Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 62
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@FLRW
It's called static electricity.  Research has shown that as a word or answer began to form, the eye movements increased, indicating that participants brains were calculating and predicting potential answers and sending their eyes to potential next letters, thus subconsciously guiding their hands to glide the planchettes to them. The pair on the planchette subconsciously take turns taking control as their brains feel more confident tin their choices.
Would you (or they) say the static electricity caused the planchette to rise off the board?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no knowledge of an UFO documentation, because no valid documentation exists.


There's tons of documentation for this subject, the one above has some pretty good information to get your foot in the door. The problem... is that if it's a phenomenon trying to be covered up or suppressed then there's going to be some controversy surrounding it. The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence. Watch this whole documentary without the assumption people are nuts and or lying. Since you have an issue with testimonies you're probably going to fluff off most of the video but at some point you should consider most decent people just want to tell the truth. 

Give your sources or let the claim be unproven

When have you looked? what have you done to evaluate the subject? there's tons of information and sources you could investigate, then again you're distaste for other witnesses will make this very hard to accept. However, this goes beyond just people's testimonies of actually witnessing UFO's. 
Our US air force is in control of most of the events/sightings as they are the source that has the most observation of what comes in contact within our atmosphere and they are the same source that has the say whether or not it is disclosed. But there are those who have had access to this information who have come forward. Beyond that, it's just your average Joe who may see something in the air, maybe report it and then they are most likely mocked and told they are "frauds". Sure, there's going to be some idiot that develops a fakery here and there but you should look much more into it. 

, again, I have never heard of whatever you're talking about. Now, people have sent in doctored videos claiming that the sources are offical, and the fraud has always been discovered false

This is where it seems you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know there is credible documented evidence that shows they might exist, then you claim they are all false lol. Wow. 

but again, aliens would not be "unnatural", we have no current evidence of intelligent et life, but it wouldn't be unnatural if it did exist.

This I agree with. Although I certainly believe in spiritual entities, which are spirit beings...."aliens" are beings still within the physical universe. Just in different parts of our universe. 


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
"These expectations present a dilemma. If an image of a UFO is too clear it is likely to be read as obviously fake, but if it’s too blurry it could be anything."

"A superficial reading of the Navy UFO footage would likely lead to the latter evaluation. But given the nature of the footage (it is infrared, not technically photographic, so establishes the heat signature of the objects depicted), and the institutional context (the Pentagon is not known for producing and distributing fake UFO videos), it’s hard to avoid concluding the footage shows genuine physical anomalies. If that’s the case, it would be worthy of serious scientific and military attention, both of which currently seem absent."

From this, we are wondering what it is, and there has been no evidence that it is anything alien related, this article is calling for scientific inquiriy, it does not however, support your conclusions, that is you cherry picking what you want to believe. Again, the picture is blurry enough to know that it is at least heat seeking (or probably so) but the exact details are not clear, that is the most generous you can give this video. Whenever you want something to agree with you however, you come to whatever conclusions you want.


Are you saying that there is no evil? Something like terrorist acts against unknown people being evil is subjective?

From an objective standpoint, absolutely, the evil of terrorists or any action is only subjective. As a human, obviously I would call that a great evil, but it is only intellectually honest to admit that my view as a human is biased, and yes, ultimately subjective. 


I'm assuming you're referring to aliens from other planets.  How would you even know if they came from other planets?

Even if they are, it's not really what they would be that is unnatural, but what they're able to do.
If they are aliens, then they are literally definitionally from another planet (unless you're talking about immigrants-aliens, in which case, from another country then), and what are they able to do that is "unnatural"? Again, the video suggests something that we don't know of is happening, and nothing speaks of "unnaturality" all it speaks of is that we don't understand it, those two things aren't mutally exclusive. 


Your explanations are possible in that anything theoretically is possible. One, or both of us may be experiments in a lab, and we're dreaming
all of this.
Theortically? The study I cited literally talks about how people are confused all the time? The thing i said, can and do happen all the time, this is you - not at all presenting a clear or powerful counterpoint. Actually address the things i said and rebutt them. This is just you hand-waving them away.


No. So let me ask you,  when you pick up a coin with your fingernails, explain to me how you accomplish this. I don't think you can defy gravity, so I doubt you can lift a coin with your fingernail with a soft gentle touch on the very top of the coin.
There were two of you, no? Therefore it would be elementary to simply have both of your fingernails touching the coins from the side and lifting it, and you simply not being aware that your fingers were like that, or, you are misremembering, or you are lying, its interesting to note how you completely dropped the whole "if you had to bring up lying then your other things aren't true" thing, kinda like you realized how wrong you were?


I realized afterwards that the way I put it may cause confusion. The other person (in front of you) is on your team. Not the opponent
Except, another thing, that completely breaks the entire metaphor, as that would assume that neither of you were moving the mobing the planchette, on top of that, there is no tug of war here, you are literally just resting your hand on top of it and then the planchette "moves on its own" unlike in a tug of war where both parties are moving in opposing directions, it is perfectly possible, in this instance, to have been pulling the rope, as their is no other team in the first place.


It sure doesn't look like you're pursuing the questioning. It looks like you were stating you didn't know much about him, therefore not much to talk about.


Was there a question you wanted me to answer?
I thought I was quite clear, what type of occult stuff does he do? I can't talk about him if I don't know what he did at all, and you seem to have more than a cursory knowledge of him, unlike me.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
There's tons of documentation for this subject, the one above has some pretty good information to get your foot in the door. The problem... is that if it's a phenomenon trying to be covered up or suppressed then there's going to be some controversy surrounding it. The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence. Watch this whole documentary without the assumption people are nuts and or lying. Since you have an issue with testimonies you're probably going to fluff off most of the video but at some point you should consider most decent people just want to tell the truth. 
Cool beans except.... the government provided some of the videos we're talking about. Cover up? Uh huh. I really don't care about testimonies, if you want the type of evidence I find compelling, then that video (the one RobertSpode provided) was by far much more compelling in opening me to the assertion. That has an actual modicum of evidence behind that assertion, now, does the evidence quite support what they want to imply? No, not quite, but at the very least its actual reliable evidence! Again, testimony is quite fradulent without other evidence, now, what is more believeable? that the vast majority of people see air planes, jets, weapons testing, etc, and think that they are alien crafts, but even this video that is the best example I've ever seen support the conclusion that aliens are real. You have failed to convince me here, even more so than Roderick. Just a little, btw, just because people want to tell the truth and they tell what they believe to be true, that doesn't mean what they said happened is what actually happened, keep that in mind.


When have you looked? what have you done to evaluate the subject? there's tons of information and sources you could investigate, then again you're distaste for other witnesses will make this very hard to accept. However, this goes beyond just people's testimonies of actually witnessing UFO's. 
Our US air force is in control of most of the events/sightings as they are the source that has the most observation of what comes in contact within our atmosphere and they are the same source that has the say whether or not it is disclosed. But there are those who have had access to this information who have come forward. Beyond that, it's just your average Joe who may see something in the air, maybe report it and then they are most likely mocked and told they are "frauds". Sure, there's going to be some idiot that develops a fakery here and there but you should look much more into it. 
Surprise surprise, whenever someone provided the evidence, as I already addressed, and again, it doesn't seem to support what others think, the entire portions of it that make it "alien like" are all details that can't even be confirmed, so.... that's a dead end until further research is developed, and I agree with the guy in the article there should be more scientific testing there, but simply yelling, "ITS AN ALIEN ITS AN ALIEN!!" whenever the evidence isn't clear yet, the best evidence that we have, is not logical. I don't care about what average joe's say about an unproven thing and their testimony is the only thing to prove that thing,  I require more evidence to declare it true. Its as simple as that. This is exactly about what people construe as evidence, as people are typically accepting of every little thing whenever it comes to things they want to be true, conformation bias and all that. That's all I've seen today.


This is where it seems you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know there is credible documented evidence that shows they might exist, then you claim they are all false lol. Wow. 
Again, I said, as far as I've seen, I literally looked as soon as someone presented evidence, if you had actual arguments here, maybe you would be more compelling, instead you assume your conclusions to be true, and laugh off anyone who disagrees, its quite common in your little tactics, and your framing has become apparantly deliberately manipulative, cutting out large swaths of context in order to make something seem worse than it is, that's pretty suspect to me.


This I agree with. Although I certainly believe in spiritual entities, which are spirit beings...."aliens" are beings still within the physical universe. Just in different parts of our universe. 
Again, cool beans, do you have any evidence of these spritual beings?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Karl Marx was a spiritualist.  He totally was hooked on non-organised religion. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Occult, Witchcraft and Paranormal all labels people often use when they don't know where else to put things.  Most of these also exist outside religion. To me Occult would be high magick or ceremonial magic, alchemy where a teacher/ mentor / student relationship is needed to progress. I wouldn't call Oujia boards, tarot , meditation or spell work occult. I wouldn't but most religions under occult unless they have high magic practices like Kabbalah or Golden Dawn. But again it's all personal experience as far as if it works or doesn't. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Spiritualism is pretty organized now thought it's not tied to a book or set of holy texts. 
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
the government provided some of the videos we're talking about. Cover up? Uh huh.

Yes cover up, there is a conspiracy to keep such information from the public, they only agree when their asses are on the line. If the Government provided some of the videos then why are complaining that no documented evidence has been shown?

Again, testimony is quite fradulent without other evidence

Which is why I presented this documentary, to show there is documented evidence ALONG with testimonies (which is what you asked for). Your very own government officials have documented accounts of UFO activity. I don't care what you believe about testimonies, they are included as evidence, that is how they are defined.

You have failed to convince me here

While I wasn't exactly trying, that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Surprise surprise, whenever someone provided the evidence, as I already addressed, and again, it doesn't seem to support what others think, the entire portions of it that make it "alien like" are all details that can't even be confirmed, so.... that's a dead end until further research is developed, and I agree with the guy in the article there should be more scientific testing there, but simply yelling, "ITS AN ALIEN ITS AN ALIEN!!"

You have numerous people that witnessed alien bodies, they were recovered and removed from the public eye. You have no idea what the hell they did with those remains, and there was no further open study that was allowed to show what they actually were (besides the fact they were not human, otherwise there would have been no cover up). Put two and two together, there was a UFO that crashed, beings that WEREN'T human were recovered, what the hell do you think was the alternative outcome? only a real dumbass would not be able to identify humans as humans or an aircraft that was not of this world. Skepticism can only go so far before it just makes a person stupid.

I require more evidence to declare it true.

You state that s if you're the only one who thinks that.

whenever it comes to things they want to be true, conformation bias and all that.

Are you fcking kidding me? you think this has anything to do with what I want?? I'm still considering this as a possibility this has nothing to do with what I want. What an insult, do you have any idea how often I remove myself from the core of my own beliefs to follow evidence? how many Christians do you know of that would present evidence for aliens lol? Roderick might be the first that I personally know of. This has zero to do with what I want, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend there is no documented evidence and testimonies that show otherwise. By now you should have realized how open-minded I am, my beliefs are rare and my posts are unorthodox to say the least. I don't give a shit about what "I want", that has never been my motivation, not at anytime in my life. That has no influence on my decisions. I'm interested in things outside of my own knowledge and experience, now that is what gets me going. But as I've said before I'm not stupid either, I wouldn't have presented this if I thought there was good reason to just sweep it under the rug.

, if you had actual arguments here

What friggin arguments would you be looking for? you asked for documented evidence and I gave it to you. The only arguments I have in favor of this discussion would be from common sense, and I don't see you being open to pretty much anything at this point. Sorry.

instead you assume your conclusions to be true, and laugh off anyone who disagrees,

Again are you fcking kidding me? is this supposed to be a joke because you have no idea what you are saying. What conclusions have I assumed to be true? have we ever discussed this? if not, then why would you be making any assumptions? I'm not a close-minded little brat, so I'm willing to look at the evidence and make adjustments as to what I may have thought was true. If you had asked me about aliens five years ago I would have probably laughed, but I'm willing to incorporate such a thing into my worldview because of being open minded about it. It actually works believe it or not, and I've given it quite some thought along with judging the evidence.

its quite common in your little tactics

What tactics? I don't have an agenda, I don't have any motives other than sharing what I believe to be the case. I don't use tactics I use logic and evidence as a key factor.

and your framing has become apparantly deliberately manipulative, cutting out large swaths of context in order to make something seem worse than it is, that's pretty suspect to me.

WTF are you complaining about? I have no idea what you are going on about. But to sit there and try and frame me as someone who believes what I want or that I base my beliefs around confirmation bias makes you an ass. At first I thought maybe you were a bit more intellectually open than some of the others, but after reading through your responses more it seems you're just another biased, rigid brainwashed little prick. You need to grow up some, you really have no place in a forum tailored to spiritual discussions or anything outside the realm of atheism. We need folks willing to follow logic, evidence, commonsense and those who have no bias and preconceived ideas. You're a dime a dozen, get in line and don't accuse me or project on me I'm a guy who has no care in the world about the way I want things to be. That's never been the life I've lived or the path I've taken. If you believe I'm being manipulative in any of our discussions you are a poor judge of character, I won't even bother engaging you anymore. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Good yo see ya around!
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Before I do anything, your "evidence" is hilariously faulty, let's dissect some points:

One, however stood out: Lt. Col. Philip Corso, who authored a book titled The Day After Roswell. Here is what the noted UFO investigator Stanton Friedman had to say in his review of that book:
The first part of the book, with the exception of the strange Ft. Riley, Kansas warehouse scene with an alien body being observed by Corso on July 6, seems to have nothing to do with him. He admits he wasn’t involved at all in the recovery, investigation, or evaluation of what happened near Roswell. It is almost certainly based on the many Roswell books already published by Randle and Schmitt, Moore and Berlitz, and Don Berliner and myself, but with no attempt to validate or critically evaluate anything and no credits being given.
In the second half of the book Corso seems to be taking credit for the single handed introduction of a whole host of new technologies into American industry. All this is supposedly derived from the filing cabinet of Roswell wreckage over which he was given control by General Trudeau. He is very vague about details, and there is no substantiation for any of the claims on fiber optics, Kevlar, laser weapons, microcircuits, etc.1
That the person who is taking Corso to task and implying that he is a fraud is none other than Stanton Friedman is quite telling, since Friedman is perhaps the foremost apologist for the contention that an alien spaceship crashed at Roswell and that the government is covering it up.
Oh? So in other words on of the key witnesses were lying about other stuff, and never substantiated their claims to the point where other people who think an alien spaceship crashed there is criticizing them? Oh, I guess this must be legit. To continue on this train, one of the ones who claimed to witness the alien's body is also not trust worthy with claims, whaaat?

Another of the seemingly expert witnesses, one who also claims to have seen the bodies of the dead aliens from the Roswell crash site, is Richard C. Doty. This would seem to represent a turn-about, since Doty originally appears to have spread disinformation to lead UFO enthusiasts on wild goose chases. According to one article:
The UFO community has been familiar with Richard C. Doty, self-proclaimed “disinformation agent” who used to work as an AFOSI officer in Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. … Most folks seem to agree that he indeed had a deep impact on the life of businessman Paul Bennewitz, owner of defense contractor Thunder Scientific Laboratories in Albuquerque located right next to Kirtland Air Force Base.2
The article quotes Doty as saying:
I do not have anything to do with UFO research or investigations. I attempted to perform certain duties which would enable our team to trap possible foreign agents working against the interest of the United States. My supervisors, however, saw my actions as being unauthorized. Therefore, I was asked to leave AFOSI, which I did voluntarily.3
Is a man who has spread deceptive information and who at one time says he had nothing to do with UFO research to be trusted when he now says he saw the crashed Roswell spaceship?
oh? You wanted another?

Another of the witnesses giving important testimony in the film is Maj. George A. Filer III, who claims to have chased a UFO over Stonehenge. If we were to judge the credibility of a witness based on kooky beliefs he or she might hold, Filer would not come out well. When UFO skeptic Robert Schaeffer visited a MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) symposium in 2011, he reports that Filer gave a presentation in which he made some rather startling claims about the planet Mars:
Mars, according to Filer, used to be teeming with life until it was mostly wiped out in a nuclear holocaust some 180 million years ago. He showed NASA photos of Mars that purport to contain tubes (possibly water pipes, or trains) that extend for miles, as well as underground cities. There are numerous faces on Mars, and some of them look similar to Egyptian Pharaohs. But some life still exists among the ruins. The green colors on Mars represent growths of moss and algae.4
Considering that, according to NASA, the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than that of Earth, and that it is over 95% carbon dioxide and only 0.13% oxygen,5 one wonders what the surviving Martians are breathing.

I'll just keep on going at this point:

Similar to the assertion above by George Filer is the claim by Sgt. Karl Wolfe, another of the film’s witnesses, that he saw photos taken by the Lunar Orbiter of a base on the far side of the moon. In an online article titled “3 Dumbest Dark Side of the Moon Conspiracy Theories” Harrison Preston says of this claim:
Another prime candidate for our plain dumb category is one Karl Wolfe, a former sergeant in the United States Air Force. According to his own testimony for the Disclosure Project before the National Press Club in Washington DC in 2010, Wolfe claims to have been assigned to HQ Tactical Air Command in Langley, Virginia.
One day in “1965, mid-1965”, whilst assigned to the Lunar Orbiter Program, Wolfe says he saw “clear structures, buildings, mushroom shaped buildings, spherical buildings, towers” in a series of photographs of the far side of the moon shown to him by an airman in a lab he was working in.
He also stated the other airman told him “we’ve found a base on the far side of the moon.” Wolfe is very clear on the year this supposedly happened, and also the project he was a part of. It is this clarity which also serves to show why he couldn’t possibly be telling the truth.
The Lunar Orbiter Program ran from 1966 through to 1967, but the first images of the far side of the moon weren’t captured until the Lunar Orbiter 4 mission in May 1967—a full two years after Wolfe claims to have seen the structures and buildings! Lunar 4 photographed 9% of the far side, with Lunar Orbiter 5 imaging the rest in August that same year.6
A NASA report on the Lunar Orbiter missions notes that a total of 419 high resolution and 127 medium resolution photos were taken by the Lunar Orbiter missions, covering over 99% of the lunar surface.7 For all that, no alien bases show up in these photos.

Maybe you're suspect that this only attacking the characters of these people well... there isn't much more than that to actually look at:

From time to time Greer does read from what appear to be redacted secret documents released through the Freedom of Information Act. However, their headings are never shown. One reason we might doubt their authenticity is that they are coupled with yet another statement dishonestly taken out of context. Victor Marchetti, former Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA is quoted as saying:
We have, indeed, been contacted—perhaps even visited—by extraterrestrial beings, and the U.S. Government, in collusion with other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.
The quote is from a 1979 article by Marchetti in a no longer published magazine called Second Look, titled “How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon.” While that magazine is defunct, the article is available on a number of websites. In it Marchetti first admits that he has no firsthand experience with UFOs, has never seen one, and has no empirical or physical evidence of their existence. He then says the following, and here the material edited out in the quote above is added in italics:
My theory is that we have, indeed, been contacted—perhaps even visited—by extraterrestrial beings, and that the U.S. Government, in collusion with other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.11
So the filmmakers grossly misquoted Marchetti by removing the statement that it was his theory that we have been contacted by extraterrestrial beings, dishonestly quoting him as saying that extraterrestrial beings have definitely contacted us and that he knows definitively that our government is covering it up.

And again:
Earlier in the film, Greer says that Carl Sagan originally supported the idea that UFOs were real and had said that it was clear Earth was not the only inhabited planet. Greer then says:
After he was threatened by the intelligence community, and blackmailed, he then began to debunk the issue.
So, was Sagan originally a UFO believer, silenced and cowed by those running the Black Programs? Here’s what Carl Sagan actually said about extraterrestrial intelligence:
It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the only inhabited planet. There is evidence that the bulk of the stars in the sky have planetary systems. Recent research concerning the origin of life on Earth suggests that the physical and chemical processes leading to the origin of life occur rapidly in the early history of the majority of planets. The selective value of intelligence and technical civilization is obvious, and it seems likely that a large number of planets within our Milky Way galaxy—perhaps as many as a million—are inhabited by technical civilizations in advance of our own. Interstellar space flight is far beyond our present technical capabilities, but there seems to be no fundamental physical objections to preclude, from our own vantage point, the possibility of its development by other civilizations.12
Here Sagan is merely running a thought experiment extrapolating the possible number of extra-terrestrial civilizations based on the number of potential planets in our galaxy, a very common theme in SETI literature. In any case, there is no evidence that Carl Sagan was threatened by the government or that he was ever anything other than a skeptic concerning reported contacts by UFOs.

Why don't you just read the article actually?

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes cover up, there is a conspiracy to keep such information from the public, they only agree when their asses are on the line. If the Government provided some of the videos then why are complaining that no documented evidence has been shown?
This is exactly what I meant by dishonest! I literally explained that I hadn't seen any evidence, and then, as soon as I got evidence I analyzed it! You're evidence was suspect to say the least, and the entire point of discussion was that the video presented wasn't compelling whatsoever. It didn't demonstrate that what that was was actually alien, it proved that something unexplained was going on, the entire fact that people jumped to "ALIEN!!" Proves that their is confirmation bias going on. 


Which is why I presented this documentary, to show there is documented evidence ALONG with testimonies (which is what you asked for). Your very own government officials have documented accounts of UFO activity. I don't care what you believe about testimonies, they are included as evidence, that is how they are defined.
You not caring about how testimonies are proven by studies to be categorically unreliable? That is the height of being unreasonable, the videos prove that their have been unidentified flying objects, which, the details cannot be made out - most vehicles in the sky are identified by a radio broadcast or some sort of clear shape or marking, several air crafts that were at first said to be identified were identified later on because the crew realized that the quality was so shoddy they couldn't properly make them out. Thus, investigation needs to go on and actually demonstrate what that is - because so far, its not very compelling evidence to prove aliens. 


You have numerous people that witnessed alien bodies, they were recovered and removed from the public eye. You have no idea what the hell they did with those remains, and there was no further open study that was allowed to show what they actually were (besides the fact they were not human, otherwise there would have been no cover up). Put two and two together, there was a UFO that crashed, beings that WEREN'T human were recovered, what the hell do you think was the alternative outcome? only a real dumbass would not be able to identify humans as humans or an aircraft that was not of this world. Skepticism can only go so far before it just makes a person stupid.
Incorrect, there are people who have claimed to witness alien bodies..... and their is no evidence of that.... their is no evidence of anything except for claims and reports without citations. The entire documentary is laughable at best. Any skeptical look at the evidence would let you know of how untrustworthy the film is, and how untrustworthy the people are, or, how much the film misquotes people.... you know... a cursory thought would let you know that, so, this is why I find extreme open-ness not a good thing. Your entire foundation of your claims are unwarranted. 


Are you fcking kidding me? you think this has anything to do with what I want?? I'm still considering this as a possibility this has nothing to do with what I want. What an insult, do you have any idea how often I remove myself from the core of my own beliefs to follow evidence? how many Christians do you know of that would present evidence for aliens lol? Roderick might be the first that I personally know of. This has zero to do with what I want, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend there is no documented evidence and testimonies that show otherwise. By now you should have realized how open-minded I am, my beliefs are rare and my posts are unorthodox to say the least. I don't give a shit about what "I want", that has never been my motivation, not at anytime in my life. That has no influence on my decisions. I'm interested in things outside of my own knowledge and experience, now that is what gets me going. But as I've said before I'm not stupid either, I wouldn't have presented this if I thought there was good reason to just sweep it under the rug.
Being "open" to evidence isn't the problem, its being accepting of it to a ridiculous agree, do you think that saying someone has confirmation is an insult? Its a descriptor of reality, everyone has it - and yes - by the fact that you believe in quote "spirtual beings" I would be remiss to not think that you want this to occur. My point is that all of the evidence is so uncompelling that a large portion of it is confirmation bias, frankly however, I was mostly referring to Roderickspode, and if you stopped cutting off context then maybe you wouldn't try to make yourself out to be the targeted one. Let's back up, shall we?

"This is exactly about what people construe as evidence, as people are typically accepting of every little thing whenever it comes to things they want to be true, conformation bias and all that. That's all I've seen today." This was in reference to the video that RoderickSpode presented specifically, as attributing that to aliens would in fact be confirmation bias unless there was more reasoning then what was in the article. Being interested is all fine and good, however, there comes a point where someone is unreasonably accepting evidence, which was my point, and then you decided for a tirade about yourself. 

You have officially missed the point.


What friggin arguments would you be looking for? you asked for documented evidence and I gave it to you. The only arguments I have in favor of this discussion would be from common sense, and I don't see you being open to pretty much anything at this point. Sorry.
I'm open to things with actual evidence behind it, case in point - evolution, the big bang, medical drugs, etc, etc... How about a deductive argument with more than testimonies, your "documented evidence" was a fancy term for a collection of testimonies that are even easier to find out how untrustworthy they are. "Common sense" is a fun argument, how about we just use logic? Is that so hard?


Again are you fcking kidding me? is this supposed to be a joke because you have no idea what you are saying. What conclusions have I assumed to be true? have we ever discussed this? if not, then why would you be making any assumptions? I'm not a close-minded little brat, so I'm willing to look at the evidence and make adjustments as to what I may have thought was true. If you had asked me about aliens five years ago I would have probably laughed, but I'm willing to incorporate such a thing into my worldview because of being open minded about it. It actually works believe it or not, and I've given it quite some thought along with judging the evidence.
Let me remind you of what you said in response: "This is where it seems you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know there is credible documented evidence that shows they might exist, then you claim they are all false lol. Wow. " Uh huh, and again, you are trying to make yourself seem like the targetted one? "Is this a joke?" No, this is me calling you out for your assumptions in your arguments and how you tend to dismiss notions. Spirits... for one thing, again, I am quite aware, I have yet to see the compelling evidence - I am open minded to evidence that is actually considerable. If I was to accept every testimony or documentary on netflix without critical thought I would also believe that aliens made the pyramaids and not... you know, ramps with people  using them... Or or that the government is actually controlled by the Illuminati. Not accepting bad evidence isn't "close-minded" its having standards of evidence.


What tactics? I don't have an agenda, I don't have any motives other than sharing what I believe to be the case. I don't use tactics I use logic and evidence as a key factor
How about I just list the ones from this:
1. Cutting off most of the context from a statment
2. Misrepresenting your interloquitur
3. Resulting to insults and tirades whenever someone criticizes you

I could go on, but I think thats a starter - and the quote (if you bothered with context) was about how you laughed anyone who disagreed with your conclusions, your conclusion being that your "evidence" was at all compelling. You did this without actually looking at the argument I was making, another part of the tactics I was describing, perhaps you do all of this unintentionally? I find that hard to believe.


WTF are you complaining about? I have no idea what you are going on about. But to sit there and try and frame me as someone who believes what I want or that I base my beliefs around confirmation bias makes you an ass. At first I thought maybe you were a bit more intellectually open than some of the others, but after reading through your responses more it seems you're just another biased, rigid brainwashed little prick. You need to grow up some, you really have no place in a forum tailored to spiritual discussions or anything outside the realm of atheism. We need folks willing to follow logic, evidence, commonsense and those who have no bias and preconceived ideas. You're a dime a dozen, get in line and don't accuse me or project on me I'm a guy who has no care in the world about the way I want things to be. That's never been the life I've lived or the path I've taken. If you believe I'm being manipulative in any of our discussions you are a poor judge of character, I won't even bother engaging you anymore. 
Everyone has confirmation bias, I have confirmation bias, and as the evidence you have provided is.... very suspect, and I believe you to have intelligence, the explanation for both of those things happening is confirmation bias. The funniest bit, the part your responding to isn't even about confirmation bias, there is no mention of it in that entire paragraph that you took that from. There is no "framing" here I am simply pointing out, that to me, it seems like the evidence being presented has been accepted as a part of confirmation bias, as I pointed out, I hadn't even said you had it explicitly. I am a "biased, rigid brainwashed little prick." Thanks for the insult, how about we do this logically huh? I don't accept evidence willy nilly, how exactly does that make me "brain washed" my entire household believes in aliens and god, I am as far away from "brainwashed" as one can get in this regard. You seem like a prick to me, literally, going on tirades and insulting me because I don't agree with something you say, and say, "It seems there is some confirmation bias going on." Like the actual hell? 

"I have no place here" You have no place in telling me where to go or not go, how about you actually learn something, I am not going to just sit back and just let you insult me because I offended you because I called out your tactics. I'm not judging characters by calling out manipulative tactics, I'm calling out action, you can be a good person and also manipulative, you can be a bad person and not manipulative at all, that has literally nothing to do with it. See the difference now is that I have an actual reason to be offended, I don't think pointing out some facts and saying, "This might be the case" is exactly a proper starter for your little tirade. Out of the two of us, I think there is a clear more mature person here. Isn't that ironic.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Hello, Roderick - long time no see!

It seems to me all religious experiences/religions might be considered part of the "occult". Its just that people don't generally consider their own beliefs mysterious or dark - that's what other people do! 😁


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,629
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tradesecret
 “Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” -Karl Marx
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Marx was talking about organized religion - not spiritualism and not unorganised religion. 

He was opposed to institutions like the church, the state and the family.  Hence why he allowed his children to starve while attending university. 

Marx was a child abuser and ought to have been put to death for the cruelty he exacted on humanity - or even on his own family. 

He is one of the most evil people who have ever lived - making Hitler look like a sunday school choir boy.  (And I think Hitler should have died a 1000 deaths)

His policies have led to more people dying and being persecuted and more families being destroyed than any other philosophy in the world. 

And his view on the history of economics is observably wrong.   
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,629
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, didn't God let his only son be crucified so he could make his point ?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
It was nothing to do with making a point.  It was because this was the only SOLUTION to the problem of sin. He did himself what he knew no one else could do. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It was because this was the only SOLUTION to the problem of sin.

Which came about via the gods. Once a chunk was taken from that fruit, we became "just like the gods"


He did himself what he knew no one else could do. 

Stop talking rubbish. People put their lives on the line for others all the time. 

Besides, Jesus had an advantage didn't he?  He knew he wasn't going to die.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Most religion is open worship of a god or gods. The occult usually does not involve a god or gods. It's usually involves self improvement outside a god helping you.  Some religions have occult practices but they can exists without the god involvement like healing or divination.  

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You mean he believed in the resurrection?  And so knowing you were going to live  makes all of the suffering and pain he went through worth it? 

The problem you have is that God does not  believe the ends justifies the means.  Hence, in this situation, it was not the end per se he was looking at but both the means and the ends.  Still, that you judge everyone by your own standards is not surprising. 

The first statement you blurted out - does not even make sense. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Besides, Jesus had an advantage didn't he?  He knew he wasn't going to die.

You mean he believed in the resurrection? 
No. I mean he knew he wasn't going to die. And he didn't according to many scholars and one Australian scholar in particular. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
It is highly implausible that Jesus did not die on the cross.  One of the indisputable facts of history is that the Romans were very good at killing people.

It is nothing short of grasping for straws to believe that he did not die.   If he was not dead - the Romans failed. The Jews failed and the sense of good logic died. 

If Jesus did not die - then the Jews would have found him - looked for him intensily in order to demonstrate that not only did he not die - but he could not have been resurrected. They would have done all that could to prove the disciples and Jesus were frauds.  

But they did not do this.  Not only that - when Jesus was seen by many others later - the Jews and the Romans would simply have said - he was not put to death on the cross. In deed it was a sham. A fake. A conspiracy.  And the interesting thing - is that if it was a conspiracy between the Romans and the Disciples, it was one of the best kept secrets of all time. The fact is - this according to experts is highly implausible.  

Not only that - if he did not die then - where was his body finally laid?  Bodies have a tendency of being found - and after two thousands years - it would have been found. It has not - because Jesus not only died - killed by the Romans - but he rose again. 

Jesus did know he was going to die. He prophesied about it many times .  I find it difficult to believe that even you would attempt to make such an argument. As for Barbera Theiring - she is not accepted in most Christian circles - and even most of the Liberal scholars laugh at her unbelievable and unlikely scenarios. She might well convince her own converts - but not because of the evidence but because of their own desire to find an alternative to the most plausible scenario that Jesus died and rose again. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,624
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


Besides, Jesus had an advantage didn't he?  He knew he wasn't going to die.

You mean he believed in the resurrection? 
No. I mean he knew he wasn't going to die. And he didn't according to many scholars and one Australian scholar in particular. 


It is highly implausible that Jesus did not die on the cross.


You are entitled to believe that.  Its a crying shame that you will never ever,  be able to prove it?


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
There is less need to prove that Jesus was plausibly killed on the cross by expert killing machines like the Romans than to prove that these expert killing machines did not kill him and in fact were in a conspiracy with Jesus and the disciples to fake a resurrection.  

Sometimes it is better to go with Occam's razor rather to grasp at ludicrous conspiracy theories. 

So yes, I can believe what I like and yes, proving my case is impossible. Yet it is heads and shoulders above the absurd and ludicrous theory you are postulating. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
...the only reason I can think of to need to provide proof is if I'm insisting that you accept something as truth. And I don't do that with the Gospel/Bible, or anything else spiritually related. 
The atheists simply assumes you are insisting that he accept something as truth, and goes from there.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Glad you're back PW! Hope the new year is finding you well.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Thanks.  Yes, doing very well. 
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch

Occult, Witchcraft and Paranormal all labels people often use when they don't know where else to put things.
Yep! That would describe mr.

Welcome back!
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Hello, Roderick - long time no see!

It seems to me all religious experiences/religions might be considered part of the "occult". Its just that people don't generally consider their own beliefs mysterious or dark - that's what other people do! 😁
Hello Skep! How have you been?

I understand the gist of what you're saying, and agree partly.

The occult, or at least with some practitioners of black magic, dark arts, etc., seem to promote mysterious and dark, particularly for means of intimidation. A tribe going to war for instance, will attempt to appear dark to their tribal opponent. Their witch doctor may attempt to stir up dark violent attitudes, and inflict fear of spell-casting.

Now, they may not consider themselves immoral in what they're doing, but mysterious and dark are not shunned, and in some cases accepted definitions.
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5

The atheists simply assumes you are insisting that he accept something as truth, and goes from there.
It seems at times maybe we become symbolic of their pastors they disliked. And our individual churches we attend must equate with that church in Kansas where they had an unfavorable experience, etc.