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

Originally posted by thrashee
Denied. I'm not getting sucked in.

Answer the questions.

Perhaps you should repost your questions. And every time he refuses to answer, post them again. That way, there he cannot claim he has not seen them and everyone can see he is dodging them.

Good idea, Savior. They were buried 5 pages ago

Montana: do you believe that skeptics are inherently biased against the possibility that UFOs are real?

Is there a reason why what we've said when trying to address this has been summarily ignored and rejected by you?

What would it take for you to trust that not all skeptics have a pre-existing belief and truly do simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it possible?


I'm thinking at this point the OP has abandoned his thread. *shrug*

reply to post by thrashee


Please stop posting the exact same questions over and over and over again. You have already successfully derailed yet another thread. Do you not have satisfaction yet?

reply to post by thrashee


I definitely think a lot of skeptics inherently avoid the belief that aliens have come in contact in some way with earth or mankind. They simply do not want it to be true. I don’t know why, maybe it is more of a subconscious problem but it is much easier for them to believe other improbable circumstances over aliens. The reason I think this is because I am an extremely skeptical person, my cousin believed in aliens and stuff like that for years and I always though he was just kind of gullible. However, after looking into it myself for a while with an open mind I found it very difficult to deny it.

The “reasonable doubt” idea has come up many times, and that is the main point of this whole debate. For me, the doubt that aliens have in some way come in contact with humans and earth is not reasonable. I find all the other possibilities for the circumstances and evidence to be less reasonable than aliens visiting earth.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
Please stop posting the exact same questions over and over and over again. You have already successfully derailed yet another thread. Do you not have satisfaction yet?

Please, tell us how the thread was derailed. We have questions that have not been answered and wish to have an answer for them, or at least a reason why they are not being answered. These questions are on topic. They have not been repeated, as you claim, "over and over and over" again. If that were the case, I would not have had to ask Thrashee to repost them.

If you are worried about people repeating the exact same things "over and over and over" again, perhaps you should admonish Polomonta for doing the same thing. He posted the same arguments, with the exact same wording, in your words, "over and over and over again."

But that is not the point, is it? In the face of having no definitive proof to prove your claims, you think silencing skeptics is the next same thing. You are insecure in your beliefs, insecure about the strength of your evidence, so you wish to silence anyone who may challenge you.

(Anyone else think Polomontana and Truthtellist are the same person? Could it just be a coincidence that both of them think asking questions and asking to discuss evidence is somehow an attempt to derail a thread?)

[edit on 4-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

Please stop posting the exact same questions over and over and over again. You have already successfully derailed yet another thread. Do you not have satisfaction yet?

The only reason I'm still asking them is because the OP has refused to address them, and instead has chosen to meander off into ancillary arguments. I've been trying to get Montana to focus on his own OP for 5 pages now. Is this what you mean by "derailing"?

Are you just going to follow me around now like a dog nipping at my heels, making your vapid accusations of derailing threads? This isn't going to become a Fatal Attraction kind of thing, is it?

EDIT:

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
(Anyone else think Polomontana and Truthtellist are the same person? Could it just be a coincidence that both of them think asking questions and asking to discuss evidence is somehow an attempt to derail a thread?)

You know, I haven't thought of that, but come to think of it....you may be onto something there. They do seem to have the same style.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by Jezus
I find all the other possibilities for the circumstances and evidence to be less reasonable than aliens visiting earth.

Just dropping in to beat my drum a little more.

Human time travelers or their probes is a better "explanation" than aliens, if for no other reason than we know for sure we exist, while there has never (so far, anyway) been any recognized proof of ET life found, intelligent or otherwise. The time traveler idea gives us one less unknown thing in the equation.

Of course, both time travelers and aliens are both beaten in the argument by "we don't know," since they both require some kind of positive proof, not circumstantial evidence.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
Please stop posting the exact same questions over and over and over again. You have already successfully derailed yet another thread. Do you not have satisfaction yet?

If you do not want him asking the questions "over and over and over again," and since Polomontana seems to have abandoned the thread, perhaps you can answer these questions, TruthTellist.

Originally posted by JezusI definitely think a lot of skeptics inherently avoid the belief that aliens have come in contact in some way with earth or mankind.

I try to put any belief aside when I analyse an unknown thing like a UFO, if I do not have any knowledge about it then I think a belief will not help me to get knowledge about it, knowledge does not come from believing.

They simply do not want it to be true.

If they do not want it to be true and let it affect their reasoning then they are not sceptics, they are just against that idea, a sceptic doubts, does not deny.

The reason I think this is because I am an extremely skeptical person, my cousin believed in aliens and stuff like that for years and I always though he was just kind of gullible. However, after looking into it myself for a while with an open mind I found it very difficult to deny it.

If you did not looked into it with an open mind then you were not acting as a sceptic. And are you sure that you kept an open mind and not a mind more open to some things?

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by NoRunRichard

 

PS Since you say a person should be able to tell that a ship is "out of this world", please educate me. How do I tell the difference between time traveler's ships, ocean dweller's ships, the ships of beings from other dimensions, and alien ships? TIA!

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Heike]

Uh, no, I didn't say the person should be able to tell a ship is out of this world. I said that the person should be able to tell that the alien entity is out of this world, not the ship.

I don't believe in time travelers' ships and ships from other dimensions but I do believe in the ocean dwellers' ships and alien ships. My belief in alien spaceships was initiated (for one) by the incident at Roswell, New Mexico, which is very popular and just cries out to us to investigate and believe in it. It is also my belief that alien spaceships on land could also travel underwater and it is there that I think they are hiding when they're not on land. The ocean dwellers' ships was featured in a documentary on TV and in it they had witnesses testifying and helping figure out what the mission of these aliens are. I don't believe in time traveling and the universe containing many dimensions, to me the Universe is just one whole thing wherein you are free to travel anywhere in it. For me time traveling and multidimensionism are just hypothetical conditions and do not exist in reality.

The questions ufo believers can't answer. What comes first the chicken or the egg. And do you see more aliens when not taking your meds or less. When you get a tiny rock stuck in your foot, do you get it analyzed and then keep it a jar, proudly displaying it as an alien implant.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by riggs2099]

I remember reading somewhere that UFO's were really Spy Planes used by Germans or Russians or something, that doesn't mean it's certain they "were" used by them, but I do believe they could've been used as Spy Planes and that will support the people who have seen UFO(s), just NOT aliens and such.

it's possible that there is other life forms in existance, but who is to say they should look like a human, like all supposed photo "proof" people have shown.

Skeptics don't want to believe? I find that claim quite absurd since I and believe me - a lot of other skeptics - would really, really want to discuss about such matters with proven basis. There is not much point in creating endless conversations when we have next to nothing to deduce from. We have no idea what kind of life alien life is, we do not know if mechanism of evolution is the same. We have no idea of their physical capabilities, we don't know if physics is inherited in their brain structure or whether they are just extremely intelligent instead. Or both. We have only speculation that is based on facts that are deduced from our own observations only. We have no observations, which is the problem.

I want our universe to be teaming with life, with fantastic possibilities and an endless amount of interesting things to talk about (endless by sheer size alone). Its just that I don't believe everything to be what I see with my eyes, I use other mechanisms to determine as well. Evolution gave me such mechanisms in the first place. All humans have those, some just don't want to use them.

Another thing is that there are a million interesting things on earth that I know nothing about. Enough for a thousand lifetimes. If that is not enough, I can get satisfaction from social life. Perhaps it is the need to have something extraordinary fulfilled that drives those who always want most fantastic explanations to be true. I do, but I don't believe in everything I want.

Originally posted by rawsom
Skeptics don't want to believe? I find that claim quite absurd since I and believe me - a lot of other skeptics - would really, really want to discuss about such matters with proven basis. There is not much point in creating endless conversations when we have next to nothing to deduce from. We have no idea what kind of life alien life is, we do not know if mechanism of evolution is the same. We have no idea of their physical capabilities, we don't know if physics is inherited in their brain structure or whether they are just extremely intelligent instead. Or both. We have only speculation that is based on facts that are deduced from our own observations only. We have no observations, which is the problem.

I want our universe to be teaming with life, with fantastic possibilities and an endless amount of interesting things to talk about (endless by sheer size alone). Its just that I don't believe everything to be what I see with my eyes, I use other mechanisms to determine as well. Evolution gave me such mechanisms in the first place. All humans have those, some just don't want to use them.

Another thing is that there are a million interesting things on earth that I know nothing about. Enough for a thousand lifetimes. If that is not enough, I can get satisfaction from social life. Perhaps it is the need to have something extraordinary fulfilled that drives those who always want most fantastic explanations to be true. I do, but I don't believe in everything I want.

I was just passing through and I saw this post.

This post has to be called the PSEUDOSKEPTIC manifesto. It has pseudoskepticism written all over it.

First he said, we have next to nothing to deduce from. You can't be serious. This is definately a pseudoskeptic claim.

They can't admit that a reasonable person can look at sightings, mass sightings, trace evidence, abduction experiences, cave paintings, pictures, ancient manuscripts and video and come to the conclusion that these things exist.

This is why he said this is that he can get satisfaction from a social life. So everyone that accepts these things doesn't have a social life?

Pseudoskeptics have to talk in ABSOLUTES. If you notice on this thread you get alot of ABSOLUTE language.

UNDENIABLE PROOF
FULLY INVESTIGATED

Another thing is they have to use terms like fantasy and they have to think people are looking for extraordinary claims to fill a void in their life because to the pseudoskeptic no reasonable person can accept these things.

Do you know serious people have been studying these things for years? Do you know people can accept these things and still have a social life? Do you know people can accept these things and they are not willing to accept any fantastic claim? Do you know people can accept these things and they are not trying to fill a void in their lives?

This is the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic.

I have debated many skeptics who don't have to use these ABSOLUTE terms in order to debate. I have debated skeptics on these issues and they never used the terms fantasy, make believe or a fairytale.

Serious people are making these claims.

This is why Harvard Professor John Mack began investigating these things. He found that these were people who had lives, jobs and enjoyed their family. They then had this experience that changed their lives. He couldn't just say it's fantasy, because the people that he was talking to was just like him. They were normal people who had an experience and like a good reasearcher he wanted to look for answers, not just belittle the subject and walk away.

This is what led Dr. Hynek to change his positions. He wasn't interviewing people who needed to fill a void. He wasn't interviewing people who followed every fantastic claim. He was talking to pilots, police officers, people in the military and you normal farmer and fisherman.

He got tired of trying to come up with excuses for all these things. These people had normal everyday lives and they had an experience that needed to be explored not knocked down blindly because you start off with a pre-existing belief.

I'm reading this interesting book called, Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche and I'm on a page that was actually talking about these things.

It talked about how the psyche needed a polar opposite to religious fanaticism. Now you have material fanaticism. These people can't see passed the material because they thnk that if they do they are giving an inch to religious or metaphysical claims. Everything has to be explained within the confines of their material reality.

So these experiences have to be fantasy or make believe. This is to satisfy the ego. Tne ego wants to be puffed up, so it uses terms like fantasy and make believe when they can't debate the issues.

I can see how a reasonable person can be a skeptic., the pseudoskeptic can't see how a reasonable person can accept these things.

reply to post by polomontana


What do you mean you were passing through, if you have abandoned this thread then why don't you just close it out, especially since you obviously don't want to answer the questions others have asked you repaetedly.

Originally posted by polomontana

I was just passing through and I saw this post.

This post has to be called the PSEUDOSKEPTIC manifesto. It has pseudoskepticism written all over it.

I noticed you ignored all the calls to discuss evidence, and once again, attacked someone you don't agree with as a "pseudoskeptic."

To you, there is no such thing as a "skeptic." In your experience, despite your claims to the contrary, you have never met a skeptic. In your world, a skeptic only exists as a term you can use to attack people you do not agree with. When you are challenged, instead of debating the merits of the argument, instead of debating the weight of the evidence, you instead attack them as a "pseudoskeptic" and accuse them of not being a "true skeptic." It is a shield you have constructed so you won't have your beliefs challenged, so you can dodge strong questions and evidence, so you will not have to think.

Originally posted by polomontana
First he said, we have next to nothing to deduce from. You can't be serious. This is definately a pseudoskeptic claim.

They can't admit that a reasonable person...

That is not what he said. A "reasonable person" could not read what he wrote and think that he said that.

Originally posted by polomontana
Pseudoskeptics have to talk in ABSOLUTES.

You do realize the irony here, right?

Originally posted by polomontana
Everything has to be explained within the confines of their material reality.

Yes, because we need a standard of evidence. Without a "material reality" there is nothing we can measure, observe, or verify. Pseudoscientists such as yourself do not want there to be a standard of evidence, you throw out nonsense attacking "material reality" because you do not want to have to back up your claims. They are nonsense arguments meant to distract from the evidence, and meant to convince yourself you are not insecure about your beliefs or evidence. This is the exact reason you ignored Thrashee's questions, this is why you ignored my questions, and instead attacked Rawsome with non-sensical arguments.

Browbeating skeptics, attempting to silence them, is not the same as proving the existence of extraterrestrials on Earth.

You are so insecure in your beliefs you have lost all ability, if you ever had any, to debate the evidence. That is why you throw out nonsense terms and arguments such as "pseudoskeptic" and "material reality," and think the standards of evidence ACCEPTED BY EVERY SINGLE RESPECTABLE SCIENTIST ACROSS THE WORLD are somehow "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoskeptical."

You, Polomontana, give UFO research a bad name.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by polomontana

I'm probably going to get told off for a one line post... but


Bravo polomontana .... BRAVO!!

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Complex,

The reason I have not replied to you or thrashee is because you keep repeating the same thing and asking questions that have been asked and answered.

Example:

You said,

"You are so insecure in your beliefs you have lost all ability, if you ever had any, to debate the evidence. That is why you throw out nonsense terms and arguments such as "pseudoskeptic" and "material reality," and think the standards of evidence ACCEPTED BY EVERY SINGLE RESPECTABLE SCIENTIST ACROSS THE WORLD are somehow "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoskeptical."


Now how many times have I said I'm not making a scientific argument? How many times have I mentioned that I was making a scientific argument? Zero.

You want to debate an issue that I never brought up, just like thrashee wants to debate about belief and opinion.

There's other ways that we come to know the truth outside of the scientific method. We come to know the truth through reason and investigation. We do it every in courts, police investigation and investigative journalism.

This is a pseudoskeptic tactic. You try and debate about everything except what was said.

I want people to go back and count how many times I said that I wasn't making a scientific argument, yet Complex is saying the same thing again.

I'm not going to debate my argument on your terms. I never mentioned that I was making a scientific argument.

If you try again without making claims that I never mentioned then do so.

If you would say, I can't accept these things because of science, that's reasonable. The pseudoskeptic goes a step further and they say my argument is unreasonable because it's not a scientific one.

There's things that we know without science. We use reason and investigation because science often lags behind technology to test these things.

Again Complex, for the umpteenth time, I'm not making a scientific argument.

reply to post by polomontana


Too bad you didn't actually address ONE of my questions, which had NOTHING to do with debating evidence on scientific terms.

Do you need me to repeat the questions again? They were quite direct, quite fair, and completely related to the OP.

I'm wondering how you'll manage to dodge them this time.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

There's other ways that we come to know the truth outside of the scientific method. We come to know the truth through reason and investigation. We do it every in courts, police investigation and investigative journalism.

In courts, cases must be proven beyond a shodow of a doubt, as well as in police investigations, in journalism, they only need enough proof to get a good story out of it to sell their publication.

Now if you are going on the first two metods of proving something, then it must beyond a shadow of a doubt and nothing I have seen yet, be it supernatural or alien visitation has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you are going on proof the same way jounalism works, than you could prove the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and Tooth Fairy are real.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by AlienCarnage]