An OPEN CALL to ATS users: STOP...

reply to post by Bluebelle


Yep, Mars is chocolate.

The Moon is cheese.

Assorted lunar rocks, brought back by assorted Apollo missions:



We definitely need to keep an eye on these light beings, they seem like trouble. I remote viewed them, did I mention I'm an indigo child, and their houses are made out of human skulls. Call me paranoid but......

The Bible is light being propaganda. Don't fall into their trap!

Double Post.

Man, am I embarrassed

[edit on 05/08/2009 by LiveForever8]

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Yep, Mars is chocolate.

The Moon is cheese.

Assorted lunar rocks, brought back by assorted Apollo missions:



We definitely need to keep an eye on these light beings, they seem like trouble. I remote viewed them, did I mention I'm an indigo child, and their houses are made out of human skulls. Call me paranoid but......

The Bible is light being propaganda. Don't fall into their trap!

What a beautiful selection! Although I am getting bad vibes from the green one... I feel like its watching me.

Well Ive just discussed these matters with my cat (she's a reincarnated reptilian overlord) and she told me not to trust the light beings. I enquired as to why and she said that I was not enlightened enough to understand yet, but apparantly cadburys fruit & nut bars will be instrumental in the rebellion against them. So no ascension for me . I feel wounded, had my tin foil hat, ascension robes and tshirt saying 'Im special.. PAY ME ATTENTION' (to identify myself as a starseed/starchild) ready and waiting. That'll teach me for buying in advance!

hEY, THIS POST ISN'T THAT BAD AFTER ALL, it'S ALREADY ON PAGE SEVEN YOU SEE.

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by QtheQ

 

My claims are based on the belief that those making claims generally have the burden of proof. This is general consensus amongst judicial systems, scientists, teachers, philosophers, etc across the world.

Here your relying on the argument from authority, a very weak (at best) form of justification. Rather than depending on others to do your thinking, come up with your own arguments as to why a burden of proof exists for making claims that appear to you to be outlandish and far fetched. As it is, you seem to be just stating what you personally want and what your preferences are and that the rest of us on ATS should pander to your desire for proof on certain claims.

There is no problem on my end, the problem lies with yourself.

Your now making the critical thinking error called ad hominem where one attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

You’re a selective reader and have called to question only part of the post.

Ok. How about the part of the post I did address; Did I make a good argument or not?

The proof is their interpretation, their scriptures, their beliefs, their predisposition to believe certain things, their faith, etc.

I've never heard of proof defined this way. Actually I think you may be confusing the terms justification and proof. Usually proof is defined as a form of justification requiring either indisputable logical or empirical or prima facie evidence as support for a belief. When you make up your own definitions for words 'on the fly' it makes it difficult to rationally address your arguments and positions.

However, a person claiming they are an alien from the planet Zebes should have some form of proof.

Why should they be required to have proof (traditional definition) and not those holding traditional religious belief?

How many children die daily? Tens of thousands, yet people come here, make claims that they’re helping mankind, yet offer no plan as to how to help our children.

Just because someone is not doing something specifically to help children doesn't necessarily mean they are doing nothing to help mankind. Surely there are other ways to help mankind besides just helping children.

You just said you believe it is a bad thing, yet you aren’t providing any proof, so why are you attempting to hold me to that standard?

I was trying to hold you to your own standards. I was using one of the best and most effective forms of philosophical argumentation; using an opponents held beliefs against their own positions. In this case I was trying to argue that you are without reason being selective about the sorts of beliefs requiring proof (traditional definition) and those beliefs that you will be satisfied with less than proof as justification. In making a statement that people stating that they are from another planet should provide proof you are making a statement of morality insofar as you are saying they should do something. And any time you are making a statement of morality you will never have proof (traditional definition) to support your claim (and I think that's ok, but I'm not the one demanding that people have proof for their claims of outer space origin. I think that whether or not outlandish claims are made on this site is a matter of preference. Now I'm not saying that all truth is relative, indeed the epistemological justification for those making outlandish claims may be weak at best, but when people make claims that such posts ought not to be made because they cannot be proved then the critic is making a statement of morality which itself cannot be proved, thereby showing a perhaps selectively unfair criterion for making statements. Skeptics often do not hold themselves to their own standards.)

I agree with the OP. Mods should not allow such ridiculous post to reach the front page.

Why lie? There is enough truth out there to really mess with people, and if you know enough truth, you can kill the best b/s story teller in the bar lol.

Good post!

I agree to many posts taking up space that are just silly and immature.

But I guess to each his own.



Live long and prosper.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by WhiteDevil013
fyi: Meant to be helpful.

Each month managers in many places get a report showing each and every site you "hit" on and the exact time that hit was made.

Deleting cookies and browsing doesn't usually work, your company's system will over ride it and you will get "caught" using company time/property for personal reasons. Technically if your company has a policy against using your pc for nonwork related stuff you could get canned with no unemployment.

My boss won't even let me read ebooks at lunch on our pc. But she is a bit&% anyway

In short, my husband (a manager) had to fire someone over this same thing a couple months back.

At my work, we were told if our manager gets such a report of any of us being on a non work related site, we will be fired.

Be careful the network police are everywhere.

Live long & prosper



(Thank god it's Saturday)

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by QtheQ

Here your relying on the argument from authority, a very weak (at best) form of justification.

Wrong, and now I’ll prove once again you don’t know what you’re talking about and should cease posting in this thread. I’m not relying on the “argument from authority” (appeal to authority in some circles.) Nothing I’ve stated fits the criteria for such an argument, because I’m well within my right to cite others as an authority because they are qualified to make such demands and citing them are acceptable standards. Did I list them by full name? No, and saw no reason to give specific names even though it now appears some may want them. If that is the case, I cite myself, EMPIRE and rely on my expertise. I’m well within my right to do so as an appeal of authority is not applicable to me due to having sufficient expertise in a discipline that clearly demands strict guidelines when it comes to burden of proof.

Finally, “logic” and “argument” readily state those making the claim usually have the burden of proof, and such is the case here. However, here you are readily contradicting this, using terms out of context and bottle spinning by relying on an ad ignorantiam argument.

Rather than depending on others to do your thinking, come up with your own arguments as to why a burden of proof exists for making claims that appear to you to be outlandish and far fetched.

See above.

As it is, you seem to be just stating what you personally want and what your preferences are and that the rest of us on ATS should pander to your desire for proof on certain claims.

No, not at all, because it isn’t pandering. But if it has anything to do with preference, it is preference for truth and honest discussion, not one topic over the other (for example religion over ufo’s.) I’ve clearly stated why dishonest posting is highly dangerous and what can be done to stop it. Please refer to the OP and read it twice for clarity.

Your now making the critical thinking error called ad hominem where one attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Wrong. You’re once again using terms out of context, and I’ll explain again. I’m not using an ad hominem (specifically, tu quoque) because throughout the post I gave examples of how the problem isn’t with me, but with your inability to reason and think critically. Now if I left the post without shedding any insight as to why the problem isn’t me, but yourself, you’d have a point. Better luck next time, friend.

Ok. How about the part of the post I did address; Did I make a good argument or not?

No, because you misconstrued what was said and used word-jugglery to formulate a premise that clearly lacked substance and validity. To put it plainly, you butchered my post and tried to compare and contrast my premise and myself to something that clearly isn’t applicable.

I've never heard of proof defined this way.

So because you’ve never heard of proof being defined this way you somehow imply I’m wrong or that people don’t define it that way? Friend, all you have to do is use the search function. Search ATS and you’ll see what these people provide when asked for proof.

Actually I think you may be confusing the terms justification and proof.

You’re the one confusing terms, friend.

Usually proof is defined as a form of justification requiring either indisputable logical or empirical or prima facie evidence as support for a belief. When you make up your own definitions for words 'on the fly' it makes it difficult to rationally address your arguments and positions.

Irrationalism. This is what the “proof” is rooted in and what is usually provided. Again, use your search engine and you’ll see what I’m telling you is truth.

Why should they be required to have proof (traditional definition) and not those holding traditional religious belief?

This was clearly stated in the OP, implied in my previous post and I suggest you read both.

Just because someone is not doing something specifically to help children doesn't necessarily mean they are doing nothing to help mankind. Surely there are other ways to help mankind besides just helping children.

It was never stated that helping children was the only way to help mankind, and it was a rhetorical question. Surely there are other ways to help mankind, but as I’ve stated before, the claims made by the questionable parties claiming to help mankind are limited and have little or nothing to do with real world application.

I was trying to hold you to your own standards. I was using one of the best and most effective forms of philosophical argumentation; using an opponents held beliefs against their own positions. In this case I was trying to argue that you are without reason being selective about the sorts of beliefs requiring proof (traditional definition) and those beliefs that you will be satisfied with less than proof as justification.

Wrong, and I proved that in the OP and my last post. God might exist, The Devil might exist, Mr. Hoplikohinagigi might exist, etc. These are things we can’t verify and it simply may be because we lack the technology to verify the existence of such beings, that such beings do not want to reveal themselves, etc. However, a person claiming to be an alien sent to help can be tested. How can you test for God? You can’t. How can you test a person claiming to be an alien? You take their DNA.

In making a statement that people stating that they are from another planet should provide proof you are making a statement of morality insofar as you are saying they should do something.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim so they should do something to prove their claim. This is logic and debate 101 here, and I shouldn’t have to repeat a basic truth. In no way am I saying they should do something to help. What I am saying is what they themselves constitute as help is not help. They should do something to prove their claim, and shame on you for implying that proving their claim and helping are synonymous. Again, I’m not making the claim that I’m an alien sent to help, therefore, providing proof as it relates to children needlessly dying is not required of me because it is simply an example, and I’m not the one making the claim. You can toss anything in there, disease, poverty, war, crime, racism, etc and the results will still be the same – nothing tangible to solve the problem they claim they’re sent here to fix.

And any time you are making a statement of morality you will never have proof (traditional definition) to support your claim (and I think that's ok, but I'm not the one demanding that people have proof for their claims of outer space origin.

See above.

I think that whether or not outlandish claims are made on this site is a matter of preference. Now I'm not saying that all truth is relative, indeed the epistemological justification for those making outlandish claims may be weak at best, but when people make claims that such posts ought not to be made because they cannot be proved then the critic is making a statement of morality which itself cannot be proved, thereby showing a perhaps selectively unfair criterion for making statements. Skeptics often do not hold themselves to their own standards.)

Please refer to the last two paragraphs of the OP.It is not simply a matter of posting without evidence, but posting without evidence and the motivations of those who post without evidence. In closing I’ve once again shown you lack the ability to critically read.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by EMPIRE]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by EMPIRE]

reply to post by EMPIRE

Finally, “logic” and “argument” readily state those making the claim usually have the burden of proof, and such is the case here. However, here you are readily contradicting this, using terms out of context and bottle spinning by relying on an ad ignorantiam argument.

No EMPIER, this is exactly what you are doing.

You are making the claim by asking ATS posters who say things like "God helps those who help themselves" to stop lying. By doing this you have created your own entity, in your mind, based on the faith that ATS posters who make such claims are lying.

I ask that you do as you have said and try to use your construct, your created dogma, which you perversely call "logic", to show the burden of proof for your “argument” before you call people like me liars.

In a sense you have created a GOD, in your mind, and you are asking this new God, me, to stop lying to you based on your faith that I and those like me are lying.

All I can tell you is "God helps those who help themselves". If some day you find the true meaning of logic instead of relying on a corrupted, dogmatic version that suits your argument you will be all the proof I need for mine.

But until that day comes I guess you will still be burdened with providing proof for your claim that I am a liar. Good luck with that, your going to need it.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Izarith]

reply to post by Bluebelle




Getting bad vibes from the green one? Hmmm, funny you should say that because my sources reliably inform me that that particular moon rock is Kryptonite!

It came to the moon inside a single meteorite from the exploded planet Krypton. Maybe you were a Kryptonian in a past life/vibration?

Well, if your cat (a reptilian overlord) says not to trust them, thats good enough for me.

Cadburys fruit and nut? Well, remember the adverts..."everyone's a fruit and nutcase"...a warning perhaps?

If you like I could pull a few strings and get you in the Indigo club. The rates are very competative and merchandise is much, much cheaper. You get this shirt just for signing up:



You need to be able to bend spoons with your mind though, get practicing.

wait... people come on here and say they are aliens

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by EMPIRE

 

This is ATS, part of what makes it so much fun is the wild claims. People claiming to be government agents, aliens, reptilians, people posting the same three pictures of Mars claiming they show proof of alien habitation. It's all part of the experience really.

I disagree. This site used to be one where serious conversations could take place. It's now an "entertainment" site where you can't take anything seriously because there are too many nutters and liars.

I have to say that this drift from serious conversation to entertainment occurred when it became commercial.

I have noticed quite a few folks who have started to get tired of this though.

To the owners of ATS: given the amount of discontent from those of us with brains it is only a matter of time before a new ATS emerges and you will become a joke site and thus commercially unviable.......the ball is in your court.

reply to post by EMPIRE


Wow! It's the lies and wild claims that fuel this type of site! Some lie about lies, others tell the truth as though it were a lie, and then lie about never never being honest in the first place. Disinformation's best friend is truth, and vice versa.

reply to post by Izarith


Read the OP again as you don't understand the premise.

Originally posted by EMPIRE
However, if you’re making the claim that you’re a star child, that you’re a time traveler, that you’re part of the Illuminati, that you’re psychic, or that you’re the offspring of an alien, you should be able to produce some tangible proof to support your claims. This proof should not be rooted in belief, faith or interpretation, but should be something tangible that can be tested and verified. Why? Because you’re claiming you are these things or that you have experience with these things.

Nice rant.

But ATS has a place for people making claims with no proof to post, called skunkworks:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum."

If someone is making ridiculous claims with no proof just hit alert and notify the mods and if they agree they will move the thread to skunkworks, they've done it before when I've alerted them.

I think that's a clever way that ATS handles this situation to just create a separate forum so rather than complain about ATS, I compliment ATS on a creative solution to the problem in the form of skunkworks, and I compliment the mods for moving the threads that should be moved to skunkworks!

Good job ATS!

To the OP I have two question: what are you afraid of? Do you need someone to think for you? I'm not trying to be a prick. The same questions could posed to the anti-christians.
I approach ATS as creative writing or fiction.its gives me something to consider in a way I may not have had I not read it.

You've got to assume its all BS and not quit your day job over it.

Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to put a subject to public scrutiny specifically for the reason of debunking, but I have noticed people fabricating stories a lot on this board. There are true internet sensations such as John Titor and McKinnon. However there are alot of threads like the one guy who called his knife the "good news" and supposedly assaulted an extra-terrestrial with it. While these stories are entertaining, they should be written as fiction.

But not all of these are fiction. There ARE some beings who happen to be extra-terrestrial and know it. Why would they post here? Because people who aren't ready to know will write it off as nuts and those who are will 'get it'. Are all those posts true? Absolutely not. But some of them are. And the same goes for the other topics the OP is addressing.

The OP is posting from his/her own perception of truth. Everything in this life is based on our own perceptions of truth. What is a lie for one person may be a truth to the other.

My suggestion: if you don't like a topic, don't read about it. If it's beneath you, over your head, not your cup of tea, or whatever, just ignore it. That's why we have different forums within the website.

Your post really just serves to appease your OWN beliefs and opinions while stifling those of the others on this site. You admit you took a FOUR YEAR sabbatical from ATS. Maybe if you had not abandoned this site you'd have something to complain about. But you abandoned it and now us 'weirdos' have taken over. Get over it and get over yourself.