How do YOU deal with skeptics?

Only one case has to be true...!The chance that all cases are fake by some motivation or another is one in 1000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

How do YOU deal with skeptics?

Let 'em drown in their own pool of ignorance.

I am very skeptical. First of all, there is no concrete evidence that ET's have visited the earth. I believe that most of the UFO sightings are in fact man made and natural phenomena.

Meteor of War says:

"I'm a believer in the idea that we have been visited by intelligent extra terrestrial beings (or EBEs) for thousands of years, if not more. I also believe that our governments have already made contact with these beings and are possibly working together trading humans (alien abductions) for advanced tech. I feel that there is enough evidence of this out there from credible sources (see www.disclosureproject.org...) that should convince any semi-intelligent person to atleast begin to believe there's "something" unexplainable going on be it aliens from another world or not. As a matter of fact i believe we as humans have that already, but it's all being held away from the public. It all seems like it's right there in front of us, only thing we're lacking is an official disclosure or hard solid evidence for undeniable proof. Not to mention the government probably has agencies dedicated to making sure their policy of plausible denial lives out and that UFO witnesses and researchers that come close to being able to prove anything are destroyed and/or discredited."

What really urks me though is the hard core skeptics that refuse to believe anything of the sort.

I think the reason for that is that skeptics don't consider your evidence to be valid. Certainly the "disclosure project" is just a bunch of people saying what they believe, and none of them (at least none that I've seen) have any evidence for what they say.

In other words, it's like you say to me,
"Okay, so you don't believe me, because I have no evidence. But you should tbelieve the people on the Disclosure Project."

And I say,
"Why? Do they have any evidence?"

And you say, "Well, no."

You say that you "feel" there is enough evidence, and all you seem to do is to quote other people -- but they don't have any evidence, either!

"Be it that it goes against their religion to believe, it just doesnt make sense to them at all, or that they just fear believing it to be truth."

In my case, my religion doesn't forbid me to think anything, and I doubt if I fear the thought of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Indeed, as someone who started reading Science Fiction long before most of you were born, I would consider proof of extraterrestrial intelligent life to be one of the most wonderful things imaginable. But the real reason is that your stories just don't make sense. You have these opinions about government conspiracies and you want me to accept your opinions as fact.

They might be fact, but you haven't given me any evidence that makes sense to me.

"I think the majority of skeptics fall into the later category."

I don't, but then again, I'm only one skeptic, and not an expert on all skeptics.

".. attempt to raise awareness of the potential conspiracy the government has been hiding from us..."

So you admit that it's only a "potential" conspiracy; in other words, you're saying that it's only your opinion?

"...On a regular basis i get laughed at, ridiculed and made fun of. I know there's a lot of people that frequent this forum that probably experience and feel the same things as i do and i was wondering how do you deal with it all."

I don't laugh at your beliefs, even though I certainly don't agree with them. But there are always going to be people who laugh at other people with different ideas and assertions, whether those assertions are wrong or not. I'd blow off all the people who laugh at you or simply ignore you, because they obviously don't have any ideas to bring to the party.

"Do you think it's best to just not discuss this sort of thing with known skeptics?"

Why would you want to do that? Is it that your feelings might get hurt because someone at a computer terminal on the other side of the world asks you some questions you can't answer?

Work with me on this, meteor. There are two possibilities about my skepticism:

Either I am right or I am wrong.

If I am right, and you're truly interested in denying ignorance (and aren't we all?), then you'd want the truth, right? Even if it weren't what you wanted to hear? I mean, you are after the truth, right?

If I am wrong, then you can use my errors to further refine, test, and validate the truth of your beliefs. I mean, we're here to deny ignorance.

If you're really serious about the truth, meteor; if you really do believe in denying ignorance -- then you have to talk with skeptics, either to get the truth from me or to get the truth by validating your own views.

"Or do you think the subject is important enough to try to convert skeptics into believers."

Do you think it's important?

"...it almost seems as though these skeptics wouldnt believe anything even if they did indeed have proof."

Try us sometime. Give us some proof and see how we respond.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Evilution quotes from the "Disclosure Project":

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

True.

The absence of evidence is ... the absence of evidence. And that is exactly what the "Disclosure Project" offers:

An absence of evidence.

I am both believer and skeptic.

I do believe in alien life and would not rule out us having been visited by them. As Gaz has said there is a mountain of evidence but no proof, at least none in civilian hands.

But I am skeptical of EVERY story. We will never get to the truth accepting EVERY story as truth no matter how outlandish or obviously a hoax.

We do ourselves a disservice and make a joke of those truly searching for the truth. Just as ALL the stories cant be lies, ALL the stories cant be truth.

I would rather focus one the few believable stories to try to piece it together than jump on the "alien of the week" band club. There are several stories that at least on the surface seem to have something, Roswell for instance, and several others.

The reason that skeptics laugh at us is our own fault, by backing every wacko that comes along we make OURSELVES look like something to be laughed at.

As I have said a million times all stories cant be true but only one needs to be.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I can't tell you how I deal with skeptics, because I don't often get into arguments with them.

But I do know that they are pretty easy to deal with, once you learn their dirty little secret. They are so tied into this "logic" and "evidence" and "data" thing that all yhou have to do is to give them the hard evidence of UFO visitation (don't waste you time on fuzzy photo fakes, but the real evidence) and they will fold like a cheap suit.

That's all you need. To shut up a skeptic, just show him evidence. It works every time!

Its funny though, when you do this...they shut up and dont say anything. Its almost as if they leave ATS. Its happened many times.

Originally posted by Meteor_of_War
Hmm...i think Frosty's post portrays a perfect example of the kind of skepticism i've been dealing with lately.

I kind of find him interesting in that he asks for evidence, and runs away when you give it to him lol, or ignores you when you address him directly or indirectly with different forms of evidence.

Off_The_Street, i think you're getting me wrong here. Also you dont even sound like the kind of skeptic this thread was aimed at, you use logic and sound much more open minded than most which is what we need from skeptics. Like Skully to Mulder you complete the pursuit of truth, we need people like you to debunk us and set us straight when we get a little nuts with what we believe. Like i said, this thread wasnt aimed at that type of skeptic, it was aimed at the more closed minded skeptic which i personally have been running into a lot in my social discussions.

About the reference to disclosureproject.org. Read the sentence i referred to the site in once more:

that should convince any semi-intelligent person to atleast begin to believe there's "something" unexplainable going on be it aliens from another world or not.

I meant evidence like that (while i admit it's not solid proof) should atleast get people thinking twice about it if they previously didnt believe...not that it should prove it to them. I really tried to be clear about that. The direct witnesses to all the alleged government black projects can in fact prove they were employed in the agencies and branches of military they claim. And the fact that they are not insane, not looking for profit, and that there's so many of them has to speak for something.

Also that's great you dont let your religion get in the way of what you think. I really find that sad that some people are like that, i think all it does is hold us back from discovering the truth. And by the way i never expect anyone to accept my opinion as fact, just not to shut them out without thinking. So sorry if i came across wrong, i have a bit of a problem conveying my thoughts into text at times...but again from what i've read of your posts so far Off_The_Street you do not seem to be the type of skeptic i was referring to. And one more thing for the record, in my initial post in this thread i was ranting about skeptics i talk to at work and in my home town in social situations...i'm new at this forum and have just started discussing these topics with you guys.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Evilution quotes from the "Disclosure Project":

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

True.

The absence of evidence is ... the absence of evidence. And that is exactly what the "Disclosure Project" offers:

An absence of evidence.

I disagree...in part. Please allow me to rephrase your statement:
The absence of evidence is, in my opinion, based on the tiny protion of reality that I can sense or have access to, is... the absence of evidence. And that is exactly what the "Disclosure Project" offers to me.

Meteor, scepticism keeps the fringe theories somewhat honest. I would be hardpressed to believe that in this vast universe, we are the only intelligent life, since, there is nothing to say that there are not other earthlike planets among the thousands of planets we do not know of, or even intelligent life forms subsisting on a planet or planets very unlike ours. We certainly have not discovered all that science has to offer, so anyting is possible. Having said that, I cannot accept some of these wacko fringe ideas out there either that strictly depends on someone saying they were abducted or saw some oddity, anyone can make that claim and find believers. And it doesn't take much to start one of those in this day and age, just invent some nonsense, find your way onto a paranormal talk radio show, write a book about it, or spread it on the internet and before long, the story is taken as fact.

When it comes to sceptics you have to understand where they are coming from, and that is that everyone declares their story to be sound, when in fact they are often contradicting others. For example, on ATSNN, there was a thread where the good aliens are going to do nothing to counter the bad aliens, and there was another thread, where the good aliens are going to whisk away the earth and save it from the bad aliens who cannot survive outside of earth. Both were a fun read, and both authors certainly seemed to have done due diligence when it came to rehearsing the script, but both cannot be correct.One well known alien theory author claims aliens will never make contact with the common man, another claimed they will in fact make themselves known. Only one of those, if either, can be correct.

One may have a very strong belief in their notions about aliens, but chances are, they have nothing concrete to offer as proof, and as such, the sceptics are the ones who force them to answer tough questions and think outside their pre-established mindset.

I've been following the UFO story since I was a teenager - and that was in the early 70s. Eagerly read all the books by the Lorenzos, Keyhoe, etc. Kept following it more recently with Friedman and others. Nothing has changed. As someone earlier in this thread said, "lots of evidence, but no proof".

So, at this point I'm an interested skeptic. I'm just getting on with my life, and I'll become a believer just as soon as I see the UFO parked at the United Nations with live reports from CNN.

Along with the UFO stories I've read in my life, I've also read about many nutcases, charlatans, con men and others of such ilk, not to mention people who just want to believe so badly that they just fall for it. I believe I'm well entitled to be skeptical and wait for proof.

Don't ask me to believe anything you put in front of me just because you earnestly believe it. Don't be insulted when I don't, and don't ask for my buy-in as if you had a right to it. Above all, give rational answers to honest questions.

Finally, if you still have good reason to believe and can keep a level head about it, by all means go on in good faith. History has many examples, from Cassandra to Churchill, of people who believed in something and were ignored by the majority. Sometimes its only history that can prove who's right.

Meteor, I stand (or sit, in this case) corrected.

Anyone who denies the possibility of anything -- whether visitors from outer space, time travel, FTL travel or what have you -- is as much a bonehead as the person who is absolutely convinced that, lacking evidence, such stuff exists.

Certainly a single example of the truth of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting the Earth would make up for n-1 hoaxes, where n is the total number.

I personally place the likelihood of exterrestrial life -- nay, intelligent extraterrestrial life -- as probable to the point of certainty; the size of the universe and the evidence we have for extrasolar planets makes it (in my mind, anyway) a sure thing.

Based on what assumptions I've made (using Drake's Equation) and then making what I consider as logical assumptions (We can't travel FTL, for example), my calculations show the numbers are stacked against even a single extraterrestrial visitor to the Earth during any arbitrary ten-thousand-year time period.

A lot of believers will say things like, "Well, just because no one has show it's possible for FTL speeds, that doesn't mean that it might happen someday."

And they're absolutely right. It could happen someday. If you don't make any assumptions at all about anything, then everything is possible.

But since we don't know how the Universe works completely, we have to make some sort of baseline assumptions about it in order to consider the likelihood of something happening -- or not happening.

You and I probably agree that it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that I can pick up an 18-wheeler, sling it over my back, and run away with it. You would probably make an assumption that, since you have never heard of anyone (much less a 60-year-old) do such a thing, and since it runs counter to everything you know about human physiology for someone to pick up twenty tons of metal, it isn't going to happen, and you would probably bet anyone and give them good odds, too, that I would fail in my attempt.

Is that a smart bet on your part?

Yes.

But are you sure I can't lift up that Peterbilt? Hey, maybe I know magic or I'm really from the Planet Krypton, right?

Naah.

But it's not impossible, is it?

No. Nothing's impossible.

But you'd still be willing to bet your paycheck that I couldn't do it, because your assumptions are valid in your eyes!

So when someone says to me, "Well, maybe there really are undergound cities of Grays and Dulce and all", I can't say that there isn't.

But my assumptions that there aren't underground cities of little spaceship guys is probably as valid as your assumption that I can't pick up the Peterbilt.

You would change your assumptions in a heartbeat if you saw me pick up even a Toyota Camry and run away with it, though, wouldn't you? Even if it weren't a Peterbilt, just the fact that I cando something you didnt think I could do would make you a bit more amenable to my claims about the 18-wheeler.

And, by the same token, i wouldn't have to see a little gray spaceship guy to think that you may know something really outre. Maybe all I'd need for my personal change of heart is evidence of something a little less dramatic.

The best way to deal with skeptics is to force there hand at backing their claims. That is, skeptics of reality and what really exist. UFOS, aliens building the pyramids, and Atlantis are theorized by skeptics of truth and knowledge.

Originally posted by Jonna
Why is the word skeptic being thrown around like it is a bad thing? I personally would rather be the extreme skeptic than the extreme believer.

Then I "believe" you have answered you own question. Please, no offence.

Sincerly

Cade

How do I deal with sceptics?

Well, I am aware of the fact that there is no way to convince a sceptic in any direction. It is his/her tough ideology that aliens don't exist (etc), and I believe that scepticism is programmed into the weak human mind at the time of Creation. Therefore, those ppl who are not sceptic, and open minded, are gifted with advanced mind capabilities, and they should be proud of that. Those who are not sceptic at all, are practically open to just about anything new, and their mind can comprehend solutions far beyond the imagination of a normal (programmed) human mind.

Aliens are definately interested in these people, they know that these humans evolve differently and they can possess great performance without any restriction in their mind.

Although i'm probably more open than most skeptics, i too consider myself somewhat of a skeptic when i first hear a new story about a UFO sighting, abduction case or testimony from a claimed former top secret government project employee. Only until i can rule out any evidence of a scam, or explainable points in the story do i start to think it could be something else. And still then i remain open to any possibility. I believe this is the best way of dealing with this sort of thing because our knowledge about science and the universe is very small and as history has shown we learn new things all the time (the world isnt flat, the sun doesnt revolve around the Earth, etcetera).

Originally posted by AlexofSkye Along with the UFO stories I've read in my life, I've also read about many nutcases, charlatans, con men and others of such ilk, not to mention people who just want to believe so badly that they just fall for it. I believe I'm well entitled to be skeptical and wait for proof.

Very true, and of course you have the right to be skeptical especially considering the topic at hand. But i dont think those nutcases you've read about should have a significant affect on what theories you come up with about these particular kinds of claims and cases. For example, if there was a news article reporting an insane man claiming to have witnessed a UFO...dont write him off as dillusional or seeking profit or attention just because he's a known wacko. Atleast look at the facts first, then make your assumption - all in all always keep in open mind until you can explain it. I dont think that just because the majority of reports of the UFO phenomena turn out to be bogus we should let that affect our judgement when trying to determine what's possible. But i admit that would probably require quite an open mind that not every one is capable of having so easily.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye Don't ask me to believe anything you put in front of me just because you earnestly believe it. Don't be insulted when I don't, and don't ask for my buy-in as if you had a right to it. Above all, give rational answers to honest questions.

I whole heartedly agree. But i still think given our limited knowledge of science and the universe everything should still be viewed at first with an open mind...but of course that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetBased on what assumptions I've made (using Drake's Equation) and then making what I consider as logical assumptions (We can't travel FTL, for example), my calculations show the numbers are stacked against even a single extraterrestrial visitor to the Earth during any arbitrary ten-thousand-year time period.

That's fair logic, given our limited knowledge, but you have to admit we cant rule out the possibility of these beings using other methods like gravity manipulation devices for example to bend space and time to traverse the vast distance of space instantly using worm holes. Sounds far fetched i know, but again we cant assume it's impossible. I would hazard to guess that it's fair to say if EBE's made it all the way to Earth they did it using some technology we have yet to even imagine.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetYou and I probably agree that it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that I can pick up an 18-wheeler, sling it over my back, and run away with it. You would probably make an assumption that, since you have never heard of anyone (much less a 60-year-old) do such a thing, and since it runs counter to everything you know about human physiology for someone to pick up twenty tons of metal, it isn't going to happen, and you would probably bet anyone and give them good odds, too, that I would fail in my attempt.

I think i see where you were going with this. I would indeed be willing to bet you couldnt do it, lol. But that's because i'm also willing to bet you're a human being, and my knowledge of humans tells me that they're not capable of doing something like that. But as for unexplained phenemena, we just dont have that fundemental knowledge about it yet so we cant make assumptions either way just because they sound too fantastic. All we can do is look at the facts, and determine from those facts what's ruled out as being possible, and what, judging by the facts and knowledge as a species we still have, what is still possible. The main reason we have ever progressed as intelligent beings is because we kept an open mind and continued investigating...and it's the only way we're going to continue progressing.

For those needing logic:
There are approximately a billion billion stars in an average galaxy alone (1,000,000,000,000,000,000).
Lets assume only a 10th of those have planets, and only a 10th of those have planets capable of sustaining life (within the habitable zone).Again lets assume only a 10th have gone on to develop intelligent life, that leaves a quadrillion (or 1,000,000,000,000,000) alien civilizations all in one galaxy alone. Our sun is middle aged, thus it stands to reason roughly half of those alien civilizations will be older and consequently more advanced than us, millions,billions of years more advanced.
Id assume even the most hardlined sceptic out there would hope that perhaps we could achieve intersellar travel in million years time, let alone a billion years. So you see id be actually surprised if we weren't being visited, rather than if it were not the case.

picard... says:

"For those needing logic: There are approximately a billion billion stars in an average galaxy alone (1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Lets assume only a 10th of those have planets, and only a 10th of those have planets capable of sustaining life (within the habitable zone).Again lets assume only a 10th have gone on to develop intelligent life, that leaves a quadrillion (or 1,000,000,000,000,000) alien civilizations all in one galaxy alone. Our sun is middle aged, thus it stands to reason roughly half of those alien civilizations will be older and consequently more advanced than us, millions,billions of years more advanced. Id assume even the most hardlined sceptic out there would hope that perhaps we could achieve intersellar travel in million years time, let alone a billion years. So you see id be actually surprised if we weren't being visited, rather than if it were not the case.

There are several errors in your post.

First, current estimates say there are about a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, not a billion billion. you are overestimating by a factor of ten million.

Second, you do not correctly take time (as opposed to space) into consideration. For example, you say, "perhaps we could achieve intersellar [sic] travel in million years time, let alone a billion years."

It's been four point five billion years, and we haven't achieved it yet. The fact of the matter is that we do not know what the "lifetime" of a species is. More importantly, we do not know what the time window is for a culture to maintain a space-faring capability. In other words, you have to ask several questions:

(1) How long does a planet exist before a species potentially capable of space-faring evolves? (In our case, it's been about 4.5 billion years.)

(2) how long will it take that species to actually achieve space flight? (Assuming that H. sapiens arose about 90,000 years ago, we can say 90k years.)

(3) How long will H. sapiens maintain its spacefaring capability? Ah, that's the tough question! As a species we don't manage to maintain any kind fo technological civilization for more than a thousand years max before we sink back into barbarism again.

It seems to me -- if you use our history as a baseline -- that, over a period of about four billion years, you will have, maybe, a thousand-year window of spacefaring capability. Then there might be a hundred thousand years as the survivors of a nuclear war pull themselves back together, explore space for a couple of hundred years, and fall back into pre-technological culture again.

So one of the the factors which you did not take into consideration is the vanishingly small chances that those miniscule windows of space-faring time would overlap, which would result in two intelligent species of different worlds meet. If you use a thousand/four billion fraction as the calculator for the first window and a thousand/hundred thousand fraction for subsequent windows, your, multiplier will be (1000/1,000,000,000) X (1/100) X (1/100)....

Three iterations, and your window multiplier is already 0.0000000001! (1.0 X 10^-9)

Multiply that by your first estimating error, and the multiplier you should add is now 1.0 X 10^-15!

That does make a difference!

I dont buy that "thousand year window" thing for the amount of time we have "of spacefaring capability". I know history can repeat itself, but since the future hasnt yet been written, saying that we will all fall back into barbarism is nothing more than speculation. Also, as a species we've never been this technologically advanced...as far as recorded history goes anyway. Funny, it seems the tables have turned and i'm being the skeptic here.

[edit on 15/12/04 by Meteor_of_War]