Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why don't you believe? (@Non-Believers and Skeptics)

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
My skeptisism is rooted not in the probability (or not) of aliens, big foot or the Loch Ness monster. But rather in the presentation. Everyone it seems wants their 15 minutes. Even better if they can gain some notoriety, or better yet earn income presenting as fact, that which is unknowable. How do you feel when you realise that you have been scammed or lied to? The unknowable and unprovable are lucrative ground for con artists. I take it all in as entertainment.




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I wanted to answer you seriously, OP, but your post quickly became a straw man argument and a rant, rather than a serious attempt at understanding skeptics, on your part.

You instantly equate not believing, or skepticism, with outright rejection, when they are different things. I am skeptical of extraterrestrials visiting earth, and I don't hold the belief they do, but I don't reject the possibility.

As for why I don't believe in earth visiting aliens, for me it is unlikely they'd be able to get here. As it's an unlikely claim by default, I want to see real convincing evidence before I believe. I don't see that evidence, so I see nothing which would justify my belief in such a thing. What could be simpler, or more rational than that?

A question in return to you: What piece (or pieces) of evidence make you so sure that aliens are visiting us?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Skeptics do not assert that such phenomena are impossible, but refrain from accepting or asserting facts without proof. Skeptics who make positive or negative assertions without proof are not practicing true skepticism in my view.

Peace.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Cognitive Dissonance requires you to hold two opposing views at equal value.


You're stuck on the wording. "Views of equal value" isn't supposed to literally mean equal. It should instead be intrepreted to mean conflicting ideals, and that they are (in your mind), if only for a brief moment.


Originally posted by Druscilla
If it can't be confirmed/replicated your observation is essentially worthless.


See this is exactly your problem. Unverified/untested testimony is not worthless, and not only that, but everything you believe, is really just anecdotal evidence, and it is taken on faith. AND if testimony without observation were truly worthless, then we wouldn't have evolved the way we have, in regards to how we learn from one another. Think back to when you were a child, and all the information you took on faith. Things like, don't touch the stove eye, it will burn you. Don't run with scissor, etc. Was that information worthless?

Also, as I mentioned in the other post, not everything can be empirical evidence, because our reality is not exclusive to empirical things. Think of things like color. Is there any empirical evidence for the actual shade of green we all see? No, I'm not argueing the lengths of light waves that we call green, I'm referring specifically to the shade of green one sees - something that we all know exists, but someone who is colorblind has to take on faith alone.

Hmm...

Maybe that's it? Maybe you're colorblind, or you're going blind, only the sight you're losing is reasoning, faith, and spirituality. Maybe you weren't born with the ability to sense what billions of others sense - spirituality.


Originally posted by Druscilla
Whatever the case, provide some real empirical evidence and you'll have a skeptic on your side.

I'm pretty sure that that was rhetoric and a deflection, but I think it's worth saying:
Because of the nature of some of these things, such as, aliens and Gods, you aren't going to find any peer reviews from the scientific community about them, but if you ever do, you need to run the other way because it will almost certainly be done to decieve people like you.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


wow lol so now evidence for the idea of god or aliens is evidence that
is faked, so tell me, how will we ever know whats true? do we trust you?
can you discern what is and is not true, and what method do you use to
decide such things?

blanket statements like the ones you offer are completely useless in
determining the validity of a claim. you say that a claim cannot
be tested through science for these things then just how is one
suppose to accept said claim as true? do we look to old books?
if so then dragons must be real, also many other gods, the list
would be endless, you say we cant tell the truth from fantasy and
yet you provide absolutely no way to tell truth from lies yourself........

science is the single most successful way of interpreting the world
around us, it is self correcting and has a track record of real world
application that cannot be ignored, if you choose to do so then the
modern world would not exist the way it is for all of this is based
on science......



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LoveisanArt
 


You speak with such conviction as if you know what you believe is true. How do you know that the aliens are more advanced than humans? What if in reality humans were the most advanced of all sentient species in the universe?

I believe there is a high possibility that there are, have been, or will be other life forms on other worlds. I dont believe that humans will naturally advance intellectually any more because they have nearly halted natural selection. The key I to advancement is in genetic manipulation. Humans are about where most other sentient beings would be peaked at intellectually on an evolutionary scale, so the likelihood that other beings are far beyond human intelligence is not likely. The universe is still rather young.

Have humans been visited by other beings? Likely not. If aliens have made contact then they would A) make known contact or B) If they intended on being invisible they would be absolutely undetectable.

I believe by the time any being is capable of faster than light travel they would be on the brink of developing into a higher dimensional being. If they did this they would no longer fathom making contact with us. It would be like a human wanting to contact an ant. No matter how hard the human tried the ant just would not comprehend what it is the human is trying to do.

Belief in ghosts is just plain illogical. There is no reason why humans would have ghosts and not other animals. There is no reason why there would be ghosts in the first place. It holds no evolutionary value. Even if there were, they would have no hold on our gravitational field so they would drift off into space. I could go on forever why its illogical but ill stop here.

Belief in a god in the sense of a single creator that he have had same direct contact with is extremely barbaric and also illogical. That is in itself another discussion.

The fact is humans are very stupid. Their understanding of the universe is abysmal. Their memory is short and very faulty. Their imagination is limited. Their perception of reality is extremely limited to their faulty senses such as sight (they can not see a small portion of the light spectrum- even insects can see UV light), very poor smell, touch, and taste. Humans dont know or understand fully what is going on in their known world, how can they possibly know what is going on outside of it.

Humans need another several hundred thousand years to fully understand what gift the field of time is and how it will change the perception of reality in unfathomable ways.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


reply to post by DelMarvel
 


I understand that what I am trying to convey may be difficult to grasp, because it switches back and forth between ideology, psychology, and absolute truth so I'll try to summerize it for you with this hierarchy:

Absolute truth: The only truth is that we percieve(we as in just you or just me - for all you know I am a figment of your false perceptions - a perception that you cannot deny exists);. All else is literally faith based - including everything below in the hierarchy.

Psychological truth: The reason everyone has their own version of reality is because they all suffer from cognitive dissonance. However, when two or more people share the same opinion they recieve dopamine, and that is the driving force in self-affirmation.

Ideological truth: I will admit that I suffer from confirmation bias, in regards to alien existence, but I am still satisfied with my ideology. I feel that because my ideology can explain things that others have to shrug over and then just dismiss, that it's the best - thus I choose it and promote it for self-affirmation. Is my view the absolute truth? Of course not - the true reality is probably something so incredibly strange that we could never even imagine it. But as far as what we think we know goes, I like my ideal of what aliens are - it fits together very well (without conflicting) with other things that I cannot dismiss.

Sample:
Why are there so many differing religions that mankind supposedly recieved from Aliens? Cause they were given by fallen angels in order to decieve the masses into believing there is no true God.

Why have some cultures worshiped animals? Fallen Angels can shape-shift (which also explains why Ra and all that group had such weird heads.)

See how nicely that fit? It also covers their other alien behaviors really well. The most important thing though, in regards to this topic, is that because I can fit aliens into my world view, I have no need to deny them.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


No, I'm not stuck on the wording of Cognitive Dissonance . I happen to know what it means.

Additionally, your examples regarding childhood things taken on faith have zero validity with me.
I was an assertive, willful, curious child.
Condemnations like "NO" and "DON'T" were invitations (to me) to explore.

Thus, my parents took the YES, BUT ... approach.

Stove:
Mom: "Before you touch the stove Druscilla, would you like to see what will happen to your little fingers when/if you do touch it?"
Me: *wide eyed nod of piqued curiosity with possibly a peep of assent*
Mom: "Okay, lets pretend this hotdog is one of your fingers".
*Mom takes hotdog with tongs and presses hotdog onto hot stove*
*hotdog makes sizzling noises and wiffs of smoke rise*
*Mom pulls hotdog away from stove and shows the results*
Mom: "You see those black marks? Those are burns, so, what do you think will happen if you touch the stove with your fingers?"

Empirical Evidence

I was allowed, and even encouraged to (safely) explore the limitations and boundaries of my childhood environment and understanding of it as i developed and grew.

I was very often, where I didn't already learn a lesson through direct experience, given the treat of observation in being shown empirical evidence of what would/could happen if I did X activity.

I had proof, and where I didn't, I sought it out. I required no faith. Further I was encouraged to supply proofs/accountability for my actions, so, there wasn't much room for lies, embroidery, and story telling.

If some kid pushed me into a puddle of mud and got my clothes dirty, I'd either have to supply a confession from the kid that did it, whereby parents then talk to other parents and all the joys that comes with that etc, or, I take responsibility for my muddy clothes and ensure that they are properly cleaned in the laundry.

Anybody can tell stories, just as I've done right now.
Believe, or not.
Were I you, I'd require more than such an anecdote, but, since you're a professed adherent to faith, you're somewhat obliged to take anything I say on faith.

Whatever the case, this lack of empirical evidence you make claims about is thin gruel.
You take medicines (if you take medicines) because they're tested, regulated by Federal Quality control, and are vouchsafed through rigorous testing and approval to do what they claim to do.
You can, of course also pray, but, then, how strong is your faith compared to your degree of ail versus immediacy of need to not have a runny nose at the office tomorrow, as well as get some sleep?

Would you trust your faith in the legitimacy to 'medicine' sold by some shady guy behind the pharmacy, or, would your rather trust in the rigid testing, standardization, regulation, quality control, and tested effectiveness advertised on the shelves inside the pharmacy?

I'm fairly certain I know the answer. Regardless, you rely less on faith than you think you do, relying on empirical data for decision making every single day.
Sure, you fly the faith flag, but, I'm fairly certain there's a large number of things you'd never take on faith, or even personal guarantee alone.

We all require proof.
A number of us are simply more rigidly demanding in our tolerances, especially when it approaches anything resembling subject matter of the fantastic.

As a matter of mundanity,I'll have faith that the organic beef burger I order for lunch is as advertised, but, faith in fairies, ghosts, UFOs, demons, other mythological cartoon characters? I'm going to need poke it with a stick.

edit on 25-11-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Stove:
Mom: "Before you touch the stove Druscilla, would you like to see what will happen to your little fingers when/if you do touch it?"
Me: *wide eyed nod of piqued curiosity with possibly a peep of assent*
Mom: "Okay, lets pretend this hotdog is one of your fingers".
*Mom takes hotdog with tongs and presses hotdog onto hot stove*
*hotdog makes sizzling noises and wiffs of smoke rise*
*Mom pulls hotdog away from stove and shows the results*
Mom: "You see those black marks? Those are burns, so, what do you think will happen if you touch the stove with your fingers?"


Do you have empirical evidence to support your stove story?

No but seriously, why would you lie about something so trivial? Do you actually expect us to believe that you have never accepted anything without empirical evidence?

edit on 11/25/2012 by Bleeeeep because: changed so to no.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


While your opinion there was well put together in some ways, it lacked one very
obvious thing, where do you get your information, if you just made it up then its
completely opinion based, if you use psychology then your using a social
science, if your using physics of any kind then your using science again.

you claim that science would lie to us to hide the truth, how then do you know
you haven't been lied to as well regarding what you believe, your entire premise
is that we must accept your opinion as fact, also we must accept that angels
do indeed exists and if i understand you correctly a god entity of some kind
who created said angels......

this is where things get really really tricky for you, if you say a god exists you must
then define said god, are we talking one of the main stream religious gods? or
one of your own flavor? its not that this is difficult to grasp, i can understand your
claims, where it falls apart for me is just that, its your claim with absolutely no evidence
to support it, you may not need evidence to support a personal belief but you do
need it to demonstrate the truth of a belief to someone else, otherwise its simply
a supposition......

the reason we cannot accept things like this as fact is because it does not lend
itself to application in the real world, to deal with reality on its terms we use science
to define what we observe, we test what we observe and then retest it again and again,
with the claims your making there is not even anything to test...... you simply claim
this is how the world works because i know, you may not know but trust me its true.

no offense at all intended but i simply think you are mistaken in your claim.
not to say its impossible, simply that there is no evidence to support your
claims. you have attempted to draw corollaries which are based upon your
own theory but said theory would have to be proven correct before you could
use it to then draw corollaries to other things and over time attempt to show
that said corollaries support your assertion.

also i feel i need to point out what your saying is a classic assumption based
reasoning, i see this therefore it must mean this, again this is not a way to
find truth, as evidence by the fact that churches used to claim seizures were
demonic possession, science however did not simply look and say oh well you
must be right as seizures happen and that must mean they are demonic
possession, they tested and devised ways of measuring different things
in the body until they finally arrived at an answer that was supported by
reality and not assumption.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bloodreviara because: to add



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

Do you have empirical evidence to support your stove story?

No but seriously, why would you lie about something so trivial? Do you actually expect us to believe that you have never accepted anything without empirical evidence?

edit on 11/25/2012 by Bleeeeep because: changed so to no.


Did you even read my post?



Quoting myself:

Anybody can tell stories, just as I've done right now.
Believe, or not.
Were I you, I'd require more than such an anecdote, but, since you're a professed adherent to faith, you're somewhat obliged to take anything I say on faith.

....

As a matter of mundanity,I'll have faith that the organic beef burger I order for lunch is as advertised, but, faith in fairies, ghosts, UFOs, demons, other mythological cartoon characters? I'm going to need poke it with a stick.


Should I start to question the level of ability you have in reading comprehension?
Do I need to choose a larger 'accessibility' rated font?

Whatever.
I'm done for today.

edit on 25-11-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


You are mixing together truth with percieved truth in the wrong areas. The only truth that we can be absolutely certain of is we percieve. Some would say the only truth is - I am, but for all I know, I am not. I could be digitial code used to generate a holographic universe, or anything you want to say we are. That is why I say percieve (to discern that I am is really I percieve.)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
To all the sceptics, leaving out all the reports from very prominent people throughout history telling us we are being visited, the Starchild skull should at least leave you scratching your head and possibly leave you open to the possibility that alien life is out there and we have been visited by them. It is highly illogical stating that its impossible we are being visited with billions upon billions of galaxies out there, and knowing that other lifeforms could be millions of years or more technically advanced than us. No need to debate that point, but what I would like to hear from the sceptics is their opinion of the Starchild skull. Here is a link for you all.

www.starchildproject.com...

Pladuim



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LoveisanArt
 


I didn't read the other responses yet, I apologize if I am out of sync with the evolution of the discussion.
But the OP was a question for us each to answer (and a provocative one at that).

I am not a believer, and yet I have had abduction Type experiences, as has some members of my family, and a sighting of a UFO in broad daylight, with other observers present.

You seem to be mixing up a person who does not believe something exists, and one that believes something does not exist.

To believe something does not exist is to believe an idea about reality.
Same difference between people who believe God exists, and people who believe God does not exist.

Those people tend to have problems concieving of the idea that some are in neither catagory.
Some people refuse to believe anything. Like me.

The thing is, we cannot trust our senses, they can fool us.
Our minds can fool us- it tends to re-arrange perception to make it more easily digestable.
like this-



(Just some examples)

Unfortunately, hallucination is not all fuzzy, out of focus and dream-like, like in some movies- it is very realistic, the hallucinator cannot tell the difference between it and any other experience. That is why most crazy people do not believe they are crazy. So how could YOU know???

I don't know. And what these experiences taught me is that I probably don't KNOW ANYTHING. Just about everything we claim to know could be hallucination- even if it is a mass hallucination. Or we could be simply misinterpreting reality- individually or altogether.

The forceful and mocking "you're either with us or against us" pressure does not move me. I will not be forced into either camp of ridiculous ignorance and belief. I think some things might be true, I suspect some, I sometimes feel some, but I don't "do" belief.
edit on 25-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
To the op....how many would profess to think that stealth fighters were actually from
another world decades ago..? how many thought that sprites were from another world?
How many thought that an areoplane with humans mistaken for gods?..

Do not underestimate the power of mankind..

my non euro two pounds worth..

edit on 25-11-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Get off your computer, get off your cellphones or stupid iPhones that make you look like a stupid Zombie and go outside and watch the night sky especially in populated areas. You must be an avid star gazer who actually takes the time to look at the sky. Eventually, like me and everyone else you will be bound to see a couple of UFOs flying across the sky at incredible speeds all of a sudden disappearing into thin air. They look like stars, but they are not and what better way to blend into the sky then to look like a star?

Not our fault that most of you twiddle with your thumbs instead of actually enjoying the night sky everyday for at least 30 minutes or an hour. Chances are you won't see one on the first day you try, or the second or even a month but sooner or later you will see one or a few. I've seen two within the last few months in my area both fitting the description I described above.

I pity those who don't believe in something much more than themselves. I believe, fully and always have because of the way I see and understand the World.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LoveisanArt
 


So many believers profess to think skeptics are mindless people never once experiancing
the phenomena you spoke about that somehow they are sheep or whatever..

What if these skeptics actually went past the stage of beliveing certain things
because they have advanced to the upper level of understanding and require proof..

Seems logical to me.

An open mind is what skeptics have not a closed one

another non euro two pounds worth im giving me money away today lol..



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Then by your own admission you can only be sure that you perceive and all
of your other claims are unfounded. to go from I perceive therefore god and
angels and aliens is a huge leap.

I feel that science is a better way to interact with the world as its
application in the real world is more beneficial to humanity than an abstract idea
that may or may not simply be assumption, my opinion is based on science
which has given us the technology to have this conversation, the ability to
travel in space, social sciences that have improved living conditions and
medicine that has saved countless lives over the course of history.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


You're right, sorry.

I got about half way through your post and my bias of your past posts flooded into my mind. I couldn't believe the ridiculousness that I was reading, so I stopped reading.

I didn't believe an iota of the storyline or anything else I was reading, but I did think that you were actually trying to convince us that you had such a strong stance on empirical evidence - that you would take nothing on faith. That's where I said the thing about lieing about something so trivial.... Wish I had gotten to the burger part. Sorry again.

The gist of what I was trying to infer in that post and earlier posts however, is that I think your stance on empirical evidence is horribly flawed, not only because people lie, yes scientist do lie, but because we simply cannot have empirical evidence for everything that exists - especial things of this nature.

I don't want you to get me wrong though, I accept "empirical evidence" as readily as the next man, but I also accept anecdotal and theoretical evidence when it comes to matters such as "fairies, ghosts, UFOs, demons, other mythological cartoon characters".

*I underlined "your stance" to denote that I was referring specifically to your stance on empirical evidence not and empirical evidence itself. I think you put too much emphasis on empirical evidence - as-if it is something that is irrefutable and could never be wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Do you know there is many who believe things that have been debunked many years ago
they will not look into the other side of things but will just say your blind your a sheep etc..

Why is it alot of people see something that defies what we see day to day and come to
an assumption that it has to be from another world?..

I say if one is open minded one will keep the option open especially the believers and such
that these craft could be man made..

A skeptic isn't a non believer that's a misinterpetuation..A skeptic looks at all angles first
what is so wrong with that?...

Why should one say it went to fast hey hey it's an alien ship etc.
One should keep an open "mind"...

I think it's funny how skeptics are called closed minds when they are the ones looking at "both sides".
where as the believer just seems to go with the alien concept only (most of the time)..

So we have the skeptic being the "most open minded it seems out of the two"

Funny that ironic...





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join