Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Nonpareil]

Except that I am not wrong...

I am the guy in the diving bell who's seen things I have no evidence of.

The reality I've been privy to exists, even if you can't or won't accept my report.

Nice red herring.

I am not commenting on whether or not you are right in saying that these lights were products of your proposed intraterrestrials. I am commenting on your claim that your anecdote is evidence of their existence.

You say it is. You are wrong. You might be right even though you have no evidence, but you still have no evidence.

 

[King of the Americas]

Nice red herring.

I am not commenting on whether or not you are right in saying that these lights were products of your proposed intraterrestrials. I am commenting on your claim that your anecdote is evidence of their existence.

You say it is. You are wrong. You might be right even though you have no evidence, but you still have no evidence.

My sighting, if not evidence, is what then?

If I see someone shoot someone else, but I don't have the gun, body, or any other additional witnesses, the shooting didn't magically cease to have occurred.

I witnessed a real event of which I have no verification.

My recollection is evidence, just not indisputable proof...

 

[Marduk]

My sighting, if not evidence, is what then?

A helpful aid to diagnosis

If I see someone shoot someone else, but I don't have the gun, body, or any other additional witnesses, the shooting didn't magically cease to have occurred.

The killer would get away with it without real evidence, anecdotal evidence is as reliable as the person offering it, in this case thats you. Nuff said

I witnessed a real event of which I have no verification.
My recollection is evidence, just not indisputable proof...

You are unreliable, this forum is littered with the lies you've told. Its only proof of that.

 

[Nonpareil]

My sighting, if not evidence, is what then?

An anecdote. That's all. It's just a story. It isn't evidence of anything, any more than The Hobbit is evidence of the Shire's existence.

If I see someone shoot someone else, but I don't have the gun, body, or any other additional witnesses, the shooting didn't magically cease to have occurred.

I didn't say it did. What about this is so difficult for you to understand?

I witnessed a real event of which I have no verification.

Yes.

My recollection is evidence, just not indisputable proof...

It is only evidence if it is supported by other, verifiable evidence. If someone accuses someone else of murder, they have to have the evidence to back it up. They can rail on about being an eyewitness all they want, but without evidence to back up their story, it doesn't matter.

Your word isn't enough. Even if your memory were one hundred percent correct (and we've already demonstrated that it isn't), you have no way of verifying that what you think it was is actually what it was.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

It is only evidence if it is supported by other, verifiable evidence. If someone accuses someone else of murder, they have to have the evidence to back it up. They can rail on about being an eyewitness all they want, but without evidence to back up their story, it doesn't matter.

Your word isn't enough...

I could not disagree more.

Truth matters, even without verifiable evidence to back it up.

You may not be able to procure a conviction for Murder One, without the body and the gun, but that doesn't mean the event didn't occur.

I am aware that my word isn't enough for you, as the diving bell guy's report wasn't enough for modern science then either.

My argument is that, that was a mistake, one skeptic science continues to make at the peril of truth.

The truth is they exist, regardless of your disregard for anecdotes that tell you so.

 

[Marduk]

I am aware that my word isn't enough for you, as the diving bell guy's report wasn't enough for modern science then either.

which diving bell would that be ?
Its surely not a reference to the first modern diving bell invented by Guglielmo de Lorena, who constructed the device in order to facilitate sponge fishing and ship salvage, because obviously, if its a reference to that then it doesn't work as a metaphor does it, that guy had evidence.

Maybe in future you should liken yourself to a heavily restrained psychotic locked up in a padded cell screaming about things that only happen in his head, that seems much more appropriate

 

[Cuddles]

I remember WHY I posted here.

Do you? Evidence? You don't remember when you posted here. You don't remember who invited you. You don't remember what you posted. How can we possible trust that you remember why?

To my recollection, I came here TO discuss my sighting, so it makes sense that it would have been one of if not my first post. Remarkably...no one, not even the board itself remembers.

Including you.

This memory lapse doesn't mean I didn't post my report of the sighting here

It doesn't conclusively prove you didn't, no. However, it does mean that we have no actual evidence that you did.

nor does it mean I can be trusted as inconsistent.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. You have proven several times that your memory is unreliable. In fact, you've even explicitly stated this yourself:

My memory IS really awful

We know for an absolute fact that your memory is unreliable and your accounts are inconsistent. That is not up for debate. The problem is that your memory is the only thing you have.

Using skepticism, I could conclude you never attended any such institution, and you can't verify you did.

That said, I'm not a skeptic, and would likely conclude, based on the totality of the evidence, that you likely DID attend the school, even if you don't remember who you sat beside.

The really sad thing is that this just demonstrates exactly why you fail so badly here. In fact, you have skepticism exactly backwards. The skeptical position is to look at the balance of evidence and come to a conclusion based on that. In the case of my attending school, the evidence clearly supports that I did. No piece of evidence it conclusive proof on its own, but taken all together it is extremely unlikely that it could all be faked or misremembered yet still agree so well. Using skepticism, you would absolutely conclude that I went to school. It is only your utterly unskeptical thinking that could lead to every single piece of evidence being dismissed and coming to the opposite conclusion.

The problem is that this is simply not equivalent to your own case. As I note above, you have exactly one piece of evidence - your own memory. This is not a single piece of evidence to support this anecdote, and your memory has been conclusively proven, and admitted by you, as being unreliable. In the absence of any reliable evidence, the skeptical conclusion is not that aliens are visiting us.

Truth matters

Yes, the truth does matter. So why do you keep lying? I notice you didn't address this part of my previous post:

Now this is such a blatant lie I have to wonder why you would bother posting it. Over the last few pages several inconsistencies have not only been pointed out, you've actually acknowledged their existence yourself. Hell, you've even done so in this very post. Making unsupported claims is one thing, but why the need to tell such obvious lies?

Clearly you know your lying, since your words are there for everyone to read. Your accounts are inconsistent and you've admitted they're inconsistent. You claim that the truth matters, yet you apparently are happy to lie constantly in an effort to support your beliefs.

Of course, this is yet another problem for your claims. Not only is your memory the only evidence you have, and has been shown to be unreliable, it's also been shown that you are willing to lie about your account and your claims if you think it will help your cause. You don't even need to understand what skepticism is to realise that accepting the unsupported account of an unreliable liar as truth is probably not a good idea.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Actually, that's exactly what it means. You have proven several times that your memory is unreliable. In fact, you've even explicitly stated this yourself...

We know for an absolute fact that your memory is unreliable and your accounts are inconsistent.

...

Clearly you know your lying, since your words are there for everyone to read. Your accounts are inconsistent and you've admitted they're inconsistent. You claim that the truth matters, yet you apparently are happy to lie constantly in an effort to support your beliefs.

...

Thank you Cuddles.

You just made the exact argument I've been suggesting that skeptics make, but you did so in an own and forthright manner.

Skeptics claim that memories are fallible, and this fallibility means that someone 'could be wrong'. Then when they ARE wrong, even minimally, skeptics use that as an opportunity to say that EVERYTHING in you memory is flawed. The conclusion? NO ONE is capable of remembering ANYTHING!!!

And now you are calling me a liar???

Hey Cuddles: "** **** ********!"

 

[Nonpareil]

Truth matters, even without verifiable evidence to back it up.

I never said it didn't.

Here's a hint: don't read into my posts. Read only what is there. I'm not putting any hidden meaning in there. If you want to understand what I'm saying to you, stop putting words in my mouth.

You may not be able to procure a conviction for Murder One, without the body and the gun, but that doesn't mean the event didn't occur.

I didn't say it did. I said that you don't have any evidence that it happened the way you say it happened. Without evidence backing up your anecdote, you can't expect anyone to take you at your word. No one is going to put a man behind bars because you say that he did it. You have to be able to back up your accusation.

Seriously. This has been the law since Mesopotamia. The Code of Hammurabi specifically states that if you accuse someone of a crime and can't prove it, you will be put to death.

It's not a difficult concept.

I am aware that my word isn't enough for you, as the diving bell guy's report wasn't enough for modern science then either.

My argument is that, that was a mistake, one skeptic science continues to make at the peril of truth.

And you haven't presented any reason for us to think that it was a mistake.

The truth is they exist, regardless of your disregard for anecdotes that tell you so.

This may or may not be the case. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that you have presented zero evidence in favor of it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Skeptics claim that memories are fallible, and this fallibility means that someone 'could be wrong'. Then when they ARE wrong, even minimally, skeptics use that as an opportunity to say that EVERYTHING in you memory is flawed. The conclusion? NO ONE is capable of remembering ANYTHING!!!

No, this is not what is being said.
All that people are saying is that your memory (one's memory, it's not just you, it's everyone) can not be relied upon. This is totally different from saying that your memory is always flawed.

Until there is a way of determining an accurate memory from an inaccurate memory (that's why we place importance on verification from other sources), they can not be solely relied on.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

This may or may not be the case. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that you have presented zero evidence in favor of it.

I've presented MY report, anecdotal as it were.

I'll point you to "Rramjet" for the rest of the evidence of an E.T. existence behind U.F.O. sightings.

 

[Cuddles]

Thank you Cuddles.

You just made the exact argument I've been suggesting that skeptics make, but you did so in an own and forthright manner.

Skeptics claim that memories are fallible, and this fallibility means that someone 'could be wrong'. Then when they ARE wrong, even minimally, skeptics use that as an opportunity to say that EVERYTHING in you memory is flawed. The conclusion? NO ONE is capable of remembering ANYTHING!!!

You see, it's things like this that result in people calling you a liar. Because you just replied to a post by claiming it says the exact opposite of what it actually says. The problem is not that memories can be fallible and that no-one is ever capable of remembering everything, the problem is that in this specific case, a single memory is the only piece of evidence that exists, and that single memory has been proven to be flawed and unreliable. Worse than that, not only does that single memory have flaws, it can be seen that the person who has it, you, has demonstrated a habit of having unreliable memories, and has even explicitly admitted to having a bad memory.

It's not that no-one is capable of remembering anything, it's that you are not capable of remembering this particular event.

And now you are calling me a liar???

No, I was already calling you a liar, I merely repeated the accusation here, along with the evidence that proves that you are, in fact, a liar. Apparently your memory is so unreliable that you didn't even remember seeing it in the post you replied to less than a day ago. If you don't want to have your lies pointed out, I can only suggest that you stop lying. Swearing at the people who do so isn't going to help your case.

Seriously, take another look at this sequence of posts:

I've already conceded that my memory isn't 100% accurate...

We've already demonstrated that my memory failed me

6 became 7, which I admit is a problem. I conceded that.

Too bad neither a single poster or your archives can verify any such claim of 'inconsistency'.

You have admitted numerous times that your memory of the event has been proven to be flawed, and that there are clearly inconsistencies in your account. Then suddenly you claim that not a single person can show any inconsistency. If that's not a lie, what is it? As I say, if you don't want to be called a liar, it's probably best not to lie.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Rramjet?

I've presented MY report, anecdotal as it were.

I'll point you to "Rramjet" for the rest of the evidence of an E.T. existence behind U.F.O. sightings.

Rramjets testimony using as support is the most ridiculous argument of the the whole thread!

 

[GeeMack]

Thank you Cuddles.

You just made the exact argument I've been suggesting that skeptics make, but you did so in an own and forthright manner.

Skeptics claim that memories are fallible, and this fallibility means that someone 'could be wrong'. Then when they ARE wrong, even minimally, skeptics use that as an opportunity to say that EVERYTHING in you memory is flawed. The conclusion? NO ONE is capable of remembering ANYTHING!!!

The dishonest misrepresentation of the skeptical position is, once again, noted.

And now you are calling me a liar???

It's as well supported as the suggestion that I'm a poster on the JREF or Obama is the President of the US, but most importantly it speaks directly to the veracity of the sighting claim under discussion.

Hey Cuddles: "** **** ********!"

The feigned indignation is an interesting response, but certainly does nothing advance the discussion.

I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

Skeptics: 939 - Knowers/Believers: 0​

 

[King of the Americas]

...

You have admitted numerous times that your memory of the event has been proven to be flawed, and that there are clearly inconsistencies in your account. Then suddenly you claim that not a single person can show any inconsistency. If that's not a lie, what is it? As I say, if you don't want to be called a liar, it's probably best not to lie.

Indeed, I have admitted that "6" 'changed'...

THAT is the inconsistency, in my account. You and others have used that to suggest that I am incapable of accurate memory recall, at all.

THEN you compound your attacks by suggesting that because I had other memory lapses unconnected to the sighting, that I am wholly unreliable.

This makes me...angry...

Mostly because it is intellectually dishonest, but also because you are attributing dishonesty to 'me'. To which I can only retort "** **** ********!"

I have joined DOZENS of message boards, in fact, at any given time I am active on a half a dozen boards at a time. That I don't specifically remember how and when I arrived here means NOTHING, regardless of your harping on it.

I came here to discuss my sighting, and have done so at length, answering any and all serious inquiries. The ONLY real discrepancy demonstrated is that "6" became "7".

THAT is the total of my memory lapse.

Now, this doesn't mean that 'I' remember who I sat next to in all my classes in high school. But even if I have an incapable memory.

Some memories I hold, are accurate, full of detail, and remain intact, while others fade away.

I can recall this time I had sex with this blonde virgin, very well. I had a profound impact on me, and I even went as far as to journalize the event. The event is as clear in my mind, as though it just happened. That said, I don't or can't recall every woman's name whom I've had sexual contact with, or what we did together.

My flawed memory regarding the other women, doesn't mean that I didn't sleep with the blonde virgin. Nor does it mean that my memory of that event can't be trusted.

Your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me, utterly and completely.

"** **** ********."

 

[King of the Americas]

Rramjets testimony using as support is the most ridiculous argument of the the whole thread!

You haven't read ALL of his presentation(s)...

He has provided more than enough evidence to conclude- "They exist."

 

[gambling_cruiser]

No he didn't.
His presentations are loads of anecdotes, not a little bit of evidence.

 

[carlitos]

At the risk of joining Cuddles on the "go **** yourself" list...

i wrote down the events within a few days of the occurrence so i am not relying solely on long term memory.

≠​

i haven't seen that journal for years...

In your own words - you aren't relying on long-term memory about a story that you recorded in a journal but haven't looked at for years. One of those statements is untrue. How do you maintain such cognitive dissonance? Do you understand why people are frustrated when you say things conflict with each other, and assert that both things are true?

 

[King of the Americas]

No he didn't.
His presentations are loads of anecdotes, not a little bit of evidence.

Anecdotes.

From military personnel, pilots, police officers, and every other position in society the world over...ALL saying the same thing- "They exist."

 

[Stray Cat]

Anecdotes.

From military personnel, pilots, police officers, and every other position in society the world over...ALL saying the same thing- "They exist."

How many more people need to say they saw Elvis over the past 30 years before he comes back to life?