3 ms·

> Every culture has people who believe they communicate with angels or spirits or people from the sky... FTFY There is zero actual evidence of anyone communic

> Every culture has people who believe they communicate with angels or spirits or people from the sky... FTFY There is zero actual evidence of anyone communicating with any non-human intelligences.

carapace 6y ago
> There is zero actual evidence of anyone communicating with any non-human intelligences. And that is your belief. Here's a whole documentary about interactions between Brazilian military and something weird: > In 1977, numerous UFOs were seen in the Brazilian city of Colares, Pará. The UFOs fired light beams at people, causing injuries and sucking blood from 400 witnesses. After a rise in local concern, the mayor of the city requested help from the Air Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThkmRsEBOY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThkmRsEBOY0
- unanswered 6y ago
  No no, you see, when a scientismist/materialist believes something, that makes it true. Unlike when anyone else believes anything! What else is "truth" supposed to mean?
  - cgrealy 6y ago
    "Believe" is the wrong verb here. I believe that the Irish rugby team will one day win the world cup (despite all evidence to the contrary). I accept that the available evidence does not support the hypothesis of non-human intelligences having contacted us (certainly not widely). It's certainly possible that Earth has been visited or contacted by non-human intelligences. I'd imagine if you have the technology for interstellar travel, it would be pretty trivial to evade detection. But just because you can't rule it out, doesn't mean it happened. Also, WTF is a "scientismist"? Is that a typo or a misguided attempt to conflate science with scientism?
- cgrealy 6y ago
  > And that is your belief. Yes. It is what I believe based on the available evidence. Do you have evidence to the contrary? And no, eye witness testimony does not count. This is science 101. You have made an extraordinary claim. You must back it up with extraordinary evidence. >Here's a whole documentary about interactions between Brazilian military and something weird I completely believe that people saw UFOs, in that they saw Unidentified Flying Objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato The investigation was closed after finding no unusual phenomena. I suggest you raise your bar for evidence higher than "random youtube video"
  - carapace 6y ago
    Except you're the one with the extraordinary claim, that's my whole point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings That page goes on and on. (In re: "Operação Prato", yes, it was closed at the time, but then "In 1997, two decades after the operation, Captain Uyrangê gave an interview to Ufologists Ademar José Gevaerd and Marco Antônio Petit where he recounted his experiences living alongside his men." and the video is (in part) about the information in that interview. The Wikipedia entry you link to and which I quote here doesn't go into that. Wikipedia is no higher a bar than Youtube.)
    - cgrealy 6y ago
      > Except you're the one with the extraordinary claim, that's my whole point. That's not a point, that's playground "nuh-uh, you stink" level of debate. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings That page goes on and on Yes. That page lists sighting of Unidentified Flying Objects. The clue is right there in the name. It's things we haven't identified. "We saw some weird lights in the sky" does not by any measure equate to "there is no time or culture in the history of the world where humans have not been in contact with some kind of "otherworldly" intelligence." > Wikipedia is no higher a bar than Youtube. Wikipedia has its problems, but it's an order of magnitude higher a bar than Youtube. Wikipedia has editors and citations.

> Every culture has people who believe they communicate with angels or spirits or people from the sky... FTFY There is zero actual evidence of anyone communicating with any non-human intelligences.

carapace 6y ago

> There is zero actual evidence of anyone communicating with any non-human intelligences. And that is your belief. Here's a whole documentary about interactions between Brazilian military and something weird: > In 1977, numerous UFOs were seen in the Brazilian city of Colares, Pará. The UFOs fired light beams at people, causing injuries and sucking blood from 400 witnesses. After a rise in local concern, the mayor of the city requested help from the Air Force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThkmRsEBOY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThkmRsEBOY0

unanswered 6y ago
No no, you see, when a scientismist/materialist believes something, that makes it true. Unlike when anyone else believes anything! What else is "truth" supposed to mean?
- cgrealy 6y ago
  "Believe" is the wrong verb here. I believe that the Irish rugby team will one day win the world cup (despite all evidence to the contrary). I accept that the available evidence does not support the hypothesis of non-human intelligences having contacted us (certainly not widely). It's certainly possible that Earth has been visited or contacted by non-human intelligences. I'd imagine if you have the technology for interstellar travel, it would be pretty trivial to evade detection. But just because you can't rule it out, doesn't mean it happened. Also, WTF is a "scientismist"? Is that a typo or a misguided attempt to conflate science with scientism?
cgrealy 6y ago
> And that is your belief. Yes. It is what I believe based on the available evidence. Do you have evidence to the contrary? And no, eye witness testimony does not count. This is science 101. You have made an extraordinary claim. You must back it up with extraordinary evidence. >Here's a whole documentary about interactions between Brazilian military and something weird I completely believe that people saw UFOs, in that they saw Unidentified Flying Objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Prato The investigation was closed after finding no unusual phenomena. I suggest you raise your bar for evidence higher than "random youtube video"
- carapace 6y ago
  Except you're the one with the extraordinary claim, that's my whole point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings That page goes on and on. (In re: "Operação Prato", yes, it was closed at the time, but then "In 1997, two decades after the operation, Captain Uyrangê gave an interview to Ufologists Ademar José Gevaerd and Marco Antônio Petit where he recounted his experiences living alongside his men." and the video is (in part) about the information in that interview. The Wikipedia entry you link to and which I quote here doesn't go into that. Wikipedia is no higher a bar than Youtube.)
  - cgrealy 6y ago
    > Except you're the one with the extraordinary claim, that's my whole point. That's not a point, that's playground "nuh-uh, you stink" level of debate. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings That page goes on and on Yes. That page lists sighting of Unidentified Flying Objects. The clue is right there in the name. It's things we haven't identified. "We saw some weird lights in the sky" does not by any measure equate to "there is no time or culture in the history of the world where humans have not been in contact with some kind of "otherworldly" intelligence." > Wikipedia is no higher a bar than Youtube. Wikipedia has its problems, but it's an order of magnitude higher a bar than Youtube. Wikipedia has editors and citations.