Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

King of the Americas said:
Anecdotes.

From military personnel, pilots, police officers, and every other position in society the world over...ALL saying the same thing- "They exist."
Click to expand...
NO!
All the reports show only the witness didn't recognize what happend and poor descriptions make it impossible to conclude the real source of events - therefore Unidentified Flying Objects (flying is not always proven and objects only in a very broad meaning).
 
carlitos said:
At the risk of joining Cuddles on the "go **** yourself" list...


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?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the virgin romp entry in years either, but because I wrote it down, and revisited it, meant that I wasn't solely relying on my memory...

Having constantly revisited the U.F.O. sighting, in several ways, including the original entry, and my oldest of posts here, I am not solely relying on my memory.

What things are in conflict with each other, while I hold both to be true?
 
King of the Americas said:
Indeed, I have admitted that "6" 'changed'...

THAT is the inconsistency, in my account.
Click to expand...

Well, that is one of the inconsistencies in your account. However, exactly how many there are is not the issue here. The issue is that you once again admit that there are, in fact, inconsistencies. Therefore your claim that no-one could find any inconsistencies was clearly a lie.

You and others have used that to suggest that I am incapable of accurate memory recall, at all.
Click to expand...

And this is another lie. I just explained, again, that this is no way what anyone has said, yet you repeat the same falsehood once again. That's pretty much a textbook example of a lie.

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

As far as I can see, every single memory you have referred to in this thread has been either flawed or completely wrong. The evidence suggests that you are, in fact, wholly unreliable. This should not come as any surprise. The police and courts have known this for a long time, which is why eyewitness testimony is considered the least useful of all evidence and the account of a single unsupported witness is not enough to convict someone.

This makes me...angry...
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is a problem. You take scientific fact and skeptical analysis of your claims as a personal attack. It's a problem because it seems to render you incapable of having any sensible discussion on this subject, because as soon as anyone points out that your old, unreliable memory is not the unimpeachable truth, you start throwing out personal attacks instead of addressing the problems with basing your beliefs on a single unreliable memory.

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

Actually, it means quite a lot. Firstly, the issue at hand is the reliability of memory of yours from before you joined this board. Being unable to remember when you joined or who invited you demonstrates that your memory is clearly not reliable over this time period. Secondly, your join date appears next to every single post you make. So it's not just your memory that is flawed, it is also your ability to research, and to read what is directly in front of you. Both of these points are extremely meaningful given that the entire discussion is about the nature of evidence and the reliability of memory.

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 hat "6" became "7".

THAT is the total of my memory lapse.
Click to expand...

Even if we concede that that is the only inconsistency so far demonstrated, you cannot claim that that is the only thing wrong. That inconsistency proves that your account has changed over the years. Since your account is the only evidence we have, and that evidence is proven to be unreliable, we can see that there is exactly no support for your claims.

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.
Click to expand...

No. Some memories appear to you to be accurate. In reality, that's actually not the case. Memory has been studied extensively, and it's just not as reliable as many people seem to think.

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.
Click to expand...

Would that be in the journal that contains your UFO account that you refuse to find for us? You know, the one that could actually prove whether your account now is at all similar to how you originally gave it?

The event is as clear in my mind, as though it just happened.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the point. The event is not clear in your mind as though it just happened. It may well feel like that, but all the research says that your memory will not be accurate, no matter how much you feel it is.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Your memory of that event absolutely cannot be trusted. It may well have happened, but many of the details are almost certainly not how you remember. You can argue with that all you like, but I'm afraid science trumps your personal beliefs.

Your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me, utterly and completely.

"** **** ********."
Click to expand...

You cannot get out of your own lying by accusing others of dishonesty. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out that your memory is not reliable. We know human memory is not reliable at the best of times, and the conclusive proof, admitted by you, that your memory is not reliable just adds to that. You can be disgusted all you like, but you are the only one who has been proven to be dishonest here.
 
King of the Americas said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, we haven't. Stop lying.

We have stated that you do not know - and have no way of knowing - if this particular memory is accurate. In fact, you know that it isn't accurate. At least one of the major details has changed, and others appear to have been added over the years.

This is not the same as saying that you are incapable of remembering anything accurately. It just means that your memory cannot be used as evidence in and of itself.

you are attributing dishonesty to 'me'.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't before, but I am now.

No one has said you were lying. No one has so much as suggested it. Being wrong and human and fallible is not the same thing as lying.

The ONLY real discrepancy demonstrated is that "6" became "7".

THAT is the total of my memory lapse.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. As has been pointed out, it would appear that several details were added as time went on.

Your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me, utterly and completely.
Click to expand...

Same to you, buddy.

King of the Americas said:
You haven't read ALL of his presentation(s)...

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

I have, and he hasn't.

King of the Americas said:
Anecdotes.
Click to expand...

Which are not evidence.
 
King of the Americas said:
Having constantly revisited the U.F.O. sighting, in several ways, including the original entry, and my oldest of posts here, I am not solely relying on my memory.

What things are in conflict with each other, while I hold both to be true?
Click to expand...
The only possible response to your story is "cool story, bro." Your perception of lights in the night sky, whether recorded at 60% or 80% accuracy, isn't any better than anyone else. You were driving (?) and you think you saw something in the sky. Based on that one thing, assuming that you saw god/intraterrestrials is an argument from ignorance. That you believe Rramjet's anecdotal nonsense does not bolster confidence in your ability to think logically about evidence.

As ever, feel free to post your original journal entry and prove the mean poopyhead skeptical people wrong beyond all doubt.
 
"Memories aren't real."

...unless you have evidence of them...

This is where skeptics hang their hat. ONE inconsistency, even if EXPECTED, means that NO ONE's recollections are reliable.

While this may well be the standard of proof in a court of law, or in the heads of skeptics, but real world application of the principle would be hazardous.

If you see a car get stranded on a set of train tracks, then you see the car get obliterated by the train. Your brain records the event "car on tracks + train = BAD".

The next day, YOUR car is stranded on the tracks, and the train is coming. Your memory of the 'green' car on the tracks is flawed. It was really blue. But the memory tells you, "Get off the tracks, because bad stuff will happen if you don't."

Skepticism says that because of everyone's flawed memory, that no memory can be trusted, ESPECIALLY if it has already been proven to be faulty.

So, disregard the flawed memory, it wasn't real.

In the real world, people don't have this luxury. In the real world people have eyes, ears, and the rest of their senses to record the world in which they live. They use these memories to navigate through this world. While mistakes DO happen, they aren't happening EVERY TIME.

People can and DO remember things, if not 100% accurately. They use these memories successfully, daily.

NO ONE in their right mind demands scientific proof of something before they accept its existence, to do so, would put your very life in danger.

So, in the imaginary world of skepticism, you may well hold that memories, especially flawed ones, are useless. Just stay inside, and away from fire, sharp objects, or anything else that represents sincere danger.

Then again, I'll wager that skeptics DON'T apply this same standard of proof to their daily lives...because it is dangerous and would leave them incapable of successfully navigating this world.

Ignore your senses and your memory of this world at your peril.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you are really bad at these analogies. I have a car. I ride the train. Cars and trains exist.

Intraterrestial-piloted craft are a figment of your imagination.

Get a grip.
 
King of the Americas said:
This is where skeptics hang their hat. ONE inconsistency, even if EXPECTED, means that NO ONE's recollections are reliable.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You are still lying. Either that, or you really don't get it. So you're either dishonest or incredibly obtuse. Which is it?

NO ONE in their right mind demands scientific proof of something before they accept its existence, to do so, would put your very life in danger.
Click to expand...

No. You don't understand what we mean by evidence.
 
Cool, maybe you could post some evidence for 'heavenly angels' other than your mis-remembered story about seeing lights in the sky.
 
Pure Argent said:
No, it isn't. You are still lying. Either that, or you really don't get it. So you're either dishonest or incredibly obtuse. Which is it?

No. You don't understand what we mean by evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't get 'skepticism'...

I really don't get how you can disregard your senses, memories, and others' anecdotes, and remain alive...

We NEED information about our world, and we NEED to be able to trust our senses, our memories, and reports of others to navigate this world.

Refusing to do so is well beyond foolish.
 
King of the Americas said:
We NEED information about our world, and we NEED to be able to trust our senses, our memories, and reports of others to navigate this world.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain how society has addressed this NEED by employing things like court reporters? Why do we want an exact transcript of a trial? I mean, the jury should remember all the details, right? They obviously navigated the world enough to get to the courtroom.

Really, why does the NFL have instant replay? Why don't the refs just get it right the first time?

I trust my senses. I even trust your senses. Your memory and rush to judgement about what you see, not so much.
 
carlitos said:
Cool, maybe you could post some evidence for 'heavenly angels' other than your mis-remembered story about seeing lights in the sky.
Click to expand...

Like what...?

I have neither a body or downed craft.

I didn't see 'lights'. I saw "star-like objects performing feats beyond that of our capabilities".
 
carlitos said:
...

Really, why does the NFL have instant replay? Why don't the refs just get it right the first time?

I trust my senses. I even trust your senses. Your memory and rush to judgement about what you see, not so much.
Click to expand...

Because the more information we have, the better.

But even in the examples you state, it begins with personal observations. We trust this observations, and MLB STILL does.

If you desire timely truth, you must abandon skepticism.
 
King of the Americas said:
Because the more information we have, the better.

But even in the examples you state, it begins with personal observations. We trust this observations, and MLB STILL does.

If you desire timely truth, you must abandon skepticism.
Click to expand...

Ok, I desire truth. What color and how tall are heavenly angels agents?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom