Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[RoboTimbo]

You can't recall...?

Does this mean that you had no shoes in the 7th grade?

Of course I had shoes, why would you say something so foolish?

 

[Cuddles]

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

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?

You guys claim no one is capable of remembering things 100% accurately. Then when someone does mis-remember, you use it as evidence that NOTHING can be remembered by that person.

No, we use it as evidence that your memory is flawed, as is everyone's. In everyday life, this is not necessarily a problem. There are a lot of things I don't remember perfectly, but most of them I can either look up, or really don't care that much about remembering them exactly. However, when trying to support a claim, it's rather important that the support actually, you know, supports it. When it comes to your claims, so far we have exactly zero evidence supporting any of it, and plenty evidence that some are certainly wrong. Given that, it would be utterly foolish for any of us to actually believe your claims.

I watched the 2nd plane hit the second tower, while posting on a message board. That board must have been the THSMB, and not this one. Now you propose that this 'suggests' that I am incapable of remembering what I initially posted here...?

No. What it suggests that you are incapable of remembering what you initially posted here is the fact that you claimed to have posted here before you had even joined. Except that it does far more than merely suggest this, it conclusively proves that you have no idea what you initially posted here. Even with the date you joined on the forum being shown alongside every post you make, you still managed to get it wrong. So why would we believe anything else you say about what you initially posted here?

Cuddles, can you tell me who you sat next to in each of your classes during high school? You CAN'T??? Oh, this must mean you were never IN high school...

I was never in high school. I do, however, have plenty of evidence that I attended comprehensive school. I probably can't remember who I sat next to in every class, but since I am not making any claims that rely on my memories of who I sat next to, that's really not a problem. If I were to claim that I sat next to an alien in school, you would be well within your rights to ask me for more evidence than just my word.

You people have turned Skepticism into the 'art of ignorance'.

Sorry, but just because reality disagrees with your imagination does not mean anyone else is ignorant.

In the context of the rest of this thread, this is highly amusing

Indeed. Especially when closely followed by this:

Yep... that was me.

...

It wasn't Fingerprints of the Gods.

Wait... I know the book you are talking about now.

He doesn't remember when he joined. He doesn't remember who invited him. He doesn't remember what book he lent said inviter. But he absolutely has a perfect memory of what he posted when he first came here. Oh, except:

What was my first post?

He doesn't actually remember what he posted at all and keeps asking other people to tell him.

 

[King of the Americas]

Of course I had shoes, why would you say something so foolish?

I've course I saw "star-like objects controlled by non-human intelligence", why would anyone ask something so foolish?

 

[Psiload]

I've course I saw "star-like objects controlled by non-human intelligence", why would anyone ask something so foolish?

Controlled? But before you insisted they were "piloted"... as in, the whathaveyoubutnotaliens were actually manning "the objects". Are you now allowing for the possibility that they may have been remotely controlled?

Oh... and how do you know they were objects? You described them as lights... lights aren't always actual objects. Lights can be reflections, projects, etc...

 

[carlitos]

Dude, you saw lights through your windshield. You assumed their provenance. Big difference.

 

[King of the Americas]

Dude, you saw lights through your windshield. You assumed their provenance. Big difference.

No, given my knowledge and experience, my senses and reason led me to conclude "U.F.O.'s CONTROLLED by non-human intelligence".

I didn't see 'into' the cockpit, Psiload.

I didn't say I saw "lights". I saw "star-like objects".

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, given my knowledge and experience, my senses and reason led me to conclude "U.F.O.'s CONTROLLED by non-human intelligence".

I didn't see 'into' the cockpit, Psiload.

I didn't say I saw "lights". I saw "star-like objects".

You could see they had cockpits? Did you honk at them?

 

[GeeMack]

No, given my knowledge and experience, my senses and reason led me to conclude "U.F.O.'s CONTROLLED by non-human intelligence".

Your "knowledge and experience, [...] senses and reason" have all been shown objectively and beyond reasonable doubt to be fallible to the extent that there is no credibility whatsoever to your ridiculous claims about seeing "U.F.O.'s CONTROLLED by non-human intelligence".

 

[carlitos]

Meh, semantics.

...but NOT impossible, that we say E.T.'s piloted craft.

Since when do birds come equiped with star-like lights?

You said star like objects.. now it's star like lights. Which is it?

Since WHEN is a light not an object? This was at night, there were a half a dozen of them, and they performed tasks that no terresterial pilot could. Moreover, their ability to disobey the Laws of Physics, as I understand them led me to this unearthly conclusion.

That I have seen no less than 3 different video clips, of this same type of event, fortifies my own personal experience, of this unidentifiable phenomonia.

What 'I' have seen is evidence of our physical betters "aero-ly", but moreover, I've seen evidence of these same gifted heavenly being portrayed in EVERY form of Media mentionable, throughtout the Ages.

....

In 2003, when someone suggested birds, you replied that birds don't have lights. More recently, when someone suggested geese, you said that geese don't oscillate red, white and blue.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, given my knowledge and experience, my senses and reason led me to conclude "U.F.O.'s CONTROLLED by non-human intelligence".

Yet you are entirely unable to give a single, verifiable reason for you to have concluded this. You have only your unreliable memory of seeing strange things perform strange actions out of a car windshield at night.

 

[King of the Americas]

..., it would be utterly foolish for any of us to actually believe your claims.

...So why would we believe anything else you say about what you initially posted here?

...

Sorry, but just because reality disagrees with your imagination does not mean anyone else is ignorant.

...

He doesn't remember when he joined. He doesn't remember who invited him. He doesn't remember what book he lent said inviter. But he absolutely has a perfect memory of what he posted when he first came here. Oh, except:

He doesn't actually remember what he posted at all and keeps asking other people to tell him.

I don't require that you believe me. Your search for truth does, however. Dismissing my report only hurts those efforts.

Reality doesn't disagree with me. Your ignorance OF the reality 'I' have witnessed means you ARE ignorant.

I remember WHY I posted here. 'I' never actually joined, Psiload did it for me.

I asked Psiload if he remembered my initial post, in an effort to get support for my memory.

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.

This memory lapse doesn't mean I didn't post my report of the sighting here, nor does it mean I can be trusted as inconsistent.

You 'remember' attending a comprehensive school? So, your memory is flawed, just like everyone else's. You have evidence that you attended this school? Like what, for example? School records? Those can be amended to have include your name after the fact? School pictures? Those could be faked. Classmates who say they saw you there? Those are anecdotes...which are completely useless, and not proof at all.

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.

Lapses in memory don't wipe out events, people, or places.

 

[Nonpareil]

You 'remember' attending a comprehensive school? So, your memory is flawed, just like everyone else's. You have evidence that you attended this school? Like what, for example? School records? Those can be amended to have include your name after the fact? School pictures? Those could be faked. Classmates who say they saw you there? Those are anecdotes...which are completely useless, and not proof at all.

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

We've been over this before. That is not skepticism. That is not the response that skepticism dictates.

We know that most people go to school as a child. From that alone we have evidence that he attended school as a child. Then we have his memories - yes, his memories are evidence, as I have said, in general but not in the details - and then we have the records, which are usually not falsified.

Because of this, we are able to safely say that he attended school.

If you wish to say otherwise, you need evidence that the records were falsified and that he is lying about his memories (or that his memories are false).

We've explained this before.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] That said, I'm not a skeptic, [...]

Now you're talkin'!

Lapses in memory don't wipe out events, people, or places.

Indeed they don't. But a demonstrably failed memory of an alleged event eliminates the credibility of that particular alleged witness. Who knows? Maybe the aliens did drop in on you and your pal one evening. Maybe they did a little sky dance and showed off some of their super shape shifting powers just for you. Maybe they even caused your inconsistent memory of the event just to mess with you. But so what?

It seems there isn't a credible witness to the alleged visit, and nobody reasonably sane or intelligent is going to take your word for it. And the more effort you put into making the story believable, the more it fails to convince. There's no going back, not here, not at the JREF forum. If you want anyone to take you seriously you're going to have to polish up your tale, leave out the conflicting elements, and take the show to another venue.

 

[King of the Americas]

We've been over this before. That is not skepticism. That is not the response that skepticism dictates.

We know that most people go to school as a child. From that alone we have evidence that he attended school as a child. Then we have his memories - yes, his memories are evidence, as I have said, in general but not in the details - and then we have the records, which are usually not falsified.

...

That is EXACTLY how "skepticism" work here...

*We ALSO know that some kids get home-schooled, and sometimes that aren't proud of it. We also know that, for dubious reasons, that school records CAN and are falsified. His memories, or the memories of other attendees are certainly NOT evidence, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate those memories are.

My point is using the same reasoning skills and rebuttal arguments that are constantly employed here, by "skeptics", one could easily conclude that he may have never went to this school.

I am not a skeptic, and thus would disagree with the line of reasoning used above.

'I' think my memories of the sighting I have detailed here, ARE most certainly evidence of a reality.

 

[GeeMack]

I am not a skeptic, [...]

Correct.

'I' think my memories of the sighting I have detailed here, ARE most certainly evidence of a reality.

Because you're not a skeptic.

 

[Marduk]

'I' think my memories of the sighting I have detailed here, ARE most certainly evidence of a reality.

then you don't understand the value of a subjective experience, at this moment, if you had, you would be a leading researcher in aeronautics, trying to replicate what you saw, instead youre a nobody, posting unevidenced personal opinion on an internet forum

 

[King of the Americas]

then you don't understand the value of a subjective experience, at this moment, if you had, you would be a leading researcher in aeronautics, trying to replicate what you saw, instead youre a nobody, posting unevidenced personal opinion on an internet forum

I understand that there's a sincere double standard your retort suggests...

 

[Marduk]

I understand that there's a sincere double standard your retort suggests...

such as ?

 

[Nonpareil]

That is EXACTLY how "skepticism" work here...

No. It is how you believe skepticism works here. It is not how skepticism actually works here. Your constant strawmanning does not change that.

We ALSO know that some kids get home-schooled, and sometimes that aren't proud of it.

But we also know that most children don't lie about being home-schooled.

We also know that, for dubious reasons, that school records CAN and are falsified.

We also know that this is incredibly rare.

His memories, or the memories of other attendees are certainly NOT evidence, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate those memories are.

They are, because we have other evidence which supports them.

My point is using the same reasoning skills and rebuttal arguments that are constantly employed here, by "skeptics", one could easily conclude that he may have never went to this school.

No, you couldn't. You aren't employing the arguments which we use. You are employing straw-stuffed versions of these arguments which betray your poor understanding of skepticism.

'I' think my memories of the sighting I have detailed here, ARE most certainly evidence of a reality.

And you are wrong.

 

[King of the Americas]

...



And you are wrong.

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.