UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 07:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  In conclusion to this issue, the history of the Big Bang confirms that the evidence was observed and then interpreted to be evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Those observations and interpretations are still in use today.

Therefore, my whole point here is that you all "believe" in the Big Bang theory based upon anecdotal evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

And those are the facts in this matter, no matter how you try to spin it.

Rolleyes Sure, whatever kid. You're the "expert" after all.

"Winning"

If what I have said is in any way wrong, then you will need to use the same history of the Big bang that I used to demonstrate it.

So let's see it. Show me where I have said anything wrong.

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 07:29 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 07:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 07:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes Sure, whatever kid. You're the "expert" after all.

"Winning"

If what I have said is in any way wrong, then you will need to use the same history of the Big bang that I used to demonstrate it.

So let's see it. Show me where I have said anything wrong.

Big Grin

Other than *everything*. This entire thread? You fucking tool.

Big bang is supported by mountains of evidence and a good theory. We have reproducible observations. Alternate hypotheses have been considered and discarded. With all that, it is not set in stone because it may change if new evidence comes to light.

I do not believe it in the same way that a believer has faith. I trust that the scientists who have examined the evidence and made the theories have done a decent job. I know that the trust is justified because the entire theory, observations and experiments have been subjected to peer review and anyone is free to challenge them or interpret them differently *and people frequently do*.

You make an absurd comparison. The only reason I've answered you at this level of detail *despite* your trolling, is because otherwise you'd caper around claiming that I couldn't answer you.

I'm done now. You're an idiot.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 07:29 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 07:19 AM)Free Wrote:  If what I have said is in any way wrong, then you will need to use the same history of the Big bang that I used to demonstrate it.

So let's see it. Show me where I have said anything wrong.

Big Grin

Other than *everything*. This entire thread? You fucking tool.

Big bang is supported by mountains of evidence and a good theory. We have reproducible observations. Alternate hypotheses have been considered and discarded. With all that, it is not set in stone because it may change if new evidence comes to light.

And yet because it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that a Big Bang actually occurred, you by necessity absolutely MUST believe that the anecdotal evidence and the interpretations of that evidence compel you to believe in the plausibility of the Big Bang.

Since you cannot claim absolute knowledge in the Big Bang as being an indisputable fact, you and everybody else (including me by the way) are compelled into a position of belief based upon anecdotal evidence and interpretations of that evidence that it is likely a Big Bang occurred.

And anybody who denies this is an intellectually dishonest fucking liar.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 06:44 AM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  Wow.

Sad that this thread turned into a bitchfest. Sad
True but I gotta tell you I have learned so much about debating skills from this thread just through lurking researching quipping etc personally its been a huge education for me. Smokin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
27-09-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 07:36 AM)Free Wrote:  Since you cannot claim absolute knowledge in the Big Bang as being an indisputable fact, you and everybody else (including me by the way) are compelled into a position of belief based upon anecdotal evidence and interpretations of that evidence that it is likely a Big Bang occurred.

And anybody who denies this is an intellectually dishonest fucking liar.

That is not the definition of anecdotal. You don't understand science, nor do you understand proof, logic or evidence.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2015 09:40 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
Continuing on ...

We have many atheists here who appear to be at variance with beliefs because they wrongfully compare belief to religious belief.

The reality is that we are all in a state of belief in regards to one thing or another, for not all things can be conclusively demonstrated to be 100% true. Using our reasoning. logic, and rationale the best we can do is approximate what we believe the truth to be in contrast to precise conclusiveness.

Can we be wrong? Absolutely, and we often are. Our own history shows us how in the past some hypothesis appeared legitimate during their point in time, but today we can view those old theories and hypothesis as being ridiculous.

This discussion here has been more than just about the subject of UFOs and/or alien visitation. In fact, it has been far more than that.

We as atheists often condemn theists on this forum based upon their beliefs. Sure, we can ask questions in regards to their evidence and reasoning, and the best they really can give us is almost always a God of the Gaps reply. We all know that they have no evidence at all to warrant belief in a supernatural entity, and in fact we also demonstrate that the Evidence of Absence conclusively proves that no supernatural entity exists, or can possibility exist, since there is absolutely 0% evidence.

Yet, here we are as atheists, believing in things based upon what we interpret to be evidence to support said belief. Whether it's the Big Bang, Evolution, UFO's, Alien Visitation, Big Foot, or whatever, these beliefs and the interpretations of the evidence to support those beliefs that we hold to are precisely what compels us to either have greater or lesser percentage points of belief.

Good evidence for many of those things will compel many of us to have a higher percentage point of belief in a specific position, while lessor evidence will only generate lesser percentage points of belief. However, these percentage points are greatly influenced by the degree of knowledge we have in our specific areas of expertise.

We all believe in the Big Bang despite it not being proven conclusively true. We all believe in Evolution despite it not being conclusively proven to be true. We all believe in many scientific theories despite them not being conclusively proven to be true.

But science itself does not have exclusivity to what can be determined to be true, false, or undecided. It is not the beacon that can shed light upon all things involved in the human equation. Science is a method that comprises of many things such as anecdotal evidence, interpretations, equations, hypothesis, theories, et al, which enable us all to gain a better understanding of the nature of things.

Yet when it comes to positions of belief in general, science can lead you to a position of higher or lesser degrees of belief, but there are instances where science can not answer all the questions we have.

What is truth? If science cannot always tell you the truth, then isn't truth therefore best described as that which we have chosen to believe despite the lack of absolute certainty?

We all have our truths, and some here do not always agree with what another believes to be true. Some here have a greater knowledge in a specific subject than others, which results in a greater belief in what they have decided that best approximates the truth from their personal perspective and expertise.

In this question of UFOs and alien visitation, absolute truth cannot be determined without absolute proof of existence. However, the anecdotal evidence and the interpretation of the historical evidence- when investigated thoroughly just like any other subject including the sciences- is absolutely capable of generating higher levels of belief in the possibility that not only can alien aircraft exist, but alien visitation is also possible.

There are some here who will adamantly deny that the evidence supplied is actually any kind of evidence that can be used to support and qualify different standards of belief. Yet these are the same people who are in a state of belief themselves in many aspects of science based upon the interpretations of the available evidence in respect to that particular science.

One can not have his cake and eat it too in this discussion. If they cannot respect and understand how others can believe in things they disagree with, then they really have no business believing in the things they profess to hold dearly to themselves, for they themselves are also standing in a position of belief.

You believe because the interpretation of the evidence enables you to believe. You can be wrong also, because without conclusiveness there is always room to be wrong, and room to doubt.

Likewise, so can I be wrong in what I believe to be true in that it is possible that alien life is visiting earth for the very same reasons.

But nobody here can make a positive claim that any of us are factually right or wrong in respect to this issue of UFOs and alien visitation, or even the Big Bang.

Nobody.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  No, the evidence was observed and interpreted.

It was also verified.

You aren't going to get around this.

(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  In short, anecdotal evidence was interpreted

That is not what "anecdote" means.

You still aren't going to get around this.

(27-09-2015 08:45 AM)Free Wrote:  But nobody here can make a positive claim that any of us are factually right or wrong in respect to this issue of UFOs and alien visitation.

Nobody.

Yes, actually. We can.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
27-09-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 09:39 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  No, the evidence was observed and interpreted.

It was also verified.

You aren't going to get around this.

Verified as what, specifically? What does that verification specifically imply?

Quote:
(27-09-2015 06:14 AM)Free Wrote:  In short, anecdotal evidence was interpreted

That is not what "anecdote" means.

You still aren't going to get around this.

Obviously you don't understand it:

"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis."
"Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_...ic_context

Quote:
(27-09-2015 08:45 AM)Free Wrote:  But nobody here can make a positive claim that any of us are factually right or wrong in respect to this issue of UFOs and alien visitation.

Nobody.

Yes, actually. We can.

No, you cannot. You can try to be intellectually dishonest about it- which is something you are all too familiar with on this thread- but I will easily point it out from merely a casual glance.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 09:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Verified as what, specifically?

True. As in, it has been verified to be sure that X is actually happening.

Science does not operate on anecdotes, however much you wish it did.

(27-09-2015 09:47 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That is not what "anecdote" means.

Obviously you don't understand it:

"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis."
"Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically."

Once again, you have failed to read your own sources.

Your source is, once again, a Wikipedia article, which itself cites a Not Found page on YourDictionary and only has [citation needed] for its second definition, because anecdotes are not evidence.

Science does not run on "casual observations... rather than rigorous or scientific analysis". It does not try to use data that is "not documented scientifically". That's rather the whole point, in fact.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(27-09-2015 10:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 09:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Verified as what, specifically?

True. As in, it has been verified to be sure that X is actually happening.

Science does not operate on anecdotes, however much you wish it did.

And what is "X" specifically? Does X specifically and conclusively PROVE that the Big Bang happened?

Quote:
(27-09-2015 09:47 AM)Free Wrote:  Obviously you don't understand it:

"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis."
"Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically."

Once again, you have failed to read your own sources.

Your source is, once again, a Wikipedia article, which itself cites a Not Found page on YourDictionary and only has [citation needed] for its second definition, because anecdotes are not evidence.

Science does not run on "casual observations... rather than rigorous or scientific analysis". It does not try to use data that is "not documented scientifically". That's rather the whole point, in fact.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

But ... without anecdotes- without at first there being an eyewitness observation, and without that eyewitness observation being passed along by either word of mouth or a paper- NOTHING IN SCIENCE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

Without anecdotes being the "first responders" you cannot explore deeper possibilities. And then even those possibilities generate even more anecdotes, and the process goes on and on.

Scientific anecdotes are evidence to support belief in a hypothesis, which then gets explored and studied more closely.

They generate BELIEF.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: