I've read through this whole thread and I must say I was pretty neutral on the subject, until I read this. I've watched ancient aliens and told myself, "this is the supidest, most ridiculous ****." While I'm not convinced that any of this is true, I think the case that was made in this thread Is more believable than the argument that the skeptics had. None you skeptics really had much to say. On the other hand, there is some really intriguing, I won't say evidence, but there are some intriguing accounts. Oojay had some really intriguing arguments. Of course nobody is going to believe his abduction story, even if he recorded it all and interviewed one of the damn aliens, it would easily be dismissed as fake.

It seems to me that there are many signs that point to the truth, but since there isn't concrete evidence In front of everyone's faces, it will continue to be denied. I'm not going to say any of it is true or false, but considering the high probability of alien life and all the depictions of extra-terrestrial things throughout human history, it seems to be more plausible that there is and was something strange going on. More plausible than everyone being either mistaken or full of ****.

I have to agree with you, there is just too much to dismiss it as bs, this isn't a new topic. The subject of beings coming from outside of our solar system has been around for more than 5000 years. Zacharia Sitchen translated some of the oldests texts known to man from ancient sumaria and those texts have the same suggestions that we do get visited by "aliens" and the bible also but they are called "angels". Sitchen has many interviews on you tube that are quite fascinating because its amazing how much they knew about the cosmos and our solar system, they knew things our science just figured out in the last hundred years. He also has wrote several books. But if anyone gets a chance check out his interviews, won't hurt to see another side of the story, he also translated some text that has the most logical theory to how humans came to be on this planet. There is also a text that describes coming into this solar system on a craft and describes what the planets looked like and what the earth looks like from space, and they knew this 5000 years ago, its worth checking out. Peace

I'm not sure you understand the idea behind skepticism in general. Skeptics might have an initial bias about whether they think a particular claim is true or not, but the burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. It's on the individual making the claim. A skeptic need only to wait for the actual evidence to arrive, so that it can be analyzed. Until that happens, the skeptic doesn't have to make a case at all. We don't need to set about to try and prove that something doesn't exist. We can simply let the lack of evidence for its existence speak for itself.

Notice I said evidence, and not "something I heard once". A skeptic doesn't consider personal accounts to make the case for anything at all. If skeptical inquiry was based on one claim having more stories for it than not, the system would be outrageously flawed.
Unfortunately, a lot of laypersons do exactly that, and base their perspectives on whether stories they heard are believable or not. The problem with this is it doesn't actually provide any truth, and simultaneously leaves that person open to be manipulated.

I would advise against creating your inventory of beliefs and notions based on "which argument sounds more believable". The less you rely on evidence, the more likely you'll end up believing a bunch of false things.

Basing your belief on what sounds more believable would be logic, wouldn't it? Basing your belief on what sounds more logical. Allow me to reiterate, just because something sounds logical doesn't make it true. i dont want to make it seem like i think otherwise. And while I do not believe that aliens were a big part of our history, It seems a little more logical to believe that than to not, based on evidence provided. It's either evidence or a huge case of people being full of **** or mistaken. And to me, that would require being a little too naive and illogical to believe. I really don't care that there isn't any "concrete evidence".

Would you say that any hostorical occurrences are false if there isn't any living evidence to support it? Other than communication through art and literature. This is pretty much the same thing.

The problem here is that you're seeing this anecdotal evidence speaking to only two options; something exists because they saw it, or something does not exist because they're lying. Putting aside the alarming statement about you not caring whether there's actual evidence involved, you're also not considering the very likely possibility that people have mistakenly interpreted occurrences throughout history and simply made assertions based on no evidence. And then you're making assumptions that their assumptions, which are based on more assumptions, is true.

I'm not making a claim at all that their stories are false. But I am saying it's wise to consider the possibility that they're not simply true because there are a lot of the same assumptions out there. As everyone knows, people assumed the earth was flat. And that assumption probably would have stuck around had evidence to the contrary not changed that notion.
Regardless of whether the value of evidence in that case is the same in the case of aliens, the value of evidence in general remains intact and irrefutable, as it can be relied upon in any case to determine the validity of any hypothesis.

As far as what seems more logical, if you ask me, it doesn't seem very logical to me that there are all these reports of UFOs and abductions, from thousands of years of history apparently, and we still have absolutely no actual evidence to prove them.
What does seem logical, however, is that human beings are not perfect, but are perfectly capable of misinterpreting and mistaking occurrences, and even some of them might be sick in the head, and others could even be lying. There's a myriad of possibility. However, to simply say "well, tons of people reported it, therefore it must be true" and ignore all the other possibilities is not logical at all, but naive, and indicative of a lapse in critical thinking and judgement.

That last statement, that's not what I said. I clearly said that I don't believe all of this, meaning that when It really boils down to it, I don't believe it. I wouldn't put money or anything of value on it. I'm just not going to say that none of it happened, I think it very well could have.

Why is my statement about not caring if there is concrete evidence alarming? You never answered my question about believing that all historical occurrences are false unless there is no living evidence. Surely at some point in your life you were told some family stories by your parents or another family member. And most likely there is no other reason for you to believe those stories are true other than the fact that you trust this person. Obviously, trust isn't evidence. So do you think all of those stories are true or false? Is it "alarming" for you to believe that they were true? I know a typical family story isn't the same as claiming you we're visited by aliens, but nonetheless it's the same at its core -believing something that was communicated to you without being undeniably proven.

What was ridiculous about Ancient Aliens was the conclusions based on falacious arguments. I watched it for the archeological sites. That stuff was awesome. Almost mind boggling. One thing is that they didn't do credit the ancients for the technology they could had use to construct those monuments. For instance in South America there was a legend the ancestors (paraphrase) "knew how to turn rock in liquid and back into a solid." Well they didn't explore that explaination, they only drew a conclusion that the massive boulders could had been moved by aliens, that it done through alien technology.


Is there simple life eslewhere in the universe?
It could be possible, much more probable than eti's. There are polyextremophiles that exist on Earth that can give us clues to what type these simple extraterrestrial life forms might be like if they exist.

Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
I would say 'No' unless there is indisputable evidence - like a close encounter.

I just don't understand how people can be so close-minded and egotistical. I don't think I ever will.

Even bacteria is intelligent to a degree and I'm almost certain that bacteria can survive on another planet besides Earth. Most likely Mars.

Exactly, I've always felt that our ancestors are incredibly underestimated by people who believe the "ancient alien" theory. However, Oojay made a good point when he said something like: we're supposed to believe that people who drilled holes in other humans heads because they thought it released their demons were capable of such incredible things? But there is a difference between spiritual thinking and mechanical capability.