Post 1039 was made by you.
Are you talking about the sky magic? That's a reference to religion. I don't believe in religion, just like I don't believe in any other claims that are not evidence based.
I don't even know what it is that you think I should believe in. Please stop the tap dance and tell me. Thank you.
Are you talking about the sky magic? That's a reference to religion. I don't believe in religion, just like I don't believe in any other claims that are not evidence based.
I don't even know what it is that you think I should believe in. Please stop the tap dance and tell me. Thank you.
Please see above.
Sky magic = religion, chowderhead.
You're twisting my words. Wonder why?
I, for one, was asking you a question, who made the claim on this forum about sky magic and ETs? Can you please quote?
This you?
I ask because the thread is about UFOs; not religion nor ET. Before you start hurling insults, maybe first make sure you're not embarrassing yourself with your lack of comprehension.
That's odd. So, someone makes certain claim in next town, then you go to your next door neighbor and say, "I don't believe in any other claims that are not evidence based."
Great. So in other words, you’re a bored pseudoskeptic sh*t-stirrer frustrated that nobody is making the claim that you’re desperate to argue against.
So I don't believe in UFOs because of lack of evidence.
Sorry if you guys don't like that. I'd change my mind if there was some actual, scientifically verified evidence.
Sorry if you guys don't like that. I'd change my mind if there was some actual, scientifically verified evidence.
That alien civilizations are extremely rare, and in all likelihood, it’s just us here in the Milky Way.
Now instead of saying scientists are not qualified to say those are the probable odds, why don’t you debate based on scientific evidence or facts on your side that support your contention that the opposite is true?
Bonsai, it seems to me that what leads to advancement in knowledge is the experience of new phenomena that was not previously expected or explained. This happens all the time in the physical sciences. The first thing that people try to do is to explain it in terms of already known phenomena. After a period of time if it is discovered that there is repeatable observing of the phenomena AND there is no consistent answer for it in the knowledge base of science and physics the phenomena move to the second phase.
In the second phase there is a searching for the answer. We are in the second phase now. We are searching for the answer and it's a difficult problem to face. The reason it's difficult is because the phenomena itself implies a big gap in our physics knowledge. That in itself is not the biggest problem. The nature of the observed phenomena implies that there maybe something or someone with the agency to have conquered the problem. That's a psychological problem for many people.
I think that is the psychological problem you are experiencing. You, (and others) have gone into denial and still assume that we don't have sufficient evidence that all the above is correct. However there is now enough evidence collected to know that the gap in our knowledge does not come from mistakes in gathering the evidence. The evidence gathering phase is mostly over. Now we have to find the answers.
In the second phase there is a searching for the answer. We are in the second phase now. We are searching for the answer and it's a difficult problem to face. The reason it's difficult is because the phenomena itself implies a big gap in our physics knowledge. That in itself is not the biggest problem. The nature of the observed phenomena implies that there maybe something or someone with the agency to have conquered the problem. That's a psychological problem for many people.
I think that is the psychological problem you are experiencing. You, (and others) have gone into denial and still assume that we don't have sufficient evidence that all the above is correct. However there is now enough evidence collected to know that the gap in our knowledge does not come from mistakes in gathering the evidence. The evidence gathering phase is mostly over. Now we have to find the answers.
No it does not.
YOU CLAIM it implies that while "maybe" again and again says "you can´t prove me wrong" , your old worn battle cry.
You can only "proof positive" facts or things, the other possibility (which is happening here) is "NOT PROOF", period.
There is not such a thing as "negative proof".
Someday you will learn such basic Logic principle, but if you never do, I won´t worry much.
No, you don´t.
What am I missing? WHERE is evidence?
WHERE is that EVIDENCE?
I have been asking for it from day 1
Emphasis on armchair.😛
Same with armchair Philosophy. 🙄
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.