Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Marduk said:
do you not remember me asking you before then for any text that states that the gods were from "the sky" and you couldnt and then I pointed out that in the ancient world all the gods lived on a mountain heaven and that is why people used to say they came down to earth, not because they were from outer space, have you forgotten all the evidence I posted that supports that, none of which you could refute
youre still in denial
shame, because it means you still havent learned anything
which means of course that every new thread you post is just another demonstration of trolling

why am I not surprised
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I thought we concluded that we put 'gods in unreachable places'...?

They aren't here, with us, so they must be somewhere that we aren't...?

Be that high mountain tops, the sky, or possibly under the oceans.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
NOWHERE have I said anything about the world "ending"...

My point is the people HAVE noticed 'something', up there, for as long as we've been able to write on walls, we've said it.

Why would their technology be static? Why is it unreasonable to consider they'd have different vehicles for different purposes?
Click to expand...
[bolding added]

They? That's a pretty big leap from people noticing something, up there, to your rather outlandish assumption that there must be some sort of "they" involved.

King of the Americas said:
I thought we concluded that we put 'gods in unreachable places'...?

They aren't here, with us, so they must be somewhere that we aren't...?

Be that high mountain tops, the sky, or possibly under the oceans.
Click to expand...
[bolding added again]

No. "They" aren't here, with us, that much is true. But again you're making an unreasonable leap to the false premise that "they" must be somewhere. Given the total lack of objective evidence for the existence of "them" in the first place, the rational conclusion from a skeptical point of view, tentatively of course, is that "they" don't exist. No assignment of location is necessary.
 
GeeMack said:
No. "They" aren't here, with us, that much is true. But again you're making an unreasonable leap to the false premise that "they" must be somewhere. Given the total lack of objective evidence for the existence of "them" in the first place, the rational conclusion from a skeptical point of view, tentatively of course, is that "they" don't exist. No assignment of location is necessary.
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious to me that they are actually invisible, undetectable and highly intelligent. Now if I could only find one and see it so I could ask it if I was right to assume it's intelligence! ;)
 
GeeMack said:
[bolding added]

They? That's a pretty big leap from people noticing something, up there, to your rather outlandish assumption that there must be some sort of "they" involved.

[bolding added again]

No. "They" aren't here, with us, that much is true. But again you're making an unreasonable leap to the false premise that "they" must be somewhere. Given the total lack of objective evidence for the existence of "them" in the first place, the rational conclusion from a skeptical point of view, tentatively of course, is that "they" don't exist. No assignment of location is necessary.
Click to expand...

Your skepticism allows to to dismiss some evidence as non-credible. 'I' don't have that luxury.

I find that 'they' DO exist.
 
Stray Cat said:
It's quite obvious to me that they are actually invisible, undetectable and highly intelligent. Now if I could only find one and see it so I could ask it if I was right to assume it's intelligence! ;)
Click to expand...

I've 'seen' them, or at least what I have found to be evidence of them.

Of course if you are a real skeptic, 'you' could see them for yourself, and reject your own empirical data, simply because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? Concluding, that if you're a skeptic, then they ARE invisible to you.
 
King of the Americas said:
Of course if you are a real skeptic, 'you' could see them for yourself, and reject your own empirical data, simply because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? Concluding, that if you're a skeptic, then they ARE invisible to you.
Click to expand...

What preconceived notions would those be?
A 'real sceptic' positively encourages open minded research... which is what I do.
 
Why do people think science is a democracy or a courtroom?

Let's vote on aliens! Let's vote on creationism! Who has the better argument? We send people to prison on eyewitness testimony, that must mean it's good enough to prove there are UFOs.

Science is a process with limited scope. If you want to look at UFOs scientifically then forget about who is winning the argument and start to think about how science works and how to use science to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

(Here's something to remember -- if you have a hypothesis that can't be disproved your subject is outside the bounds of science. Think about using religion instead.)
 
King of the Americas said:
I'll concede that I could be mistaken, if you can show me a human craft perform the feats I described.
Click to expand...


Raidst the blue skies, a link from past to future,
the sheltering wings of the protector...​

Probably a human aircraft


I know this won't match KotA's experience at all, since it's real, but it's still worth a watch if you can spare the 15 meggies.
 
imjohn said:
Why do people think science is a democracy or a courtroom?

Let's vote on aliens! Let's vote on creationism! Who has the better argument? We send people to prison on eyewitness testimony, that must mean it's good enough to prove there are UFOs.

Science is a process with limited scope. If you want to look at UFOs scientifically then forget about who is winning the argument and start to think about how science works and how to use science to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

(Here's something to remember -- if you have a hypothesis that can't be disproved your subject is outside the bounds of science. Think about using religion instead.)
Click to expand...

So, you don't have an opinion, as to who's winning?
 
Stray Cat said:
What preconceived notions would those be?
A 'real sceptic' positively encourages open minded research... which is what I do.
Click to expand...

I am proposing that a skeptic would refuse to accept their own experiences, if there was no evidence to back it up...

"What you are saying happened is impossible, therefore you didn't SEE what you claim to have seen. It was a delusion."

Without evidence what else could it be?
 
imjohn said:
Winning what? Public opinion?

Public opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Since we don't have actual evidence to examine, all we really have are arguments...

Who's making the stronger, more compelling arguments?

ARE the knowers/believers all 'delusional', or is there something beyond 'us' up there...?
 
King of the Americas said:
Since we don't have actual evidence to examine, all we really have are arguments...
Click to expand...


No. Apply this thinking to invisible pink unicorns. Still think you have an argument?


King of the Americas said:
Who's making the stronger, more compelling arguments?
Click to expand...


Reality.


King of the Americas said:
ARE the knowers/believers all 'delusional', or is there something beyond 'us' up there...?
Click to expand...


We are ALL delusional. You don't understand the meaning of the word, so you'll probably disagree with that. Deal, and look it up.

And it's a false dichotomy. Good thing the sentence stopped before it got to three strikes, eh?
 
King of the Americas said:
Your skepticism allows to to dismiss some evidence as non-credible. 'I' don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...

This is interesting to me. I think focusing a bit on this might help us all out. Could you elaborate on where you draw the line with credible/non-credible in the case of UFO sightings?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom