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.
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...
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
And forget about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" as this is not scientific and is not applied to
Rubbish.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by TheFlash
I will point out again that no one has answered the questions I asked.
Originally posted by TheFlash
One might call it hypocrisy.
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.
Originally posted by jclmavg
I don't see how this involves the character of the debater more than any other logical fallacy.
Originally posted by jclmavg
Not at 2 am, I'm off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow.
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
I found better ways to spend my time today. Does that bother you?
Originally posted by cripmeister
Originally posted by jclmavg
Not at 2 am, I'm off to bed. Perhaps tomorrow.
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
I'm eagerly awaiting your dissection of EsSeeEye's opening post
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.
Are you sure Flash is making the argument you believe he is making?
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.