have all the tools necessary to measure all natural phenomena, and that we've thoroughly explored all reasonably possible configurations experimentally (not just theoretically in our heads).

Compare our current understanding of physics and technology with our understanding 100, 200, 300... etc years ago. Imagine if Faraday had reasoned that their understanding of electrical phenomena at the time was sufficient and complete enough not to question and explore the theory/idea that there were different kinds of electricity, (animal, mineral, atmospheric, and so on) they would have missed a critical link to higher understanding. Probably, our lives would have been much different.

IMO, just based on historical trends alone, this idea that something is not possible or even probable because if it were we would have discovered it by now, (or at least proof of principle) is absurd. History does repeat itself, and our era is no different.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
I will point out again that no one has answered the questions I asked.


Perhaps because they recognize the rhetorical trap you are trying to set in order to derail the conversation.

I know you will take offense to that charge, though it is true. You cannot argue facts so you want to change the conversation to character.


Originally posted by TheFlash
One might call it hypocrisy.


And so what? Hypocrisy does not equate to being incorrect. You are focusing on the character of the debater and not the substance of the argument. It does not matter if they are closed-mind, a hypocrite, or what other irrational beliefs they may hold; it does not make them automatically wrong.
edit on 22-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
If one believes that consistency is a sine qua non condition of rational process then the question can be quite relevant.


No, it is not. When we are discussing facts and evidence, whether a person believes in God or aliens or the Flying Spaghetti monsters is irrelevant; those beliefs do not change the facts. No human is a completely rational and logical being. We all hold irrational beliefs. However, the irrational beliefs of one person do not validate the irrational beliefs of another by proxy.


Originally posted by jclmavg
I don't see how this involves the character of the debater more than any other logical fallacy.


I use character here not to mean the morality or values of a person but the traits and peculiarities that compose said person, as separate from the substance and quality of their argument. TheFlash wants to focus on character as opposed to the substance of the argument; a person's character does not make them automatically wrong or right.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Kali74
Great post OP, a good reminder on what the true definition of skeptic is, a good reminder that it doesn't include ridiculing anyone that doesn't agree with you and a good reminder that it is not in opposition of anything but an invitation to discuss why or why not.

There are several logical errors and fallacies in the opening post. In fact, he/she is sometimes inconsistent. If this is what passes for "skepticism" I'll pass.

Quite frankly, and this goes for believers and non-believers alike, I think the problem runs more deep. At least some education in the sciences or arts at university level would prevent a lot of nonsense being written. How many on this board hold a bachelors, masters or PhD degree? I think very few.


A well educated person would point out these logical errors and fallacies
Not at 2 am, I'm off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow.


I'm eagerly awaiting your dissection of EsSeeEye's opening post



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Kali74
Great post OP, a good reminder on what the true definition of skeptic is, a good reminder that it doesn't include ridiculing anyone that doesn't agree with you and a good reminder that it is not in opposition of anything but an invitation to discuss why or why not.

There are several logical errors and fallacies in the opening post. In fact, he/she is sometimes inconsistent. If this is what passes for "skepticism" I'll pass.

Quite frankly, and this goes for believers and non-believers alike, I think the problem runs more deep. At least some education in the sciences or arts at university level would prevent a lot of nonsense being written. How many on this board hold a bachelors, masters or PhD degree? I think very few.


A well educated person would point out these logical errors and fallacies
Not at 2 am, I'm off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow.


I'm eagerly awaiting your dissection of EsSeeEye's opening post
I found better ways to spend my time today. Does that bother you?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by jclmavg
If one believes that consistency is a sine qua non condition of rational process then the question can be quite relevant.


No, it is not. When we are discussing facts and evidence, whether a person believes in God or aliens or the Flying Spaghetti monsters is irrelevant; those beliefs do not change the facts. No human is a completely rational and logical being. We all hold irrational beliefs. However, the irrational beliefs of one person do not validate the irrational beliefs of another by proxy.

I think you are missing the point by a mile and you are throwing in a red herring. We're not debating whether irrational belief makes another irrational belief true. Flash is not saying "X beliefs in Big Foot, therefore my belief in extraterrestrial UFOs is justified". That is just plain insane.

What Flash does seem to be saying is that if a person is inconsistent in applying the criteria by which he accepts or dismisses a particular phenomenon this tells us something about the rational process involved. It might mean we may need to ignore this person's opinion because the inconsistencies involved spell out bias. It might also indicate this person is not the rational debater he/she perhaps claims to be and has a poor understanding of science.

That people hold all kinds of beliefs is no justification for poor logic or applying an inconsistent set of criteria for accepting the reality of certain phenomena. Science as an abstract entity and activity should and does not care about the personal beliefs of people involved.


I use character here not to mean the morality or values of a person but the traits and peculiarities that compose said person, as separate from the substance and quality of their argument. TheFlash wants to focus on character as opposed to the substance of the argument; a person's character does not make them automatically wrong or right.
Are you sure Flash is making the argument you believe he is making?

Being inconsistent IMO relates directly to the substance and quality of someone's argument.
edit on 22-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join