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.

 

I was a skeptic . Now I'm a believer

page: 9
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I too agree with OP's views, that we are not alone in this fractal existence.

The signs of old are all around us, Pyramids and Temples the likes we could not reproduce in this day and age.
Cylinder seals from SUMER that describe visitors from the stars coming to earth and giving mankind knowledge.
Hieroglyphs all over the world depicting non-human looking beings.
The signs are all around us...thought the TPTB have tried to covered them up again and again with dis-info.

Why would Anyone wish to destroy ancient library's of accumulated knowledge, but fact is this has been the case through out time and is still ongoing.

Why.....is what I would like to see answered one day.




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1000TonBlocks
Cylinder seals from SUMER that describe visitors from the stars coming to earth and giving mankind knowledge.


There are no such cylinders.


Originally posted by 1000TonBlocks
Hieroglyphs all over the world depicting non-human looking beings.


The only thing that is indicative of is the imagination of our ancestors.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
What an interesting discussion has evlved from a misplaced thread...

Imagine if other threads got to live and goad from here?

Well, we can dream that the overlords here (and mods make no mistake you are biased in a complete sense) might change their minds and either reopen old threads or allow for the counter to "Lives frum uder wurldz iz da absulutes + vizitz allz the time!!"/"Squirrel" nonsense which seems to be the bread and butter of these here, very popular, sections of ATS.

In the meantime I ask for the Indigo children to make themselves known by gobbling me up within the next 8 days!

That's a whole lot of days and I'll give my GPS to those who think they can handle it too!

-m0r



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
Wow you guys did a pretty good job of derailing a thread .
I look foward to contributing to your future posts



Let the games begin


No one is derailing anything. Here is your thread:




    I believe something.

    I didn't believe it before.

    I won't tell you why I believe it now.

    Thank you for listening.




Well that's great...people have epiphanies all the time.

But m0r is right, believing in something doesn't miraculously stop someone from being a skeptic, it merely disengages their skepticism from a particular topic in lieu of what they believe to be fact.

But you can't come to a primarily conspiracy theory website, claim you know something, wont tell anyone the something, and hope people take you seriously. They won't. They will simply think you are a troll or a nut.
edit on 6-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
It's easy to fall into fantasy, it's a simpler and more manageable reality if there is some secret shadowy figures working being the curtains (and there are!).

Hey Mor...
Well, I am gonna pick on your post for a bit (because this threads op is so weak its just too easy and all the arguments have been made anyhow.)

ok, first off...do you honestly and truely believe that -isn't- the case? Do you think we the plebs of society know everything, that there are no high powered people/corporations manipulating and supressing info on a vast amount of subjects for one agenda or another?
I laugh at the illuminati/nwo threads overall, but even I admit fully that there is some very powerful people that have entire governments in their back pocket (SCOTUS now defines corporations as people, therefore this statement of powerful people is technically correct)




However the aliens and ufos element of existence seems to fall on real flat footing - there is nothing to suggest we are being visited

Oh come now, theres plenty...-plenty- to suggest we are...there is just no public evidence leading to proof of this as of yet.
there is nothing to suggest that string theory is even remotely correct beyond the math, but that is considered something plausable to bring up in intelligent conversation without too much skepticism so long as its kept in its theoretical stage of discussion. Funny really, if you are well versed in the current string theory, you appear to be an intellectual, but if you are versed in the current hypothesis of aliens, you are seen as a sci-fi dreamer or quack.

just on a stand of philosophy, the concept of highly advanced space faring civilizations seems to obvious that it would be more impractical to say they don't exist. With that in mind, what is the first thing any advanced civilization does when it finds a new method of exploration? Well, we only have ourselves as a example, so it may not be correct, but it is likely that the first step is to make maps. given we are discussing the new ocean as the ocean in space, such captains of crafts would be making their rounds mapping out the nearby solar systems and further until the entire galaxy was put out...if only to locate any resource they require immediately.

So, we got the philosophical discussion of what would bring earth into view of an alien race (even earth...way out in the boondocks of the milkyway), we got the practical statistical likelyhood of them existing in the first place...so chances are at the very least we are well known about by some out there

The argument here shouldn't be about trying to prove they are coming here...its trying to prove when they came here and if they are still coming, what form are they coming in (I believe it would be more insect sized probes as the norm verses giant motherships however..if we use our primate machines from nasa to mars as an example, we are not sending gigantic motherships...we are sending probes, rovers, etc...and we are barely out of the caves in regards to public technology).



(and I'd LOVE it if there were; nothing could make me happier). So when a thread comes along with nothing to add to the mix expect "I know something you don't know" and worse still attempts to claim to hold an adult mindset (Proof over imagination) then I feel I have to stop those who perhaps aren't aware of the world as it is - this is a short end to a book buying and perhaps a DVD or two too.

I agree with you in part.
These threads have no place in the UFO/Aliens discussion if they offer nothing. Do they deserve to be on ATS in general? sure..perhaps in the gray area or a new seperate forum called "speculation and belief" should be built for just such things. I don't mind discussing such things, but it does muck up the investigative process.


The OP has never been a sceptic because had they it would be impossible for them to drop the ability to analyse all the data available to them and to draw up probability of actuality and then still decide that something is more likely that something else.

actually, seems the op is demonstrating he is a skeptic, just one sided..skeptical towards offical storys...a proper skeptic is balanced and will be skeptical of all claims, allowing the stand to be adjusted with evidence but open to counter evidence.
critical thinking is actually difficult when you want something to be true however (I know she loves me, because I love her and therefore I feel she must love me, else I will feel really silly for investing all this emotional energy for nothing)...but thats also a sign of maturity and comfort in not just the evidence, but also that your energy is being focused correctly


A sceptic never knows - that is what it means!

I think most damage doesn't come from "believers", but rather debunkers (pseudo-skeptics...religoskeptics, whatever you want to call them). I am suspecting some of these debunkers are simply trying to distort what skepticism is about overall. I, as a skeptic, will occasionally challenge a "believer" occasionally if they are trying to state something as fact, however, I will always attack a "debunker" whom is trying to destroy an argument without rational thinking...The point of skepticism is to understand through rational and reasonable discussion...not religiously dismiss stuff simply because its a unusual claim.


A believer (in any field) claims to know - but what they claim cannot be proven.

What about belief in the possibility
I believe in the philosophy of extraterrestrials visiting earth..it makes rational and reasonable sense and in my opinion, its almost religious denial to suggest otherwise
I know the philosophy is sound
the proof has yet to be publically discovered yet...just a bunch of evidence that falls a bit short

But I am just splitting a hair here


I hope this helps and again if you have a belief I am not against you having it - I only have a problem with you stating it as truth without evidence.

Well, there is subjective and objective truth
Whereas someone may truely experience all the bells and whistles of subjective truth (abducted, taken on a space cruse through the rings of saturn, then dropped off with nothing to show), and he may then state a full belief in aliens based off his subjective truth...the person should also understand no objective truth has been gained and that people should not simply accept any claim from anyone saying they experienced something.

I think discourse would be better if they put an adj. in front of the word truth, that would bring discussion to a more rational conclusion...subjective truth is more powerful for the individual typically, but gives nothing to the overall uncovering.


A personal belief is always a magical and personal thing, but when you try to walk into a field already ridiculed and full of hoaxes - it plays out best if you are open about everything, without charging, and let other minds know what it was that altered you so they can either correct you or, better yet, learn from you.


Well said.
edit on 6-5-2011 by SaturnFX because: correction



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Thanks for clearing that up for me....
HAHAHAHAHA



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Saturn, I agree with you, the topic is already dead anyway, so why not engage real topics or questions.



Originally posted by SaturnFX

I think most damage doesn't come from "believers", but rather debunkers (pseudo-skeptics...religoskeptics, whatever you want to call them). I am suspecting some of these debunkers are simply trying to distort what skepticism is about overall. I, as a skeptic, will occasionally challenge a "believer" occasionally if they are trying to state something as fact, however, I will always attack a "debunker" whom is trying to destroy an argument without rational thinking...The point of skepticism is to understand through rational and reasonable discussion...not religiously dismiss stuff simply because its a unusual claim.


This is ridiculous. More damage by far is done in ANY venue by those with illogical dogma versus (even a nefarious) a debunker. Even those who would use pseudo science for some gain, often you can glean some meaningful information from it that you may not have thought of before, while someone with a blind faith in anything at all, won't waver even in the face of logic or reason. More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than any other factor on Earth. Now, what if there is absolutely nothing and it is all randomness....what were all those atrocities for?


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Well, there is subjective and objective truth


Since when? Truth is truth, there is no approximate reality.

True = -1, False = Not true.

The choice for truth is binary.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Deleted my question
edit on 6-5-2011 by KristianTNA because: Deleted my question as i didnt read page 4 onwards where it was already covered. thatll teach me



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
This is ridiculous. More damage by far is done in ANY venue by those with illogical dogma versus (even a nefarious) a debunker. Even those who would use pseudo science for some gain, often you can glean some meaningful information from it that you may not have thought of before, while someone with a blind faith in anything at all, won't waver even in the face of logic or reason. More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than any other factor on Earth. Now, what if there is absolutely nothing and it is all randomness....what were all those atrocities for?

The best counter to irrational claims is a calm and methological (and simple) counter based on facts, reason, and logic. a "debunker" uses none of the above and speaks only from a religious view of offical stories..making them just as bad as the one claiming.
and if the two are equal in facts (being neither side using it), the 3rd party monitoring the discussion will then often go with the "cooler" sounding version (typical person is too lazy to do their research)...and that is how religion gains momentum.

A debunker (not skeptic..a skeptic debunks, a debunker actually doesn't debunk, they just deny and ridicule) does more damage than a believer in regards to 3rd partys

Rarely will you put rational thinking into a "believer"...its not really about changing their mind, its about presenting a nice logical flow of discussion so that someone on the fence watching the sides form will use critical thinking verses just deciding which pile of nonsense they will align with

Debunker on christianity: "Christianity is incorrect because its gay and only tards believe it"
Skeptic on christianity: "The science in the foundation book is incorrect. here is the passage, and here is the contradicting science..meaning to believe in this, you must stop believing in reality in general"
(just an example)

Now, as a person whom is on the fence...they would see the debunkers argument as very weak and a christian can simply refute that as the debunker being some sort of disinformation demon..a casual observer may be inclined to then side with the christian in this case because of such a weak and random argument...people have a innate desire to think they are thinking outside of the box and will give a silly claim alot more weight if the only refuting going on is paper thin.

There are mostly debunkers in the ufo field, however, there are many skeptics that do justice and progress the understanding alot more...
however, I think the debunkers are the cause of soo many "believers".



Originally posted by SaturnFX
Well, there is subjective and objective truth


Since when? Truth is truth, there is no approximate reality.

True = -1, False = Not true.

The choice for truth is binary.


Although there is only one objective truth, I personally do not believe we will ever know it...on any subject whatsoever
I guess we are lacking a word here to create a 3rd catagory...objective (perfect) truth, subjective truth, and the bridge truth I guess

that might work actually...bridge truth...sounds catchy.

ok, so, I personally have subjective truth of "ghosts" (note the quotes around it...do not assign a entire belief system based on the word as I haven't).

I have this subjective truth presented to me..I know it isn't objective truth, or even quality as bridge truth due to no repeatability at my disposal nor evidence of the experiences beyond my claim. I firmly believe in "ghosts" based on my experiences, and would like to know what it is, however, when discussing this with other people, I simply cannot qualify anything I state with evidence (frustrating, but oh well)

So, there it is...I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "ghosts" exist, yet I accept there is no offical truth behind it (yet). There may be one day, or maybe not..who knows.

See the dilemma?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Just two reasons why they keep it all a secret:

1. They don't want to share the Technology. Technology is power as long as it is secret.
2. We (the people) could not handle the truth. Aliens don't care about that, but your government is affraid we are all going ape#.
After decades we still gaze at stupid little lights in the sky and when it's a little more then a stupid light, they all start screaming FAKE! FAKE!
We could never handle the truth. Imagine, disclosure tomorrow! Like I said we're going ape#!



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by newcovenant


Really? But they could drop a couple of skyscrapers into their own footprint and blame another country, yet they cannot do this? Don't kid yourself. With a whole lot of assistance/cooperation from the ET themselves, yes they could.


To back up your argument, it requires a few basic tenets of reason. Among those, the most important would be that YOUR argument has to contain FACT, not personal opinion, otherwise it as equally flawed as what you are arguing against.

Asserting that the 9/11 bombings were "an inside job" is just as much speculation as is the US Government "covering up otherworldly technology and visitation".

Neither proves or disproves your point or theirs.


This is a fact. Building 7 collapses.
You see any planes? Face value speaks volumes.

According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper



The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
www.wtc7.net... All good questions.



reply to post by WingedBull
 


My bad. Will try to mind my own business in the future.

edit on 6-5-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

The best counter to irrational claims is a calm and methological (and simple) counter based on facts, reason, and logic. a "debunker" uses none of the above and speaks only from a religious view of offical stories..making them just as bad as the one claiming.
and if the two are equal in facts (being neither side using it), the 3rd party monitoring the discussion will then often go with the "cooler" sounding version (typical person is too lazy to do their research)...and that is how religion gains momentum.

A debunker (not skeptic..a skeptic debunks, a debunker actually doesn't debunk, they just deny and ridicule) does more damage than a believer in regards to 3rd partys


Ok, so we're segregating the titles. You see, to me, you're right, a skeptic debunks, so the equation in my head goes like this Skeptic = Debunk = Debunker = Same as Skeptic.

I'm sure some of the problem (for me) is the misinterpretation of titles in the first place, or maybe we, as a society simply use titles far too often, who knows.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Rarely will you put rational thinking into a "believer"...its not really about changing their mind, its about presenting a nice logical flow of discussion so that someone on the fence watching the sides form will use critical thinking verses just deciding which pile of nonsense they will align with


Indeed! Very good point.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Debunker on christianity: "Christianity is incorrect because its gay and only tards believe it"
Skeptic on christianity: "The science in the foundation book is incorrect. here is the passage, and here is the contradicting science..meaning to believe in this, you must stop believing in reality in general"
(just an example)


Now, you see to me, Person A is not a debunker, Person A is a child start to finish. I understand it is a gross irrationalization as you were presenting it, but it is also not out of the realm of possibility to be a factor either.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Now, as a person whom is on the fence...they would see the debunkers argument as very weak and a christian can simply refute that as the debunker being some sort of disinformation demon..a casual observer may be inclined to then side with the christian in this case because of such a weak and random argument...people have a innate desire to think they are thinking outside of the box and will give a silly claim alot more weight if the only refuting going on is paper thin.


This is an EXCELLENT point and view. It is one that is a battle for me (not just here, in life in general) and often I have been in the uncomfortable position of having the "debunker" align themselves with my particular view on a topic. In which case I feel it incumbent upon me to say "look, please, I would rather not have a sycophant agree with me, thank you". It dilutes a cause or a view that otherwise has viability.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
See the dilemma?


I've seen the dilemma for far too long, unfortunately.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant


This is a fact. Building 7 collapses.
You see any planes? Face value speaks volumes.


Again, video clips that fuel your speculation which provide proof to you does not make it more so. Speculation is speculation, no matter which side of the fence it is on. Until someone literally "comes clean" and says "wait ya know what, I in fact DID line the walls with thermite and brought em all down", it is mere speculation. As such, your speculation is not a fact to be spun against someone elses speculation. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands this.






Originally posted by newcovenant
All good questions.


Good questions are a world different than proof. Good questions they are, good fact they are not.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


You win. You are right. Maybe the building didn't fall down all by itself.
I need to go have an eye exam anyway.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I'd like to say to Saturn and alphabeta that I am now drinking beer and will not be posting (here at least :p ) as it will alter my focus - however you each have raised very good points which I look forward to getting into discussing in about 12 hours.

It's a real shame that is takes a mutt of a thread and bias moderation for this to occur but you meet people with differing outlooks but the capability for exchange in the oddest of places.

Speak soon and look after yourselves!

-m0r



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Ok, so we're segregating the titles. You see, to me, you're right, a skeptic debunks, so the equation in my head goes like this Skeptic = Debunk = Debunker = Same as Skeptic.

I'm sure some of the problem (for me) is the misinterpretation of titles in the first place, or maybe we, as a society simply use titles far too often, who knows.

"debunker" is a new word to my vocab...I used to think skeptic and debunker were interchangable until I read the definition of debunker as someone whom exposes and ridicules claims
a skeptic's job isn't to ridicule...its to expose, sure...but ridicule is to belittle an argument through shaming the party verses countering the party.
So, I adjusted my vocabulary to see the differences.
I also try to remember to put 'quotes" around debunker to further isolate them from a debunking skeptic..the two should never be seen in the same light in a perfect world.

Your example is flawed...let me show you why
Girl = sexy = all things sexy are girls (just as an example)
debunking is a process used by skeptics
sexy is an attribute held by all girls (yes, all...even you fat old ugly ones have something sexy to offer under the right lights
)
"debunkers" use the process of assumptions based on skeptics claims moreso than any research...its the same cultist mindset as a "believer" (a "believer" is not to be confused with someone whom believes in ETs...)
the words are subtle and can be misinterpreted...english seems to lack words to clearly define the difference at the moment however. We gain 200 slang terms per year, but rarely words to better articulate variance of proper meanings.


Now, you see to me, Person A is not a debunker, Person A is a child start to finish. I understand it is a gross irrationalization as you were presenting it, but it is also not out of the realm of possibility to be a factor either.

Now you understand the lack of words approprate to define such differences...hense why I simply toss quotes around words to seperate them from common interpretations


I've seen the dilemma for far too long, unfortunately.


So, its my view that a skeptics job is to not only stand against crappy facts from "believers", but also to immediately challenge "debunkers" equally and in the open.
Philosophically, there is almost nothing that cannot be plausable...a skeptic is seeking honest information and evidence to progress or reject the claim made...but someone whom is slamming the philosophy behind it based on a belief should be ridiculed as they are the ones making the weakest argument overall.

There are no ETs. is a statement of absolute profound supernatural knowledge...then that person will say..oh, I am equal to the guy spending his time and energy showing evidence that some specific case is not what it seems...therefore, don't even bother listening to the skeptic, listen to me because I say the same thing and the entire concept of skepticism is actually a belief system.

A "believer" challenges the skeptic
A "debunker" destroys the skeptic

A "debunker" is far more dangerous to skepticism than a believer ever will be, as they harm the movement towards rational thinking from the inside...better to deal with an external punch than internal cancer.


Finally, one last comment about "believers".
I see them as serving a purpose overall that they themselves may not even know.

Lets say someone watches a youtube video..the one mentioned by the ops about the area 51 guy saying he made ftl engines, superluminal engines, whatever the claim is.
Now, someone watches that and, without immediately dismissing the claim, decides to devote his life to science to try and recreate that. He goes on to making dramatic improvements in propulsion and maybe even a few cutting edge techs trying to recreate the claims he heard on that video once...

if such video was debunked immediately and loudly, said kid wouldn't have been nearly as interested due to the concept being ridiculed...however, if it is simply skeptically countered, he may be even more interested to try and persue such a course to prove the skeptics wrong (a proper skeptic loves being proved wrong...since skepticism in science often is against pretty awesome claims..never happier to be wrong..usually)

"debunkers" not only destroy the logic behind skepticism, but also in turn runs the risk of supressing creative new thinking. They are the true cancer.
edit on 6-5-2011 by SaturnFX because: clarity



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You are not going to post how you came to the conclusion of believeing and its up to us to find out ourselves? gee thanks man. I love it when people do that.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
WOW youve finally passed the barrirer of stupidness that made you actually think that the infinite universe and all its trillions of planets were just trillions of giant empty rocks. Please tell how you came to this awsome conclusion *Sarcasm*. If you honestly need PROOF aliens exist, you arnt really that intelligent. Ive always said there are people who beleive in aliens and people who WANT to beleive, say they do, but still need proof. Seriously what more proof do you need, what part of your logic is in error that you cant say aliens have to exist without a doubt.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kman420
WOW youve finally passed the barrirer of stupidness that made you actually think that the infinite universe and all its trillions of planets were just trillions of giant empty rocks. Please tell how you came to this awsome conclusion *Sarcasm*. If you honestly need PROOF aliens exist, you arnt really that intelligent. Ive always said there are people who beleive in aliens and people who WANT to beleive, say they do, but still need proof. Seriously what more proof do you need, what part of your logic is in error that you cant say aliens have to exist without a doubt.


Who are you talking to?

And...the argument (skeptical stance) is not if they exist, but are they interacting on earth.
There is no proof of the claim...there is evidence, and like any court case, evidence is not proof in itself, it is a small piece in a puzzle that may or may not be relevant...the more evidence there is, the better the case builds.

What you did there is create whats known as a "strawman argument". Meaning you first created a claim from an opposing side that is not the actual claim, then you poked holes and dismissed the entire false claim, thereby making it seem like your argument is the valid one...when all you did was make something up, then knock down your own creation..accomplishing nothing.

Not saying that there aren't people out there that dismiss aliens in general as even existing...but, well, without going into much detail, lets just call them idiots that should be ignored.

The question is, are they coming here, have they ever come here, how would/do they come here, and to what extent. Until there is proof of the claims on those questions, then the starting answer is..there is no proof. Doesn't mean it therefore isn't happening...just no proof to date.

Its up to believers to get evidence to try and prove it if they want to further the discussion.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Your post/story would be much more interesting if you provide proof on what changed your mind and additional information.

Without supplemental information, your post is just bland and provides no educational information to evolve your story or the issue of possible extraterrestrials.




top topics



 
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join