Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Pure_Argent said:
^-This-^
Click to expand...

Since you're NOT done maybe you could respond to this:

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent
Yes. So the tools were not left around, and there was no crap in the temple. Big flippin' whoop.

So you're okay with a date arrived at with "a complete lack of any physical evidence"...

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent
You know what? I'm done. I'm officially done. You are so unwilling to even listen to my arguments, to even ATTEMPT to understand them, that there isn't any point in continuing this discussion. My point is not that you it can be PROVEN that the Incas built it. My point is that it is HIGHLY LIKELY that they did. But you won't accept that that's what I mean. So I'm done here. Goodbye. Have fun with your delusional, underground-alien fantasy world.
Again, without ACTUAL evidence, how can you arrive at highly like, somewhat likely, or unlikely...?

What DOES "a complete lack of any physical evidence" mean to you???

I'd be done if I were you too...
 
King of the Americas said:
Evidence will sway me...

Put up, or shut up.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to use evidence to sway you. I do believe that ones with brains put one and one together, and in the end they don't buy this. Yet you do...hmm..
Since you probably know, how much does tin foil cost these days? I need it for a recipe, and obviously you fit in with the group that thinks of aliens. :rolleyes:

And btw, the popular phrase that you just said was possibly brought on by the comedy Zombieland, and as such it must be said correctly.

Now with YOUR far-fetched dreams of aliens and stonehedge, I must see evidence. Nut up, or shut up.
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
I have responded to it. Every single post I've put up here recently has been an answer to it.

You do not understand the concept of burden of proof.
Click to expand...

I understand what a "disputed charge" is...

You "charge" blimp, Inca builders, or the 200 BC construction date.

I "dispute the charge". It is up to YOU to provide evidence as to the validity of the charge.

Without it, your charge is UNSUBSTANTIATED, period.
 
King of the Americas said:
I understand what a "disputed charge" is...

You "charge" blimp, Inca builders, or the 200 BC construction date.

I "dispute the charge". It is up to YOU to provide evidence as to the validity of the charge.

Without it, your charge is UNSUBSTANTIATED, period.
Click to expand...

No. Again you demonstrate that you do not understand.

Human construction is the most likely explanation. Therefore it is the "default position". You assert that it was NOT humans who made the temple. Therefore, you are the one making the claim, and the burden of proof is on you.
 
King of the Americas said:
I understand what a "disputed charge" is...

You "charge" blimp, Inca builders, or the 200 BC construction date.

I "dispute the charge". It is up to YOU to provide evidence as to the validity of the charge.

Without it, your charge is UNSUBSTANTIATED, period.
Click to expand...

Same with your's, (enter name/insult that would possibly get me suspended here).
We're asking for the same thing from you. Now where is it?
 
Last edited:
You know what? I'm just going to use the following line as my post for everything that King of the Americas says from now on.


You do not understand the concept of burden of proof.
 
Pure_Argent said:
You know what? I'm just going to use the following line as my post for everything that King of the Americas says from now on.


You do not understand the concept of burden of proof.
Click to expand...

That's really the best response, I think. It's certainly true, though only a tiny taste of the things he doesn't understand about the process of debate, research, logic, etc.


What I don't understand is why someone would bring this sort of broken argument to a forum dedicated to critical thinking skills and debating the paranormal. This sort of argument just falls apart, not that the folks bringing it have the thinking skills to realize how completely they've been out debated and outsmarted.

A.
 
Pure_Argent said:
No. Again you demonstrate that you do not understand.

Human construction is the most likely explanation. Therefore it is the "default position". You assert that it was NOT humans who made the temple. Therefore, you are the one making the claim, and the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

When the "default position" is arrived without any evidence whatsoever, it isn't much of a position...

If this truly is the skeptic stance, then I'd say you are in the exact boat you accuse 'believers' of being in...a conclusion reached without evidence.

Just a warning, conclusions reached without evidentiary support are wholly without merit, so I've been told.
 
Kurse said:
Same with your's, (enter name/insult that would possibly get me suspended here).
We're asking for the same thing from you. Now where is it?
Click to expand...

Alright, glad to see you cleaned up that retort, personal attacks are for the intellectually ill-equipped.

You, (enter name/insult that would possibly get me suspended here), understand at least that the "default position" is just as weak/unsupported as my claims.

And this is the reality, our claims are "equally supported". So, the difference here, is our background/experiences.

The skeptic arrives at his conclusion because he believes what someone told was the default position, even if it lacks any evidence whatsoever. The knower/believer HAS seen /collected anecdotal evidence to arrive at his position...neither of which can prove in a scientific manner their 'beliefs'...

So 'skeptics', you are no better than the 'believers'. You are just as guilty of the SAME mis-steps, lacking in the same evidentiary support, and are only different in the road you've taken to arrive on the same un-proven ground.

Congratulations.
 
King of the Americas said:
When the "default position" is arrived without any evidence whatsoever, it isn't much of a position...

If this truly is the skeptic stance, then I'd say you are in the exact boat you accuse 'believers' of being in...a conclusion reached without evidence.

Just a warning, conclusions reached without evidentiary support are wholly without merit, so I've been told.
Click to expand...

Oh dear lord, I was hoping that you might have had an overnight epiphany. Instead I see the same mangling of the fundamental concepts of logic.
King of the Americas, there is nothing that points towards alien builders on the Puma Punku temple site. It has been shown that there is nothing strange about the temple's construction. It could all have quite easily been done by humans. It is the right age to be constructed by the group who is currently given credit for it. The architecture shows signs of the culture of that group.
With or without tools on the dig site, the evidence all points towards the Incans being the builders of Puma Punku. Therefore, it is the default position. There is no "lack of evidence" for the Incan builder theory. There just isn't any 100% conclusive, "a-ha, now we know fo sho" evidence. We can determine beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the Incans rather than a mysterious alien civilization whom we have never made contact with.
As it is perfectly reasonable to assume "Incan temple", the people saying "alien temple" must prove their claim. The Incan temple conclusion was not reached without evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

King of the Americas said:
Alright, glad to see you cleaned up that retort, personal attacks are for the intellectually ill-equipped.

You, (enter name/insult that would possibly get me suspended here), understand at least that the "default position" is just as weak/unsupported as my claims.

And this is the reality, our claims are "equally supported". So, the difference here, is our background/experiences.

The skeptic arrives at his conclusion because he believes what someone told was the default position, even if it lacks any evidence whatsoever. The knower/believer HAS seen /collected anecdotal evidence to arrive at his position...neither of which can prove in a scientific manner their 'beliefs'...

So 'skeptics', you are no better than the 'believers'. You are just as guilty of the SAME mis-steps, lacking in the same evidentiary support, and are only different in the road you've taken to arrive on the same un-proven ground.

Congratulations.
Click to expand...

No. Again, there is evidence to support the Incan theory. It's just that you choose to ignore it.

King of the Americas said:
Right back at you.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, that's shut me up. Fo sho rly. I can't come back from that. Because I totally haven't spent hours looking up different definitions of burden of proof to make entirely sure that I'm right.

Yeah.
 
Pure_Argent said:
...there is nothing that points towards alien builders on the Puma Punku temple site.
Click to expand...

Where did 'I' say aliens built it?

Pure_Argent said:
It has been shown that there is nothing strange about the temple's construction. It could all have quite easily been done by humans. It is the right age to be constructed by the group who is currently given credit for it. The architecture shows signs of the culture of that group.
Click to expand...

The architecture 'looks' Easter Island-ish. Take a 'closer' look at the faces featured. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to date the site. If you think such a site COULD have "easily been done", then grab/construct a bronze age tool and start working. If you can replicate the work, I'll concede the point. Nothing 'strange'...? Talk about willful ignorance...

Pure_Argent said:
With or without tools on the dig site, the evidence all points towards the Incans being the builders of Puma Punku. Therefore, it is the default position. There is no "lack of evidence" for the Incan builder theory. There just isn't any 100% conclusive, "a-ha, now we know fo sho" evidence. We can determine beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the Incans rather than a mysterious alien civilization whom we have never made contact with.
Click to expand...

You MUST be super-natural yourself, if you can successfully conclude, beyond ALL reasonable doubt 'anything', "without any evidence whatsoever".

Bravo!

Pure_Argent said:
As it is perfectly reasonable to assume "Incan temple", the people saying "alien temple" must prove their claim. The Incan temple conclusion was not reached without evidence. You just choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

What "evidence"...? Let's have it.

And 'proximity' to the site isn't evidence. Just because I live near a church is NOT evidence that I built it...

Pure_Argent said:
No. Again, there is evidence to support the Incan theory. It's just that you choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

WHAT is that "evidence"...?
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry for my late reply. I don't know if i should reply in this thread because there is another discussion ongoing but i will give it a try.

But i'm also sad no one has given arguments against my list of indirect evidences for a foreign intelligence (like radar images). But what i got were some replies like "If that is so, then where is the evidence?". As i really don't want to write a page filling posting, all i can do is to refer to reports like "Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?" or the COMETA report.
A good source can also be Condon, Edward, U., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Dutton, 1968.
There are also good references on the work of J. Allen Hynek.

As i said, the indirect evidence is there.

After an investigation comes to the conclusion that a foreign intelligence is the only logical explanation, other people will still say that all encounters and sightings can have psychological explanations. Illobrand von Ludwiger writes in his book "UFOs - Die unerwünschte Wahrheit": (i'll translate it from german to english, sorry if it's not that legible)
Progressive problem adjustment implicates the growth of a theory, which is able to forecast new facts. At the same time, the new theory has to be coherent to the old, that is it must contain the former level of knowledge as a special case. If the new phenomenons are so intractable that they cannot integrated with one of the mentioned problem adjustments, a "unjustified problem adjustment" using reduction will be tried. Hans Sachsse (1976) calls this "Reduction of world complexity". New facts will be "bend", brought back to course, until it fits the current view model.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what can be seen with the UFO phenomenon. The upkeep of the current paradigm is more important than allowance of facts.

In my opinion, this topic needs much reading to get the facts out of it. But if scientists who don't know any of the scientific literature says that this phenomenon could be explained with enough data or is some kind of not yet known meteorological thing, all i can do is to shake my head.

So why do almost all people here think to know that the phenomenon of a foreign intelligence does not exist at all? And how can you ignore
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
Who do you think did?
Click to expand...

Haven't I answered this already?

I DON'T know who built it, when they built it, or what tools were employed.

I DO know however that granite and diorite are hard enough to resist the intentions of a hardened steel chisel. I DO know that whomever built it had some impressive tools, even by modern standards.

Have you reviewed all of the pictures and videos available?
 
King of the Americas said:
Haven't I answered this already?

I DON'T know who built it, when they built it, or what tools were employed.

I DO know however that granite and diorite are hard enough to resist the intentions of a hardened steel chisel. I DO know that whomever built it had some impressive tools, even by modern standards.

Have you reviewed all of the pictures and videos available?
Click to expand...

You've been shown what tools were used to work stone in ancient times - other stone. You must be easily impressed.

If you simply don't know who built it, what is it that you are arguing for? It is a moment's work for everyone to agree that you don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom