this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
210 points (100.0% liked)

UFOs

2689 readers
1 users here now

This community is for discussion surrounding UFOs and Extraterrestrials.

Rules

  1. Be your own moderator
    • Think before you post or comment, and use your common sense about what is acceptable. This is a community space and should ultimately be community-driven. Be the community you want to see here.
    • If you are here because you want to make fun of or grandstand over all of the silly people who believe that UFO/UAPs may exist, you are not welcome. Just block the community and go about your day.
  2. Be Civil
    • No trolling or being disruptive.
    • No insults or personal attacks.
    • No accusations that other users are shills/agents. If you have some kind of evidence of this, please report instead.
    • No hate speech or abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
    • No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
    • No witch hunts or doxxing.
    • No summarily dismissive comments (e.g. "Swamp gas.").
  3. Posts must be related to UFO/UAPs
  4. Avoid duplicate posts
  5. Link posts should contain the linked content and a submission statement
    • Submission statements should contain a summary of the content, why it is relevant to UFOs, and optionally personal perspectives.
    • For short-form content, such as tweets, include the entire text.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll believe it when I see it.

[–] coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You know it when you see it. Believing is for things you never have seen.

[–] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats the point of the phrase. The idea is so unbelievable that it needs to be personally verified before it can be taken seriously...

Not to mention, you can see something and still not 'know' - stage magic, for one.

See also: 'it has to be seen to be believed'; 'i cant believe my eyes'; the word 'unbelievable'

[–] 1847953620@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

No end of useless pedantry these days

Yeah, no. You're equating belief with faith.

I don't "believe" things until that belief is justified.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Question for you, do you believe in Evolution?

[–] PlaidBaron@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Bruh. Literally thousands of studies out there demonstrate the principle of evolution. You need only look at dog breeding or crop breeding to see it in action, albeit human induced instead of natural.

We dont believe in evolution because one guy said it was true. And dont give me that 'hurr durr but Darwin said it was true' nonsense. He did (as did other contemporaries of his time) but it wasnt accepted until overwhelming evidence from countless observations and studies made it obvious.

Now lets look at this situation. One guy says he heard the government has non human remains. Not exactly the analogy you thought you were making.

And Ill cut this off at the pass because the next argument I always hear usually boils down to 'we can only know what we see' which is basically a solopsist argument. Which is self defeating because then you absolutely cant argue there's merit to this guy's testimony because you cant be sure of anything.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh, you can, surely. But have you? As Mac says, "Have you seen these fossil records? Have you poured through the data yourself? The numbers, the figures?"

Confidently denying something because you haven't personally seen the evidence makes you look as much an idiot as confidently accepting it without evidence.

[–] Graphine@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guy, as respectfully as possible what the fuck are you smoking

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Crack cocaine, what of it?

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you ever seen your brain? I didn't. Can I assume that you have a pile of racoon vomit instead of it? Of course I can, and actually I will, and I will not allow for any other information until you personally show me the entirety of your brain.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Now you're getting it!

[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@DaughterOfMars Are you asking if I was "boots on the ground" with archeologists? Nope. However, considering humans, I consider people admitting they might be wrong and adopting better concepts as evolution. Evolution is not about intelligence, but, adaptation to survive. I would say I have seen evolution, personally, in my life.

[–] ngdev@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Bit of a nitpick, but adaptation is not evolution. I was about to say that you cannot observe capital E Evolution in your own lifetime but then I remembered stuff on the bacterial scale that reproduces at break neck pace and is absolutely observable. HIV is one of these examples.

[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 2 points 1 year ago

@ngdev Coronavirus, too.

[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 2 points 1 year ago

@ngdev I think semantics plays a part in this, too. Survival of the fittest, so to speak.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Indeed, micro-evolution is quite fast because the rate of mutation is relatively high and generations are short. Macro-evolution is actually not generally well-understood by lay-people, primarily because it involves thinking on a scale that is so far outside of our short lifetimes. Not many people are capable of thinking on a scale outside of their own asses let alone across thousands of generations, hence the severe level of closed-mindedness in this thread alone...

[–] ngdev@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I think the idea I was referencing when I mentioned evolution not being observable in one's lifetime is actually better stated as:

Evolution cannot be observed in the lifetime of an individual of the species in question. I.E. A HIV "cell" won't live to see the evolved, drug-resistant ones down the line

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

There's no such thing as micro- and macro-evolution, those are terms made up by creationists to try to deny the existence of evolution in the face of direct observation of evolution

[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 6 points 1 year ago

@DaughterOfMars Funny thing...our "intelligence" went only so far. Now, it seems that all the people who piggybacked the science and don't truly understand it are going to kill us.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's my point: Your reasons for believing in Evolution are your own, but don't pretend that you know it for a fact. We all have to accept things we cannot personally verify to make progress as a society and that very progress should be your driving force, NOT your own biases.

[–] Thumptastic@universeodon.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@DaughterOfMars If that is the answer, why ask the question? Science is not my "bias." We can choose to teust the professionals or not. I just gave you my reason for my belief that evolution is real and how I have seen it. I left Twitter for this type of ridicule from religious nuts and flat earthers. I take it you saw my profile. Regardless, make peace with yourself and have humility.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

😂 Why on earth would you think I give a shit about you enough to read your profile? How self-centered can you be...unbelievable. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're spending time in a community about UFOs if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they exist. You realize that makes you one of those trolls you mention, don't you? Don't you??

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I get what you are trying to say, but one thing is a completely belief system while the other can be verified and ha been verified by several people that have studied it. Like, yeah you can "study" theism but you will never be able to see the evidence, while in the other case, you can.

I decide to trust people that have shown images and data about the evidence, that are way more prepared than me to research that field. I don't have enough interest to actually do all the groundwork myself, so I decide to trust the people that are authorities in that field, whom have the proven experience and studies that validate their authority.

As I said, I cannot do the same thing with religious facts, it's all "he said, she said, it's in the book, the Lord commanded"... There's no evidence, no real infraestructure of proof and validation, it's a complete belief system, and that's why I don't consider those people and organizations authorities in these kind of topics.

It's really simple tbh.

[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You make my point so eloquently. You take it as a matter of fact that Evolution exists, despite never actually validating this yourself. It is, in your eyes, ridiculous to think that it doesn't exist -- after all, you were taught that it does in school. But before the 19th century the theory of Evolution didn't even exist. Probably some speculated about it, but were not taken seriously. Yet you have fully accepted it without, as you say, seeing it.

[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Yea, that doesn't prove anything. There's countless research and information documenting evolution happening over time. Hell there are some cases of it noticeably happening as well. There is no information about these "ufo"s outside of what is mentioned here. No data that's currently available to back it up and nothing to prove that this person coming forward isn't being told incorrect information themselves. The likelihood of something like this is so statistically low that nobody should be taking it at face value without verifiable proof. "Trust me bro" is not, never has been and never will be good enough scientifically.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don’t need to validate that it exists because science has proven it over and over countless times.

Have you ever validated for yourself that an element like lithium exists?

Have you ever validated for yourself that nuclear fission exists?

Have you ever validated for yourself that E=mc^2?

Have you ever validated for yourself that antibiotics like penicillin actually do what they purport to do?

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope, but I don't go around pretending I have. You see, unlike you I am open to changing my opinion based on evidence.

[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that's exactly what "believe it when I see it" means.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it means "I am going to dismiss any and all evidence until such a time as it satisfies my definition of believable."

[–] Platomus@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. That's a long way of saying "I'll believe it when I see it."

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm glad we agree, because the problem is that it's hypocritical. There is a double standard for the quality of evidence that you deem acceptable between this topic and most others. You believe many things despite never seeing physical evidence or based only on the testimony of others, because those topics fit into your current world view. You have subconsciously created a filter for yourself of your biases, and you now refuse to acknowledge them.

[–] Platomus@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That's not at all what's happening.

What's the evidence of the aliens?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not to mention your example is extremely flawed. Evolution usually happens over long periods of time and you can only see the results of it. What they are claiming is something physical that you can see and touch and acquire physical proof of. It's not even remotely the same.

[–] DaughterOfMars@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're saying there's no physical proof of evolution?

[–] Platomus@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

No, he explicitly said we see the results of it.