The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

reply to post by thrashee


"Whatever, man."

That pretty much sums up your half of the debate.

"Whatever, man."

Originally posted by polomontana
There's more ways to come to know the truth skeptics.

You can come to know the truth through reason.

Do people come to know the truth about things in there everyday lives through the scientific method or reason?

This is absolutely PRICELESS.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

"Whatever, man."

That pretty much sums up your half of the debate.

"Whatever, man."

You know what? You're just as much of a sack of rocks as Montana is.

You two imbeciles should be thanking me for the harsh education you've just received in logic--if you were smart enough to accept it. But you aren't.

So please. Do continue. Continue pasting ridiculous channel 4 specials about UFO sightings and then trying to use this as evidence--beyond a reasonable doubt, no less--that aliens exist.

Absolutely priceless.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

"Whatever, man."

That pretty much sums up your half of the debate.

"Whatever, man."

Exactly.

I can see thrashee now.

What job should I take?

Let me go to the lab and use the scientific method to figure it out.

I can see police coming on the scene of an accident and they don't look at the eywitness testimony and come to a conclusion as to what happened.

They run to the lab and use the scienctific method.

I think you throw around the term scientific method to try and add weight to your website arguments.

Originally posted by polomontana
I can see thrashee now.

What job should I take?

Let me go to the lab and use the scientific method to figure it out.

It's called simple logic and reasoning. Just because you continue to ignore it and pretend that it only exists on the website which you asked for doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Please, keep mentioning Plato. Keep mentioning reason. It only makes the hypocrisy that much sweeter.

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

"Whatever, man."

That pretty much sums up your half of the debate.

"Whatever, man."

You know what? You're just as much of a sack of rocks as Montana is.

You two imbeciles should be thanking me for the harsh education you've just received in logic--if you were smart enough to accept it. But you aren't.

So please. Do continue. Continue pasting ridiculous channel 4 specials about UFO sightings and then trying to use this as evidence--beyond a reasonable doubt, no less--that aliens exist.

Absolutely priceless.

Here comes the attacks,

Were imbeciles because he can't debate what I actually said.

Another common tactic used by skeptics.

Your dumb
It's all fantasy

Please refrain from the personal attacks. If you can't debate then move on to the next thread.

Originally posted by polomontana
Were imbeciles because he can't debate what I actually said.

Another common tactic used by skeptics.

Your dumb
It's all fantasy

Please refrain from the personal attacks. If you can't debate then move on to the next thread.

Ok, kid. Fair enough. No more personal attacks.

Let's debate. First, make sure you understand what a debate is. We're establishing the ground rules first.

Fair enough?

You skeptics keep saying. That isn't scientific evidence.

So your EVIDENCE is simply STATING that this is not scientific evidence?

So nothing can be possibly true unless it is officially considered scientific evidence?

That is completely absurd and idiotic. He is asking for some sort of response.

Why would they all lie? How could children all collaborate the story so well? What else could they have seen? Did someone build a fake UFO? Did someone give them drugs? Did someone hypnotize them? What else could look like the pictures they made? How do you explain the similarity of them?

If you don’t want to debate, fine, don’t. But don’t think that simply stating, “That isn’t good enough” is any kind of intellectual commentary.

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana
Were imbeciles because he can't debate what I actually said.

Another common tactic used by skeptics.

Your dumb
It's all fantasy

Please refrain from the personal attacks. If you can't debate then move on to the next thread.

Ok, kid. Fair enough. No more personal attacks.

Let's debate. First, make sure you understand what a debate is. We're establishing the ground rules first.

Fair enough?

I already established the ground rules.

I laid out my claim and you and others want to debate points that I never made.

If I just keep hearing opinion dressed up in words like scientific method, when you have yet to mention any science, then I will let the skeptics go back to giving their opinions and patting each other on the back because they are debating things that I never said in the first place.

Matter of fact, it's just going in circles at this point and you have done everything that I said you and others would do.

Try and debate things that I never said.

So I will be back later and hopefully we can have a debate where actual science is debated as well as things that I said in my posts.

last friday night my cousins and i watched the dorothy izatt documentary (www.capturingthelightdvd.com) and we sort began with a debate. to make a long story short i want to bring some accountability to the thread..even though we dont personally know eachother doesnt give us the right to try and go over the top each and every post. we really should actually work TOGETHER and come to mutual conclusions if we plan on really debating and probing these situations. i know what your thinking seems impossible right?

the earnesty on the part of "some"believers is to convince a skeptic to believe, this is admirable but its also a dead end approach. as a former skeptic i decided to read articles and listen to testimony in the silence of my day and i finally realized that puzzle pieces started to fit together and that certain ah ha moment just happen to come my way. i struggled with the fact that i didnt have solid evidence to actually believe but at the same time, i realized that the DEMAND for proof was just a request by some other man, and so i "lowered" proof expectation.

the existence of ETs is a very real possibility weather you think they're just out side your bedroom window or half way across the known universe.

A skeptic and a believer are granted the same potential to live a full and harmonious life dispite what goes on our skies above. being the first to PROVE or DISPROVE the existence is not a note worthy goal. the journey as i mentioned above is far more honorable..

didnt mean to sound so buddhist guru like, but i hope this post finds you well.

Originally posted by Jezus
You skeptics keep saying. That isn't scientific evidence.

So your EVIDENCE is simply STATING that this is not scientific evidence?

So nothing can be possibly true unless it is officially considered scientific evidence?

That is completely absurd and idiotic. He is asking for some sort of response.

Why would they all lie? How could children all collaborate the story so well? What else could they have seen? Did someone build a fake UFO? Did someone give them drugs? Did someone hypnotize them? What else could look like the pictures they made? How do you explain the similarity of them?

If you don’t want to debate, fine, don’t. But don’t think that simply stating, “That isn’t good enough” is any kind of intellectual commentary.

Excellent posts.

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I made the claim that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.[...]I never said in any posts I'm out to prove to them that my claim is the correct one.

Look closely at these two sentences....given that you claim the evidence establishes their existence beyond a reasonable doubt; and that logically, it is then impossible for the evidence to establish any other conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.....you are in fact stating your claim is the correct one.

You are so confused.

Originally posted by Jezus
You skeptics keep saying. That isn't scientific evidence.

So your EVIDENCE is simply STATING that this is not scientific evidence?

So nothing can be possibly true unless it is officially considered scientific evidence?

If you don’t want to debate, fine, don’t. But don’t think that simply stating, “That isn’t good enough” is any kind of intellectual commentary.

Do you REALLY want to open yourself up as well? Have you NOT been paying attention?

I had no evidence. It's something I've had to state for the last 20 pages. The skeptic--the one who is not trying to prove anything--doesn't have to have evidence for anything. They only have to refute the evidence presented by the one who is making the claim.

I know, I know. You're going to froth. You're going to spin. You're going to scratch your little head and wonder why.

It's just the way reason works. Go figure it out. Go read a book. Go take a class. Do SOMETHING to prove that you're capable of grasping this most simple of facts.

We're skeptics because we lack the belief that you have. And when you come to us and claim that you have evidence--beyond a reasonable doubt--that your belief is true, can you just imagine what we're going to ask you next?

Just try. Put that little thinking cap on and risk burning out a few brain cells trying to fathom what it is.

Can you guess yet? That's right--we're going to ask for proof. And guess what? When you can't provide that proof, guess what just happened. Can you do it? Burn a few more brain cells.

That's right...we're going to state that you didn't successfully back up your claim.

Now here comes the really really hard part that's really really hard to understand. Once we demonstrate that your evidence does not support your claim, our job is over. We have nothing further to do. We have nothing to prove to you. We have no answer that we must provide instead.

Now--this next part is going to be the really really really difficult part for you to grasp, but we believe in you, sport, we think you can do it--do you know why we don't have to provide any proof to you? Do you know why we aren't required to offer any "counter" evidence?

Go on....burn those remaining cells right on up till that itty bitty light bulb flickers on.

Because we weren't the ones making a claim in the first place.

Can you dig it? We weren't trying to explain something. We weren't making a claim. We have nothing to prove.

You did. So the proof is on you.

Woah!!! I know, I know! It's like asking you to do 4th level calculus with a horrible hang over! It's like it goes against every grain of insight and "knowledge" you've ever had!

But...can you just imagine that?

Phew--that sure was tough, but look, we got through it ok!

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I made the claim that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.[...]I never said in any posts I'm out to prove to them that my claim is the correct one.

Look closely at these two sentences....given that you claim the evidence establishes their existence beyond a reasonable doubt; and that logically, it is then impossible for the evidence to establish any other conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.....you are in fact stating your claim is the correct one.

You are so confused.

Do you know that reasonable doubt doesn't mean a shadow of a doubt?

Do you know that cases have been overturned where the criminal was convicted based on reasonable doubt and new evidence was introduced?

That's all I'm asking for, give me some counter evidence if you have it.

reply to post by thrashee


Here's what thrashee just said again.

A claim that I never made.

"Can you dig it? We weren't trying to explain something. We weren't making a claim. We have nothing to prove.

You did. So the proof is on you."

I never said I was out to prove anything to you or anybody.

I'm leaving, thrashee and others just want to make up their own arguments and then debate them.

Be Back Later.

Originally posted by polomontana
I already established the ground rules.

I think you misunderstood me. We both have to establish the ground rules. That's how this is going to work if we're going to debate. We're going to agree UP FRONT on definitions, and on what claims we're both making.

We are going to decide that when we say one thing, that's exactly what we mean, so that further on down the line there will be no backing out or trying to switch definitions.

We're going to establish what it means to make a claim, what needs to happen after making a claim, and how it's determined whether a claim is true or false as presented by evidence.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by thrashee

 

Here's what thrashee just said again.

A claim that I never made.

"Can you dig it? We weren't trying to explain something. We weren't making a claim. We have nothing to prove.

You did. So the proof is on you."

I never said I was out to prove anything to you or anybody.

I'm leaving, thrashee and others just want to make up their own arguments and then debate them.

Be Back Later.

You didn't have to, Montana. You made a claim, therefore, the burden of proof was on you. If you didn't feel like providing that burden of proof, then why on earth have you been debating your evidence for the past 20 pages??

Either decide you want to debate or don't. Make up your mind, grow a pair, and commit.

Originally posted by Jezus
Why would they all lie? How could children all collaborate the story so well? What else could they have seen?

Been known to happen....

Critics have alleged that the questioners asked the children leading questions, repetitively, which, it is said,always yields positive responses from young children, making it impossible to know what the child actually experienced. Others believe that the questioning itself may have led to false-memory syndrome among the children who were questioned.[...]In 2005, newspapers reported that Kyle Zirpolo, one of the McMartin's children retracted his story and said he lied.
"Never did anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything. I said a lot of things that didn't happen. I lied. ... Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. ... I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do." Source

A perfect example of why "evidence" must be examined from every perspective.

see i warned you beliveing stories to be fact is a big mistake.

thr problem sceptics have is these stories are not testable.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by yeti101]